Linking in an horizontally scrolling web page

[eric]

I am attempting to create <A HREF> links to <A NAME> targets in a series
of extremely wide web pages composed of tables with text and images
sitting side by side. This is a failure since both Netscape and
Explorer seem to assume that <A NAME> anchors target part of a vertical
web page, where all that is needed is for the window to advance to the
first character or whitespace after the target. In a horizontal page,
this means that each link moves the window horizontally just enough to
expose the beginning of the area I'm trying to target, leaving the rest
unexposed to the right.

Trying to set the <A HREF> to target table cells or graphics in order to
get it to align correctly doesn't seem to work. What needs to be done ?

Eric Rosen

[Mark Parnell]

eric wrote:

I am attempting to create <A HREF> links to <A NAME> targets in a
series of extremely wide web pages composed of tables with text and
images sitting side by side. This is a failure since both Netscape
and Explorer seem to assume that <A NAME> anchors target part of a
vertical web page, where all that is needed is for the window to
advance to the first character or whitespace after the target. <snip> What needs to be done ?

Redesign the page so it doesn't scroll horizontally?

--

Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

[eric]

Actually the build is is far too advanced for a redesign. Next
suggestion, anyone ?

Mark Parnell wrote:

eric wrote:

I am attempting to create <A HREF> links to <A NAME> targets in a
series of extremely wide web pages composed of tables with text and
images sitting side by side. This is a failure since both Netscape
and Explorer seem to assume that <A NAME> anchors target part of a
vertical web page, where all that is needed is for the window to
advance to the first character or whitespace after the target.

<snip>

What needs to be done ?

Redesign the page so it doesn't scroll horizontally?

[Brian]

eric wrote:

Actually the build is is far too advanced for a redesign. Next
suggestion, anyone ?

I have 2, actually:

1. Don't top-post.
2. Do trim the quoted parts of messages.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

[Greg Schmidt]

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 22:08:53 -0700, eric <er***@bway.net> wrote:

Actually the build is is far too advanced for a redesign. Next
suggestion, anyone ?

If you're at all concerned with usability, you'll be redesigning it
eventually. It may as well be now!

If you're not concerned with usability, then just leave it how it is,
"broken" links and all.

--
Greg Schmidt (gr***@trawna.com)
Trawna Publications (http://www.trawna.com/)

[Markus Ernst]

"eric" <er***@bway.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3F**************@bway.net...

Actually the build is is far too advanced for a redesign. Next
suggestion, anyone ?

You can write a function with javascript to scroll either to a position (in
pixels) or a distance (in pixels, too) to the left or to the right side.
Then call this function instead of a link to an anchor. There is no way to
acess an anchor horizontally.

HTH
Markus

[Chris Lambert]

Markus Ernst wrote:

You can write a function with javascript to scroll either to a position
(in pixels) or a distance (in pixels, too) to the left or to the right
side. Then call this function instead of a link to an anchor. There is no
way to acess an anchor horizontally.

But be aware that this is very unlikely to work correctly on any browser or
version other than the one used to design the page.
--
Chris Lambert (http://web.trout-fish.org.uk/)
Approximately 95% of all AIDS orphans live in Africa.

[Owen Jacobson]

eric wrote:

I am attempting to create <A HREF> links to <A NAME> targets in a
series of extremely wide web pages composed of tables with text and
images sitting side by side. This is a failure since both Netscape
and Explorer seem to assume that <A NAME> anchors target part of a
vertical web page, where all that is needed is for the window to
advance to the first character or whitespace after the target.

This appears to be a limitation on the part of current browsers. Have
you filed bug reports to the ones that accept them?

[Markus Ernst]

"Chris Lambert" <ne**@trout-fish.org.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:10************@troutfish.plus.com...

Markus Ernst wrote:

You can write a function with javascript to scroll either to a position
(in pixels) or a distance (in pixels, too) to the left or to the right
side. Then call this function instead of a link to an anchor. There is no way to acess an anchor horizontally.
But be aware that this is very unlikely to work correctly on any browser

or version other than the one used to design the page.

Well it will work on IE 4+, Netscape 4+, Mozilla, Opera... as long as
Javascript is turned on. That'll be about 98 percent of installed browsers
out there.

