By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
440,727 Members | 766 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 440,727 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

what's wrong with <marquee>

P: n/a
I'm quite new to HTML, and have seen <marquee> get bad press here.
What's wrong with using it. I wanted to have the contents of a .txt
file scrolling for news items, can I do this with marquee, or should I
be looking at applets ?
Jul 23 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
15 Replies


P: n/a
On 16 Mar 2005 15:58:54 -0800, go****@charliefortune.com (charlie
fortune) wrote:
I'm quite new to HTML, and have seen <marquee> get bad press here.
What's wrong with using it.

What did the press say?
--
Chuck Taylor
http://home.hiwaay.net/~taylorc/contact/
Jul 23 '05 #2

P: n/a
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, charlie fortune wrote:
I'm quite new to HTML, and have seen <marquee> get bad press here.
What's wrong with using it. I wanted to have the contents of a .txt
file scrolling for news items, can I do this with marquee, or should I
be looking at applets ?


Don't look for applets, but don't use marquee either.

The problem is not marquee element, but scrolling text, which makes no
sence, at least not in latin scripts.

In news sites, it is just distracting, there is no advantage on using it,
as text is impossible to read, or you need to be very patient to read it.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
Jul 23 '05 #3

P: n/a
Previously in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, charlie fortune
<go****@charliefortune.com> said:
I'm quite new to HTML, and have seen <marquee> get bad press here.
What's wrong with using it.
It's not in the HTML specs; it's annoying.
I wanted to have the contents of a .txt
file scrolling for news items, can I do this with marquee,
Can? Yes. Should? No.

What information is important enough for your visitor to wait for it to
come back when they missed it scrolling past, but not important enough
to actually put on the page properly?
or should I be looking at applets ?


Well, at least they're easier for your visitors to disable...

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Jul 23 '05 #4

P: n/a
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Mark Parnell wrote:
Well, at least they're easier for your visitors to disable...


It is easy to disable them, but not if you wish to see other applets. It
is much easier with marquee in good browsers, where you can just disable
marquee... (Opera8b3 has userJS which should be good for that, and IIANM
FF never lost ability to disable marquee)

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
Jul 23 '05 #5

P: n/a
Previously in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Lauri Raittila
<la***@raittila.cjb.net> said:
It is easy to disable them, but not if you wish to see other applets. It
is much easier with marquee in good browsers, where you can just disable
marquee... (Opera8b3 has userJS which should be good for that, and IIANM
FF never lost ability to disable marquee)


True. I was actually thinking that perhaps Mozilla/FF didn't support it
at all, because NS4 didn't, but now that you mention it I'm pretty sure
they do.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Jul 23 '05 #6

P: n/a
charlie fortune wrote:
I'm quite new to HTML, and have seen <marquee> get bad press here.
What's wrong with using it.


It's not HTML. You can't just make s**t up and expect browsers to understand
it.

sherm--

--
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org
Jul 23 '05 #7

P: n/a
charlie fortune wrote:

I'm quite new to HTML, and have seen <marquee> get bad press here.
What's wrong with using it. I wanted to have the contents of a .txt
file scrolling for news items, can I do this with marquee, or should I
be looking at applets ?


MARQUEE is not an element in the W3C HTML 4.01 specification.
Thus, there is no assurance that all browsers can process it.

Further, the scrolling banner effect is contrary to the WAI
guidelines for making Web pages accessible to the handicapped.

--

David E. Ross
<URL:http://www.rossde.com/>

I use Mozilla as my Web browser because I want a browser that
complies with Web standards. See <URL:http://www.mozilla.org/>.
Jul 23 '05 #8

P: n/a
It was somewhere outside Barstow when go****@charliefortune.com
(charlie fortune) wrote:
have seen <marquee> get bad press here.
What's wrong with using it.


There are technical HTML reasons why it's a bad idea.

