seeburg.co.uk

"Duende" while pissing in my puddle wrote:

I got an error when I originally posted

Sure you did. We all know you just like to see your name in print.

Shhh, don't tell everyone!

Jim

Duende wrote:

While sitting in a puddle Jim Roberts scribbled in the mud:

It takes some time for the rollover image to load when you hover. A
good technique for css rollovers is to combine the image and it's
corresponding rollover into one image. example:
http://members.aol.com/jrzycrim01/demo.html

I took the two images of the m100c and stacked them on top of run
another to make on image. When a user hovers over the image, the
background position is shifted to make the lower half of the image
appear.

a#m100c {
background-image:url("m100c.jpg")
}
a#m100c:hover {
background-position: 0px -160px;
}

It's a neat solution and so far I can't see any major drawbacks - there's
the issue of larger downloads but I guess spiders don't download images and
people will run their mouse over the links anyway.

It requires no preloading since there is only on image. It's a bit
faster to change the position instead of loading another image. Hope
this helps...

thanks - I'll have a play later.

Hey, that's cool & best of all no js crap.

cool - definately, it keeps all references to the image name in the same
place. now I just have to make sure it's useful ;o)

as for the js variety - I've seen them before and dismissed them as useless
gimmicks. Was I wrong? Running a preload script seems to create as many
issues as it solves.

--
William Tasso

"William Tasso" <news27 (AT) tbdata (DOT) com> wrote in message

It's a neat solution and so far I can't see any major drawbacks - there's
the issue of larger downloads but I guess spiders don't download images
and
people will run their mouse over the links anyway.

For small images, it's not a problem. the one image twice the size is going

to be a bit less in size then the two seperately. If you going to have an
linked image rollover, you should expect people to hover. There's really no
point in having it if you don't expect people to use the link.

It requires no preloading since there is only one image. It's a bit
faster to change the position instead of loading another image. Hope
this helps...

thanks - I'll have a play later.


Hey, that's cool & best of all no js crap.

cool - definately, it keeps all references to the image name in the same
place. now I just have to make sure it's useful ;o)

IMO, it's very useful. It's a smooth rollover. That's why I suggested it. I
saw you were using a CSS rollover anyway. I would think a rollover that
didn't display an blank space initially would interest you.

as for the js variety - I've seen them before and dismissed them as
useless
gimmicks. Was I wrong? Running a preload script seems to create as many
issues as it solves.

The're really not useless. It's just that people who do not have js enabled
will not see the rollovers. CSS is definitely the way to go as far as
rollovers, image or otherwise. The use of background color, borders, etc can
yield nice results without resorting to images. In your case, The image
rollovers are good. I like them.

I don't mind a little JavaScript but a website shouldn't depend on it to
function. Just for extras that won't be missed if you do have JS disabled.

Regards,
Jim Roberts.

While sitting in a puddle William Tasso scribbled in the mud:

as for the js variety - I've seen them before and dismissed them as
useless gimmicks. Was I wrong? Running a preload script seems to
create as many issues as it solves.

I guess they are good for nav buttons but I have kinda quite using them in
favor of text/css

--
Duende

While sitting in a puddle William Tasso scribbled in the mud:

people will run their mouse over the links anyway.

Now why would anyone ever do a dumb thing like that? )

--
Duende

Jim Roberts wrote:

I love that technique. I forgot were I found it.

Probably ALA. They covered it pretty recently.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132