With a nonscript-fallback (<a href="#anchor"
onClick="scrollfunction('scrollvalue'); return false">) and an appropriate
use of CSS you can also make sure text-only browsers and search engines are
supported, too.

--
Markus

[Jim Dabell]

Markus Ernst wrote:

[snip]

Well it will work on IE 4+, Netscape 4+, Mozilla, Opera... as long as
Javascript is turned on. That'll be about 98 percent of installed browsers
out there.

[snip]

Where did you get this 98% statistic? Others disagree:

<URL:http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2003/May/javas.php>

The Javascript qualification alone drops it down to 86%, according to them.
--
Jim Dabell

[Chris Lambert]

Markus Ernst wrote:

Well it will work on IE 4+, Netscape 4+, Mozilla, Opera... as long as
Javascript is turned on. That'll be about 98 percent of installed browsers
out there.

Only if the point you want to scroll to is at the pre-determined distance
from the left hand side.

--
Chris Lambert (http://web.trout-fish.org.uk/)
Error: Sector not found -- search behind couch? (Y/N)

[Stan Brown]

In article <3f***********************@news.easynet.ch> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Markus Ernst
<de******@yahoo.com> wrote:

Well it will work on IE 4+, Netscape 4+, Mozilla, Opera... as long as
Javascript is turned on. That'll be about 98 percent of installed browsers
out there.

Citation please?

I have heard that over 10% of users surf without JavaScript, though
I admit I don't have documentation to hand. Id be pleased to know
where your 98% figure comes from.

N.B. even if your 98% is correct, that 2% is still millions of Web
surfers.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/

[Markus Ernst]

"Jim Dabell" <ji********@jimdabell.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Ar********************@giganews.com...

Markus Ernst wrote:

Where did you get this 98% statistic?
I am sorry I don't remember where I read this.
<URL:http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2003/May/javas.php>

This is an interesting site. Anyway statistics depend a lot on how and from
whom the data are collected. For example thecounter.com display a total of
4% for all Netscape versions. I don't doubt this but my own website
statistics display Netscape shares of 13% (general interest site) and 23%
(graphics related).

So the statistics may differ a lot regarding to where the audience are
located, what work they do, how old they are, how much money they can spend
for their computers and so on. Unfortunately thecounter.com does not provide
information on this.

Anyway I don't insist on the 98%, they might be an extreme value, but it is
a fact that most average web users don't change their browser's default
settings. So I don't think it is a bad idea in every case to consider a
solution that relys on Javascript, but of course you have to know what you
want to offer to the others, be it 2% or 12% of the audience.

--
Markus

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Tue, Sep 16, Markus Ernst inscribed on the eternal scroll:

a fact that most average web users don't change their browser's default
settings.

I'm not sure that I have anything to say to "most average web users",
but they're perfectly welcome to peruse my web pages if they want,
along with the discerning webnauts I had in mind.

[Brian]

Markus Ernst wrote:

"Jim Dabell" <ji********@jimdabell.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Ar********************@giganews.com...

Where did you get this 98% statistic?
I am sorry I don't remember where I read this.

<URL:http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2003/May/javas.php>

Anyway statistics depend a lot on how and from whom the data are
collected. For example thecounter.com display a total of 4% for all
Netscape versions. I don't doubt this but my own website statistics
display Netscape shares of 13% (general interest site) and 23%
(graphics related).

So the statistics may differ a lot regarding to where the audience
are located, what work they do, how old they are, how much money
they can spend for their computers and so on.

Thus, such statistics are unreliable. Strange that you should have
relied on them to make your argument about js in the first place.
Anyway I don't insist on the 98%, they might be an extreme value,
It might even have been made up.
but it is a fact that most average web users don't change their
browser's default settings.
And how do you know this to be "a fact?" Leaving that aside, what
about those who do not have access to js?
So I don't think it is a bad idea in every case to consider a
solution that relys on Javascript,
Even though some don't have it?
but of course you have to know what you want to offer to the
others, be it 2% or 12% of the audience.

Especially when that 2% or 12% includes indexing robots.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me