Hi Andrew
Dont worry im not considering those rare users :P
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Andrew Maben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> On Apr 30, 2008, at 7:17 AM, James Jeffery wrote:
>
> could be the case when a user has JS enabled and not CSS
>
>
> I'm having a hard time picturing the circ
On Apr 30, 2008, at 7:17 AM, James Jeffery wrote:
could be the case when a user has JS enabled and not CSS
I'm having a hard time picturing the circumstances that would prompt
a user to choose this option - surely, if such a case does indeed
exist, it must rare as ... (pick your cliche).
Yeah i understand that, i agree totally.
One member said create a scrolling block with CSS for users that have JS
disabled. I said that wouldn't be ideal. I only want to serve up large
quanitites of images to users that have JS enabled. If i server up large
quantities when JS isn't enabled then th
I'll chime in to mention that people who intentionally turn off CSS, or
use their own specific styles to override defaults represent a TINY
percentage of users. TINY.
For me personally, testing without CSS is a mute point since I spend a
fair amount of time creating a nice naked document to be
An example? Text-only browsers. No visual styles!
However, a list of images is exactly what you're serving to the visitor,
right?
Ugly, yes. Semantically correct? Quite.
Furthermore, I'm willing to bet that plenty of text-only users
frequently encounter lists of images and wouldn't be throw
Andrew Freedman wrote:
James Jeffery provided the following information on 30/04/2008 12:27 AM:
that will mean that users without CSS will get a bunch of images in a
list
You have users that block CSS??
I have never come across that. Can you give an instance as to where and
why you would ca
James Jeffery provided the following information on 30/04/2008 12:27 AM:
that will mean that users without CSS will get a bunch of images in a list
You have users that block CSS??
I have never come across that. Can you give an instance as to where and
why you would cater for these visitors?
Hi James,
I think Joe's suggestion is what you are looking for. To be a little more
explicit, use a nested where the outermost is just wide enough
to hold 3 images. This will be your viewport. The inner will hold all
of the images:
.viewport
{
width: 300px; /* wide enough to handle 3
Here is an image of what i mean for everyone else. I have quickly knocked up
a youtube box and placed it where it will go on the site.
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/3558/newmcvm5.png
Theres actually on 3 images per slide.
Thanks
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 3:27 PM, James Jeffery <
[EMAIL PROTE
I considered the using CSS to recreate the effect for users without
Javascript enabled, but if i use CSS that will mean that users without CSS
will get a bunch of images in a list, which may not be relevant to them. Im
assuming (only assuming) that the majority of visitors that will visit the
site
The non-js version could also hold all the images and the css overflow
property could be used to force a little scroll bar to scroll through
them, almost re-creating the effect your going for.
JS would step in to improve... What your saying is fine too.
Joseph R. B. Taylor
/Designer / Develop
Hi,
I recently found this site for that;
http://billwscott.com/carousel/ , which btw is build upon Yahoo's YUI.
Let me know how it fares, as I still have to implement it myself for
my site as well.
regards,
Maarten
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 3:21 PM, James Jeffery
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Im
12 matches
Mail list logo
