css - onmouseover

is there a way to have an onmouseover effect with css without JS?
this could be just a simple way to change the colour of a <div>
section.
don't mean the traditional way to have another pic.
just the colour or another effect coming when moving the mouse over an
area.

In article <b390e639-84f3-493a-bece-24ebd1aab189 (AT) p36g2000vbn (DOT) googlegroups.com>, "Jan C. Faerber" <faerber.jan (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

is there a way to have an onmouseover effect with css without JS?
this could be just a simple way to change the colour of a <div
section.
don't mean the traditional way to have another pic.
just the colour or another effect coming when moving the mouse over an
area.

The :hover pseudo-class is probably what you're looking for.

Doug Miller wrote:

In article <b390e639-84f3-493a-bece-24ebd1aab189 (AT) p36g2000vbn (DOT) googlegroups.com>, "Jan C. Faerber" <faerber.jan (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
is there a way to have an onmouseover effect with css without JS?
this could be just a simple way to change the colour of a <div
section.
don't mean the traditional way to have another pic.
just the colour or another effect coming when moving the mouse over an
area.

The :hover pseudo-class is probably what you're looking for.

But note that IE 5 and 6 honour :hover only on links.

In article <hbt4m2$co$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>, C A Upsdell <cupsdell (AT) nospam (DOT) not> wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article
b390e639-84f3-493a-bece-24ebd1aab189...oglegroups.com>, "Jan C.
Faerber" <faerber.jan (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
is there a way to have an onmouseover effect with css without JS?
this could be just a simple way to change the colour of a <div
section.
don't mean the traditional way to have another pic.
just the colour or another effect coming when moving the mouse over an
area.

The :hover pseudo-class is probably what you're looking for.

But note that IE 5 and 6 honour :hover only on links.

How much longer will web developers continue to think that they must support

these abominations? IE5 now has less than 1% of the browser market; there
simply is no reason at all to consider supporting IE5 in a general-purpose web
application. As for IE6, consider this article:
http://robertnyman.com/2009/02/09/stop-developing-for-internet-explorer-6/

In article <hbtdm1$8tb$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>,
spambait (AT) milmac (DOT) com (Doug Miller) wrote:

How much longer will web developers continue to think that they must support
these abominations? IE5 now has less than 1% of the browser market; there
simply is no reason at all to consider supporting IE5 in a general-purpose
web
application. As for IE6, consider this article:
http://robertnyman.com/2009/02/09/stop-developing-for-internet-explorer-6/

In that article:

"Internet Explorer 6 still has somewhere between 20 * 34% of the web
browser market"

and

"I currently or previously have worked with, or friends I know in the
business, we spend about an extra, on average, 20% of development time
to cater to Internet Explorer 6."

There is an obvious counter argument that draws a different conclusion
from these two premises. Can you guess what it is?

--
dorayme

In article <doraymeRidThis-CC6A9B.10445124102009 (AT) news (DOT) albasani.net>, dorayme <doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:

In article <hbtdm1$8tb$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>,
spambait (AT) milmac (DOT) com (Doug Miller) wrote:

How much longer will web developers continue to think that they must support
these abominations? IE5 now has less than 1% of the browser market; there
simply is no reason at all to consider supporting IE5 in a general-purpose
web
application. As for IE6, consider this article:
http://robertnyman.com/2009/02/09/stop-developing-for-internet-explorer-6/

In that article:

"Internet Explorer 6 still has somewhere between 20 * 34% of the web
browser market"

But declining by the minute...

and

"I currently or previously have worked with, or friends I know in the
business, we spend about an extra, on average, 20% of development time
to cater to Internet Explorer 6."

There is an obvious counter argument that draws a different conclusion
from these two premises. Can you guess what it is?

Sorry, it's not at all obvious.

Doug Miller wrote:

How much longer will web developers continue to think that they must support
these abominations? IE5 now has less than 1% of the browser market; there
simply is no reason at all to consider supporting IE5 in a general-purpose
web
application. As for IE6, consider this article:

"I currently or previously have worked with, or friends I know in the
business, we spend about an extra, on average, 20% of development time
to cater to Internet Explorer 6."

There is an obvious counter argument that draws a different conclusion
from these two premises. Can you guess what it is?

