I would suggest preloading the mouseover images in your menu system so they don't pop up a second or two after you mouseover them for the first time.
On Dec 19, 9:52 am, nwhite <[email protected]> wrote: > I hear yeah. The naming scheme for hashes could get tricky for a whole site > like yours. > > If you ever did resolve it you could have a hook in your back end that looks > at the url and takes the anchor and redirects it to the correct page. Using > a method like this on the back end would allow the hash based bookmarks to > work for javascript and non javascript browsers. > > Again nice job. > > On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Xeoncross <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Thanks for the comment! > > > Yes, I have been fighting with the whole "to use URI hashes, or not to > > use URI hashes.. That is the question!" I worked with Harald's script > > but I decided that trying to figure out a hash system for a site with > > lots of pages might be to hard to manage. It's fine for photogalleries > > or AJAX tabs - but not a full site with lots of pages and stuff. > > > Google would have one URL to the page - and the users would have > > another url (with a hash) to another page. I don't think that would > > work. > > > I was actually thinking of placing a "location/address" bar up at the > > top that told the REAL page URL. > > > Indecently, why doesn't JS allow a site to change the URL? I > > understand that phishing could take rise - but just limit the change > > to the current site (the same way we handle cookies) That would keep > > badsite.com from changing the URL to chase.com. > > > This is the biggest thing I see for JS right now - here we want to > > break out of the old fashion HTTP requests - but the browsers won't > > let us! We would save so much bandwidth just sending partial pages > > (most on my site are 2-5kb).
