while an opacity of 0 will make a div unclickable in IE - a div with a transparent gif as background will.... go figure :/
why not just have the image be draggable inside a div with overflow hidden? On Sep 16, 11:17 pm, kfancy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Nathan, > > Yes, that may seem like counterintuitive UI design, but it was for a > purpose and actually works quite well. > Here's a test link for ya:http://www.kfancy.com/moo/app_tools.html > > I was making a tool to allow in-browser crop/zoom of an image (sort > of). > Basically I found it easier to create a floating invisible div and > track the drag coords on that instead of enabling the image to be > cropped itself for dragging... something to do with overflow and other > probs. Anyway, have a look if you like, and you'll get the idea. > > On Sep 16, 1:13 pm, "Nathan White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Its an implementation issue with those browsers. I don't see this as a > > mootools issue. > > > Without seeing your example, having an invisible drag handler seems counter > > intuitive to UI design. Generally it would be something I would view as > > poor design. > > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 3:51 PM, kfancy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi MooTools, > > > > I've encountered a bug where IE6/7 doesn't recognize a draggable > > > object if the opacity is set to zero. It seems IE will ignore > > > mouseover/down/click/etc properties if the opacity is set to 0% > > > regardless of display or positioning. > > > > Anyway, not sure if this is a fixable problem or just something that > > > will have to be accepted as an IE problem. For now, the problem is > > > solved by setting opacity to 1% (0.01) which is generally > > > unnoticeable, but I wanted to report the bug. > > > > (Reasoning for doing so is to enable a user to drag an invisible > > > handle which intuitively moves something else...)