But the core problem is that the basic idea is inappropriate, for
reasons of graphical design and usability. Marquee belongs on Times
Square - you have a very limited space that you need to get the best
use out of, so you make text scroll across it. The web is different
though - you can have as much page space as you want, and each user
gets their own scrollbar. Although window space is still constrained,
it's better to allow _users_ to control scrolling than to have this
simple fixed speed approach.
If you want to, use <marquee>. it will work as well as it ever does,
in enough places that you don't need to worry.

But you should then forget ideas of "validation", because you've
deliberately chosen not to go that route (this isn't such a bad thing,
so long as you understand where and why you're invalid)

It's also pretty much essential that any content you offer through
<marquee> is also repeated through an accessible technique. <marquee>
is inaccessible on non-desktop devices, to speech browsers, to
printing and a whole range of things. It's entirely reasonable
though to have a "Today's News" page which is a dozen news stories
from an RSS feed as (title line / description para) pairs on the page,
then to also run their headline titles across the top of the page in a
scrolling marquee, just as eye candy.

<marquee> is like JavaScript. It's not unreasonable to use it for
_additional_ eye-candy, but it's bad to make it essential.
As to the text file business, then I'd do that by importing the text
file into a little simple server-side PHP scripting (or other
favourite language). These days it's more likely to be RSS than text
anyway.

--
Smert' spamionam
Jul 23 '05 #9

P: n/a
Thanks David, that's what I needed to know. How does it work then,
that a tag which isn't part of html gets used ? Do certain browsers
come out with kind of patches to interpret new tags ? And if a browser
didn't support it, would it output it as a line of code ?

I suppose the handicap issue is for the people with sight problems and
the illiterate ? So I guess text gif's are a bad idea to. Do speech
synthesizers (I presume this is what is used) read alt tags ? I think
I need to google the W3C recommendations..
Jul 23 '05 #10

P: n/a
me
"charlie fortune" <go****@charliefortune.com> wrote in message
news:8f**************************@posting.google.c om...
Thanks David, that's what I needed to know. How does it work then,
that a tag which isn't part of html gets used ?
Because it works in IE (and only IE IIRC) and the web page author finds it
useful.
Do certain browsers
come out with kind of patches to interpret new tags ?
IMO it would be great if browsers had patches to allow support for IE
specific tags, I don't expect it to ever happen though. I suspect authors of
other browser would rather scorn anything from MS or related to IE but
that's just my opinion based on bupkiss.
And if a browser
didn't support it, would it output it as a line of code ?
IIRC no, it won't be visible.
I suppose the handicap issue is for the people with sight problems and
the illiterate? So I guess text gif's are a bad idea to.
If that's what you want then I don't see why you shouldn't use them.
Do speech
synthesizers (I presume this is what is used) read alt tags?
IIRC yes they do. Look here for more information about making your site
handicapped acccessible: http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp
I think
I need to google the W3C recommendations..


Or you could follow your own path.
Good Luck,
me
Jul 23 '05 #11

P: n/a
charlie fortune wrote:
How does it work then, that a tag which isn't part of html gets
used ? [...]
All the "major" user agents support some proprietary features which
aren't featured in any specification. If these features get used a lot
on the Web, others are usually forced to adopt them to keep the masses
from crying: "Your browser sucks! Why doesn't <??> work?!" Mozilla and
some of IE's proprietary DOM is a recent example (scripting, but the
point is the same).
And if a browser didn't support it, would it output it as a line of
code ?
The HTML specification recommends that "[i]f a user agent encounters
an element it does not recognize, it should try to render the
element's content."
I suppose the handicap issue is for the people with sight problems
and the illiterate ?
There are a few accessibility guidelines which MARQUEE falls foul of:

1) Screen flicker [priority 1]

May affect users suffering from photosensitive epilepsy, though
I'll grant that movement probably won't create the frequency of
flashes typically necessary.

2) Movement [priority 2]

Difficult for users with motor impairment to interact with.

3) Uses non-standard elements [priority 2]

W3C technologies are supposed to have been evaluated for their
accessibility. That would only apply to only Strict (X)HTML at
best as avoiding deprecated features is another priority 2 issue.

