By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
440,487 Members | 1,090 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 440,487 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

create footer problem?

P: n/a
hi,

i want to create a footer under my webpage at 5px above my lower
browserwindowborder no matter how much i scroll or resize my page.

i now use the following script but it does not do what i want.

function place(){
var y;
if (window.innerWidth == null) {
y=document.body.clientHeight;
}
else {
y = window.innerHeight;
}

footer.style.top=y-20;
setTimeout("place()",300);
}

who can help me or give me a example?

thanks
Marcel
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
36 Replies


P: n/a
"Marcel" <ma**********@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:c1**********@reader11.wxs.nl...
hi,

i want to create a footer under my webpage at 5px above my lower
browserwindowborder no matter how much i scroll or resize my page.

i now use the following script but it does not do what i want.

function place(){
var y;
if (window.innerWidth == null) {
y=document.body.clientHeight;
}
else {
y = window.innerHeight;
}

footer.style.top=y-20;
setTimeout("place()",300);
}

who can help me or give me a example?

Here's an example: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/footers/
--
Andrew Urquhart
Reply: http://www.andrewu.co.uk/about/conta...ewsgroup_ciwas
Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
Marcel wrote:
i want to create a footer under my webpage at 5px above my lower
browserwindowborder no matter how much i scroll or resize my page.


Since you ask in ciwa.stylesheets, I'll give you a CSS-based example:
<http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/voorbeelden/voorbeeld_fixeren-kop.html>
Page is in Dutch, but looking at your e-mailadress this is probably not
a problem for you.

--

Barbara

http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/weblog.html
http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html

Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
In article <c1**********@reader11.wxs.nl>, ma**********@planet.nl
enlightened us with...
hi,

i want to create a footer under my webpage at 5px above my lower
browserwindowborder no matter how much i scroll or resize my page.

http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpa...l_css3row.html

--
--
~kaeli~
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 11:44:31 +0100, "Marcel" <ma**********@planet.nl> wrote:
hi,

i want to create a footer under my webpage at 5px above my lower
browserwindowborder no matter how much i scroll <<< WHAT ABOUT THIS?


Only Barbara responded to this:

Since you ask in ciwa.stylesheets, I'll give you a CSS-based example:
<http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/voorbeelden/voorbeeld_fixeren-kop.html>
Page is in Dutch, but looking at your e-mailadress this is probably not
a problem for you.

But I'll be darned if I can see how it works. What's the secret?

Mason C
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Mason A. Clark wrote:
Only Barbara responded to this:

Since you ask in ciwa.stylesheets, I'll give you a CSS-based example:
<http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/voorbeelden/voorbeeld_fixeren-kop.html>
Page is in Dutch, but looking at your e-mailadress this is probably not
a problem for you.

But I'll be darned if I can see how it works. What's the secret?


The position property allows you to set it not to be affected by
scrolling. Barbara used "position: fixed", which "fixes" the page footer
at its assigned position values.

-Felipe Gasper
Urbana, IL USA
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
Felipe Gasper wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Mason A. Clark wrote:

Only Barbara responded to this:

Since you ask in ciwa.stylesheets, I'll give you a CSS-based example:
<http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/voorbeelden/voorbeeld_fixeren-kop.html>
Page is in Dutch, but looking at your e-mailadress this is probably not
a problem for you.

But I'll be darned if I can see how it works. What's the secret?


The position property allows you to set it not to be affected by
scrolling. Barbara used "position: fixed", which "fixes" the page footer
at its assigned position values.


That's not all of it, since fixed only works for browsers (most of them)
other than IE. All the fixed properties are in the stylesheet with the
non-IE 'child selector', like body>div#menu {position:fixed;}.

The specific stylesheet that is there for IE only,
see <!--[ifIE]><link href=[...]><[enif]--> in the markup,
makes it work for IE6 to. In that you'll see how it's done, through
playing with the overflow properties on both body and div#content.
Furthermore you need to leave the page in Quirks Mode for this 'trick'
to work.

It's not all as is ment to be, but it works for me (BTW: I have it up as
an example, but I make no use of it myself; I see no reason).

--

Barbara

http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/weblog.html
http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html

Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:22:12 +0000, Felipe Gasper <fg*****@uiuc.edu> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Mason A. Clark wrote:
Only Barbara responded to this:

Since you ask in ciwa.stylesheets, I'll give you a CSS-based example:
<http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/voorbeelden/voorbeeld_fixeren-kop.html>
Page is in Dutch, but looking at your e-mailadress this is probably not
a problem for you.

