Christian Montoya wrote:
I think you have to ditch the ul's. By the way, the effect is really
harsh on the yes, maybe it's not the best idea for such large blocks
of text? I didn't even notice the effect right away, because it's not
obvious, but then when I did notice it, it was hard to look at.
On 9/19/05, Scott Glasgow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would appreciate it if someone could take a look at this
http://www.earhartrefrig.com/services.htm
and let me know if I am going to have to ditch the <ul>s. The page
HTML and
CSS both validate (4.01 Trans.) except for the the <ul>s contained
in the span elements at lines 35, 54, 73, and 89. This is based on
Eric Meyer's Pure CSS Popups at
http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/popups/demo.html, but I wasn't
thinking when I adapted it. His example, of course, uses text
elements, not block elements. Is there any way to hack this to get
it to validate with the <ul>s, or will I have to redo it using text
elements? Thanks.
<<::SNIP::>>
Yeah, that's what I thought. Not a terribly big deal in the doing, of
course, but I'll have to use entities to add the bullets (which client
wants), <br>s, etc., which slightly increase page weight. Not terribly so,
though, so nothing to sweat.
The effect is harsh? Hmm, I hadn't noticed, but then that's why we ask other
folks to lend us their eyes. ;-) When you say harsh, do you mean the
physical font, etc., or the fact that the list changes on mousing over the
images? If the former, I can experiment with other fonts and weights. If the
latter, I'll have to talk to the client about taking a different approach;
do you think perhaps a fast fade-in would be better? Only problem with that
is that it requires scripting, IIRC, which I would like to avoid (yeah, I
know; I'll be taking care of the horizontal nav soon :-). I'm not a purist,
but I would like to make sure everything works in the 10-15% (depending upon
whose reckoning you follow) of users without scripting turned on. I guess I
could provide the scripted version for those who have it and the, umm, harsh
version for those who don't.
Thanks for your reply.
Cheers,
Scott
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