[snip]
I think I need to google the W3C recommendations..


HTML 4.01 Specification: <URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/>
Web Accessibility Initiative: <URL:http://www.w3.org/WAI/>

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.
Jul 23 '05 #12

P: n/a
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:47:53 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
IMO it would be great if browsers had patches to allow support for IE
specific tags, I don't expect it to ever happen though. I suspect authors of
other browser would rather scorn anything from MS or related to IE but
that's just my opinion based on bupkiss.


IMO it would be better if IE had patches to allow support for the
specifications drawn up seven years ago by the consortium of which
Microsoft itself is a member. I don't expect it to ever happen though. I
suspect authors of Microsoft products would rather scorn any sort of
agreed standard. But that's just my opinion based on 25 years of
professional IT experience.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Jul 23 '05 #13

P: n/a
Tim
charlie fortune wrote:
And if a browser didn't support it, would it output it as a line of
code ?
Michael Winter <m.******@blueyonder.co.invalid> posted:
The HTML specification recommends that "[i]f a user agent encounters
an element it does not recognize, it should try to render the
element's content."
To make that clearer, it renders it as if the unrecognised tags were not
there around the content. It doesn't try to render the unknown element in
the way that the author hoped that element would render.
I suppose the handicap issue is for the people with sight problems
and the illiterate ?

There are a few accessibility guidelines which MARQUEE falls foul of:

1) Screen flicker [priority 1]

May affect users suffering from photosensitive epilepsy, though
I'll grant that movement probably won't create the frequency of
flashes typically necessary.


Don't you believe it... It can be a sufficient trigger, as is. Though,
even just the psuedo-pattern of printed text can be enough for some people.

But there's also another common problem: Flickering marquee content can
make other aspects of the display flicker along with it. It depends on how
the video drivers work. For instance, my mouse pointer flickers like mad
when there's a marquee, or other flashing object on the page, and it
doesn't matter whereabouts on the screen the mouse pointer is positioned.

Apart from the annoying visual effect, it also affects how you use the
mouse at the same time. e.g. Dragging to highlight things becomes
difficult.

--
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.
Jul 23 '05 #14

P: n/a
Tim
"charlie fortune" <go****@charliefortune.com> wrote
And if a browser didn't support it, would it output it as a line
of code?

"me" <anonymous@_.com> posted:
IIRC no, it won't be visible.


No, just the unknown aspects will be ignored.

e.g. <p>This is some <bogus>stuff</bogus> in a sentence.</p>
Would be regarded as: <p>This is some stuff in a sentence.</p>

For instance, on browsers which don't support marquee, for one reason or
another. You can assume it'll be rendered as if the content were in a P or
DIV element (it'll look as if it were), if it's a standalone block.

e.g. <p>Something or other...</p>
<marquee>Annoying scrolling stuff</marquee>
<p>More stuff</p>

Will *probably* display like:

Something or other...

Annoying scrolling stuff

More stuff

But if you'd bunged a marquee into a place without prior blocks of text
being properly closed off, it *might* be rendered inline, adjoining the
last element.

e.g. <p>Something or other...
<marquee>Annoying scrolling stuff</marquee>
<p>More stuff

Will *probably* display like:

Something or other... Annoying scrolling stuff

More stuff

--
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.
Jul 23 '05 #15

P: n/a
me
"Tim" <ti*@mail.localhost.invalid> wrote in message
news:4n*****************************@40tude.net...
"charlie fortune" <go****@charliefortune.com> wrote
And if a browser didn't support it, would it output it as a line
of code?
"me" <anonymous@_.com> posted:
IIRC no, it won't be visible.


[snip]
...on browsers which don't support marquee, for one reason or
another. You can assume it'll be rendered as if the content were in a P or
DIV element...


[snip]

Thank you. I was unsure IIRC, I hoped someone would take the bait and now I
have an answer, how fortuitous that it was you.
Signed,
me
Jul 23 '05 #16

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.