But I'll be darned if I can see how it works. What's the secret?


The position property allows you to set it not to be affected by
scrolling. Barbara used "position: fixed", which "fixes" the page footer
at its assigned position values.

-Felipe Gasper
Urbana, IL USA


But it works only in MSIE-6-quirks. I tested in Opera and Netscape.
Am I right? If so, it it not very useful. I have learned here a method
that works in MSIE, OP, NS -- but I don't have and don't want a footer.

http://masonc.home.netcom.com/template.html

Mason C
Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
Mason A. Clark wrote:
But it works only in MSIE-6-quirks. I tested in Opera and Netscape.
Am I right? If so, it it not very useful.


Define 'useful'? Quirks Mode will provide you with a perfect rendering
scheme for the boxmodel, once you understand it and the differences with
the Standards Compliance Model. So what is 'not very useful' about it?

--

Barbara

http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/weblog.html
http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html

Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
Mason A. Clark wrote:
I have learned here a method
that works in MSIE, OP, NS -- but I don't have and don't want a footer.

http://masonc.home.netcom.com/template.html


I'd love to learn something, but I dont seem to be able to access that page.

--

Barbara

http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/weblog.html
http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html

Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:55:27 +0100, Barbara de Zoete <b_********@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Mason A. Clark wrote:
I have learned here a method
that works in MSIE, OP, NS -- but I don't have and don't want a footer.

http://masonc.home.netcom.com/template.html


I'd love to learn something, but I dont seem to be able to access that page.


It pops up for me, and my ftp shows it's there. ??? try again?

For some reason (server?) it was slow (15 sec) to load just now.

Mason C
Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:51:23 +0100, Barbara de Zoete <b_********@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Mason A. Clark wrote:
But it works only in MSIE-6-quirks. I tested in Opera and Netscape.
Am I right? If so, it it not very useful.


Define 'useful'? Quirks Mode will provide you with a perfect rendering
scheme for the boxmodel, once you understand it and the differences with
the Standards Compliance Model. So what is 'not very useful' about it?


For me it doesn't work in Opera or Netscape.

Mason C
Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:04:26 GMT, Mason A. Clark <ma*******@THISix.netcom.comQ>
wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:51:23 +0100, Barbara de Zoete <b_********@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Mason A. Clark wrote:
But it works only in MSIE-6-quirks. I tested in Opera and Netscape.
Am I right? If so, it it not very useful.


Define 'useful'? Quirks Mode will provide you with a perfect rendering
scheme for the boxmodel, once you understand it and the differences with
the Standards Compliance Model. So what is 'not very useful' about it?


For me it doesn't work in Opera or Netscape.

Mason C


referring to:

<http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/voorbeelden/voorbeeld_fixeren-kop.html>

Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
Mason A. Clark wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:55:27 +0100, Barbara de Zoete <b_********@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Mason A. Clark wrote:

I have learned here a method
that works in MSIE, OP, NS -- but I don't have and don't want a footer.

http://masonc.home.netcom.com/template.html


I'd love to learn something, but I dont seem to be able to access that page.

It pops up for me, and my ftp shows it's there. ??? try again?


Got it now. First of all, that document is in Quirks as well. Second of
all, it uses CSS expressions like:
"POSITION: expression("absolute"); TOP: 0px; TOP:
expression(parseInt(document.body.scrollTop + 0));"
:-?
Now, I dont know what all that is about, but I'll stick to CSS2.1
expressions if you don't mind, even if that means you have to put up a
document in Quirks Mode.

Both are ways tot trick IE to except position:fixed or make it look like
it does, and both probably have their pro's and con's.
--

Barbara

http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/weblog.html
http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html

Jul 20 '05 #14

P: n/a
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:13:05 +0100, Barbara de Zoete <b_********@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Mason A. Clark wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:55:27 +0100, Barbara de Zoete <b_********@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Mason A. Clark wrote:
I have learned here a method
that works in MSIE, OP, NS -- but I don't have and don't want a footer.

http://masonc.home.netcom.com/template.html

I'd love to learn something, but I dont seem to be able to access that page.

It pops up for me, and my ftp shows it's there. ??? try again?


