Time: We're talking a difference of 1 to 2 seconds On the Home page, there are two scripts running. One is directly included in the head section, the other is included via an include file in the head section. The include file holds all javascript, css, etc. Other JavaScript running is a calendar script, shadowbox, and a general script file. All these were running previously.
Don't know what to say about the div. Setting the width at 100% and the height at 250 had no effect. Without placing the clear.gif file to hold the place, the lower content (which is just text in a light graphic frame) appeared in the swf space prior to the swf appearing. On Jun 7, 3:43 pm, Aran Rhee <[email protected]> wrote: > 1. There shouldn't be a significant difference in timing between 1.x and 2.x > as long as all your swfobject code is in the <head> where it can execute the > required methods when the ondomready event fires. There are "more than a > few" sites out there using 2.x, and there has not been a stream of > complaints about execution time. Are we talking in the milliseconds or a > noticeable time difference to humans? > > 2. There is a major difference between 1.x and 2.,x behaviour in that 1.x > just modified the innerHTML of the target <div> where are 2.x actually > REPLACES the target div with the <object> tag. Therefore to maintain your > positioning / sizing etc, you will need a wrapper <div>. You shouldn't need > to implement a 1x in order to position anything.... > > All the replacement etc should be happening before page render time unless > you are replacing the target <div> upon user interaction... > > Aran > > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 11:06 PM, RationalRabbit <[email protected]>wrote:> > I recently changed the swfs on my a client's site from using the Adobe > > Detection Kit to using swfobject2. On other sites I've developed, I am > > using swfobject 1.5. I have not experienced these two problems with > > either of the previous methods: > > > 1. Load time is longer - by 2 or 3 times. > > > 2. I've had to design placeholders (eg: placing a div around the swf > > div and left-floating a 1 x whatever height clear gif in the parent > > div to hold the place for the swf). Otherwise, the other content on > > the page is in the space where the swf goes and has to readjust after > > the swf finally loads. > > > Anyone have any better solutions? > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "SWFObject" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]<swfobject%[email protected]> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/swfobject?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SWFObject" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/swfobject?hl=en.