Sorry, it's not at all obvious.

Sigh. A hint: you should not be making websites for browsers; you
should be making websites for the sites' visitors.

Now can you guess?

In article <hbtjf2$rhv$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>,
spambait (AT) milmac (DOT) com (Doug Miller) wrote:

In article <doraymeRidThis-CC6A9B.10445124102009 (AT) news (DOT) albasani.net>, dorayme
doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote:
In article <hbtdm1$8tb$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>,
spambait (AT) milmac (DOT) com (Doug Miller) wrote:

How much longer will web developers continue to think that they must
support
these abominations? IE5 now has less than 1% of the browser market; there
simply is no reason at all to consider supporting IE5 in a general-purpose
web
application. As for IE6, consider this article:
http://robertnyman.com/2009/02/09/stop-developing-for-internet-explorer-6/

In that article:

"Internet Explorer 6 still has somewhere between 20 * 34% of the web
browser market"

But declining by the minute...

and

"I currently or previously have worked with, or friends I know in the
business, we spend about an extra, on average, 20% of development time
to cater to Internet Explorer 6."

There is an obvious counter argument that draws a different conclusion
from these two premises. Can you guess what it is?

Sorry, it's not at all obvious.

OK. It is declining by the minute. But it is still *over* 20% for now.
Right? So, the conclusion that some people might think rather obvious is
that this justifies spending up to 20% of the budget on the existing
audience. It is not a simple matter and this policy needs to be examined
carefully on a website by website basis.

I agree that if the rate of fall is *very rapid*, then it does become
questionable whether such an investment is worthwhile. It all depends on
what the site is and the marketing strategy (if this applies).

For example, if someone is launching a product with the aim of getting
results in a week or two, then it must be calculated whether possibly
losing over 20% of custom is worth it. If it is a site that has a
considerable long term aim, then maybe the downward trend needs to be
taken into account when deciding whether it is worth spending money
supporting what is becoming obsolete.

It seemed simply obvious to me that this is a not a black and white
affair and there are trade offs. Not that anyone seemed to understand
any of this in that URL or in the remarkably sycophantic and naive
follow up comments there.

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:

In article<hbtdm1$8tb$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>,
spambait (AT) milmac (DOT) com (Doug Miller) wrote:

How much longer will web developers continue to think that they must support
these abominations? IE5 now has less than 1% of the browser market; there
simply is no reason at all to consider supporting IE5 in a general-purpose
web
application. As for IE6, consider this article:
http://robertnyman.com/2009/02/09/stop-developing-for-internet-explorer-6/

In that article:

"Internet Explorer 6 still has somewhere between 20 * 34% of the web
browser market"

and

"I currently or previously have worked with, or friends I know in the
business, we spend about an extra, on average, 20% of development time
to cater to Internet Explorer 6."

There is an obvious counter argument that draws a different conclusion
from these two premises. Can you guess what it is?

One argument might be that the fewer Web sites that cater to IE "less
than version 7" the more incentive there will be for users to upgrade.

In other words, to not mince words, nothing lasts forever, upgrade your
system, upgrade your OS, come join us in the 21st Century before it's over.

Or not. but I'm not gonna worry about your broken browser much longer.
Harsh? Yep. Sorry about that.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
Occasionally doing something totally crazy prevents permanent insanity.

In article <hbtjnq$ugo$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>, C A Upsdell <cupsdell (AT) nospam (DOT) not> wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
How much longer will web developers continue to think that they must
support
these abominations? IE5 now has less than 1% of the browser market; there
simply is no reason at all to consider supporting IE5 in a general-purpose
web
application. As for IE6, consider this article:

"I currently or previously have worked with, or friends I know in the
business, we spend about an extra, on average, 20% of development time
to cater to Internet Explorer 6."

There is an obvious counter argument that draws a different conclusion
from these two premises. Can you guess what it is?

Sorry, it's not at all obvious.

Sigh. A hint: you should not be making websites for browsers; you
should be making websites for the sites' visitors.

Now can you guess?

I think you're missing the point. Yes, obviously one should be making websites

for the site's visitors -- and *not* for the broken browsers that some of them
might happen to be using.