Got it now. First of all, that document is in Quirks as well.


Yes, that is necessary for MSIE. It doesn't need Quirks in Op, Ns
Second of
all, it uses CSS expressions like:
"POSITION: expression("absolute"); TOP: 0px; TOP:
expression(parseInt(document.body.scrollTop + 0));"
Yes, javascript must be active, but I think that is a safe bet.
:-?
Now, I dont know what all that is about, but I'll stick to CSS2.1
expressions
What is "CSS2.1 expressions " ? Is there a CSS2.1 equivalent to
the javascript expressions? Does "expressions" have a
double meaning?
if you don't mind, even if that means you have to put up a
document in Quirks Mode.

Both are ways tot trick IE to except position:fixed or make it look like
it does, and both probably have their pro's and con's.


No. I don't mind. The pro is to work in at least IE, OP, and NS.
It's con if it doesn't.

Mason C
Jul 20 '05 #15

P: n/a
Mason A. Clark wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:04:26 GMT, Mason A. Clark <ma*******@THISix.netcom.comQ>
wrote:

But it works only in MSIE-6-quirks. I tested in Opera and Netscape.
Am I right? If so, it it not very useful.

Define 'useful'? Quirks Mode will provide you with a perfect rendering
scheme for the boxmodel, once you understand it and the differences with
the Standards Compliance Model. So what is 'not very useful' about it?
For me it


being the page, not Quirks Mode,
doesn't work in Opera or Netscape.
referring to:

<http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/voorbeelden/voorbeeld_fixeren-kop.html>


I know this page breaks in Opera (it doesn't in my NS7 though). There
are more examples that work just fine in also Netscape and Opera, like
<http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/voorbeelden/voorbeeld_tabellen.html>

I kind of like the running of the menu alongside the view port as you
scroll up or down with Opera, dont you ;-) )

Still, Quirks, to me I see no answer to the initial question: What is
not useful about Quirks (not singeling out that one page. Remember, like
(save side) 90% (or more) of all pages out there are not standard
compliant)?

--

Barbara

http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/weblog.html
http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html

Jul 20 '05 #16

P: n/a
Mason A. Clark wrote:
> http://masonc.home.netcom.com/template.html
Yes, that is necessary for MSIE. It doesn't need Quirks in Op, Ns


That sounds silly to me, since you can only put in so many doctype
declarations in a document, namingly _one_. If that put the document in
Quirks, the document is in Quirks, is it not?
Second of
all, it uses CSS expressions like:
"POSITION: expression("absolute"); TOP: 0px; TOP:
expression(parseInt(document.body.scrollTop + 0));"


Yes, javascript must be active, but I think that is a safe bet.


I can see now we are at the opposite ends of a scale here. I dont like
anything depending on javascript in my site.
Now, I dont know what all that is about, but I'll stick to CSS2.1
expressions


What is "CSS2.1 expressions " ? Is there a CSS2.1 equivalent to
the javascript expressions? Does "expressions" have a
double meaning?


Expression? What I mean are selectors, classes, divs and their
properties. I have no idea how to name them in one word in English.
if you don't mind, even if that means you have to put up a
document in Quirks Mode.

Both are ways tot trick IE to except position:fixed or make it look like
it does, and both probably have their pro's and con's.


No. I don't mind. The pro is to work in at least IE, OP, and NS.
It's con if it doesn't.

Like when there is no javascript active.

Oh well, we all have our ways.

--

Barbara

http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/weblog.html
http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html

Jul 20 '05 #17

P: n/a
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:25:23 +0100, Barbara de Zoete <b_********@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Mason A. Clark wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:04:26 GMT, Mason A. Clark <ma*******@THISix.netcom.comQ>
wrote:

>But it works only in MSIE-6-quirks. I tested in Opera and Netscape.
>Am I right? If so, it it not very useful.

Define 'useful'? Quirks Mode will provide you with a perfect rendering
scheme for the boxmodel, once you understand it and the differences with
the Standards Compliance Model. So what is 'not very useful' about it?

