Paul wrote:
1) is there any better way to get around this problem then I am doing to make it more consistently fluid in it's reloading?
First of all, why do you have "#anchor" appended to each link? There's no real need for it, from what I can see.
You *could* provide an additional bit of javascript which attaches to the links' onclick behaviour and simply loads the two new images and replaces the ones currently on the page. However, don't throw the baby out with the bath: keep the functionality as it stands, so that if js is unavailable/disabled, the pages still work.
2) how do I tell my client that this is how it is ?
Tell them how much more it's going to cost if they want it any other way? :-p
-- Patrick H. Lauke _____________________________________________________ re�dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com
****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