For me it

being the page, not Quirks Mode,
doesn't work in Opera or Netscape.
referring to:

<http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/voorbeelden/voorbeeld_fixeren-kop.html>


I know this page breaks in Opera (it doesn't in my NS7 though). There
are more examples that work just fine in also Netscape and Opera, like
<http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/voorbeelden/voorbeeld_tabellen.html>

I kind of like the running of the menu alongside the view port as you
scroll up or down with Opera, dont you ;-) )


Very amusing inverse scroll. Never could do it if trying !
Still, Quirks, to me I see no answer to the initial question: What is
not useful about Quirks (not singeling out that one page. Remember, like
(save side) 90% (or more) of all pages out there are not standard
compliant)?


I never intended to suggest "not useful about Quirks" -- in fact my
Template (now many pages) depends on Quirks IE. My complaint
was with your page not working in Opera and Netscape. Now I've
learned that it does work on line in Netscape. (The saved version
does not for a reason never to be determined.)

Mason C
never to be determined.)
Jul 20 '05 #18

P: n/a
Mason A. Clark wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:25:23 +0100, Barbara de Zoete <b_********@hotmail.com>
wrote:
<http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/voorbeelden/voorbeeld_fixeren-kop.html>


I know this page breaks in Opera (it doesn't in my NS7 though). There
are more examples that work just fine in also Netscape and Opera, like
<http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/voorbeelden/voorbeeld_tabellen.html>

I kind of like the running of the menu alongside the view port as you
scroll up or down with Opera, dont you ;-) )


Very amusing inverse scroll. Never could do it if trying !


lol I really have no idea what triggers it. Haven't had time to look in
to it yet.
Still, Quirks, to me I see no answer to the initial question: What is
not useful about Quirks)?


I never intended to suggest "not useful about Quirks"


Sorry about that, than. I misunderstood. We seem to agree on this point.

--

Barbara

http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/weblog.html
http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html

Jul 20 '05 #19

P: n/a
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:31:41 +0100, Barbara de Zoete <b_********@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Mason A. Clark wrote:
>> http://masonc.home.netcom.com/template.html
Yes, that is necessary for MSIE. It doesn't need Quirks in Op, Ns
That sounds silly to me, since you can only put in so many doctype
declarations in a document, namingly _one_. If that put the document in
Quirks, the document is in Quirks, is it not?
Second of
all, it uses CSS expressions like:
"POSITION: expression("absolute"); TOP: 0px; TOP:
expression(parseInt(document.body.scrollTop + 0));"


Yes, javascript must be active, but I think that is a safe bet.


I can see now we are at the opposite ends of a scale here. I dont like
anything depending on javascript in my site.


What is your objection to javascript? *Java* has a bad reputation,
at least with me, but *javascript* seems useful and safe. I've
rarely encountered any problem with it. What is the probability
that it is not active? Good question.

Mason C
Now, I dont know what all that is about, but I'll stick to CSS2.1
expressions


What is "CSS2.1 expressions " ? Is there a CSS2.1 equivalent to
the javascript expressions? Does "expressions" have a
double meaning?


Expression? What I mean are selectors, classes, divs and their
properties. I have no idea how to name them in one word in English.
if you don't mind, even if that means you have to put up a
document in Quirks Mode.

Both are ways tot trick IE to except position:fixed or make it look like
it does, and both probably have their pro's and con's.


No. I don't mind. The pro is to work in at least IE, OP, and NS.
It's con if it doesn't.

Like when there is no javascript active.

Oh well, we all have our ways.


Jul 20 '05 #20

P: n/a
Mason A. Clark wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:31:41 +0100, Barbara de Zoete <b_********@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Second of
all, it uses CSS expressions like:
"POSITION: expression("absolute"); TOP: 0px; TOP:
expression(parseInt(document.body.scrollTop + 0));"

Yes, javascript must be active, but I think that is a safe bet.


I can see now we are at the opposite ends of a scale here. I dont like
anything depending on javascript in my site.


What is your objection to javascript? *Java* has a bad reputation,
at least with me, but *javascript* seems useful and safe. I've
rarely encountered any problem with it. What is the probability
that it is not active? Good question.


Since that is not answered, I hate to take the risk of excluding a
visitor of something I think so worthfull that I took time to describe
it all in markup and CSS and JavaScript, only to see it get ruined with
javascript not running in the GUI of the visitor. :-)

Not entirely true. I didn't take time to learn JavaScript, because I
think most of the effects I want can be achieved without it. I have the
philisophy to write my code first for the markup, second for the CSS and
then perhaps some javascript. But as I said, I hardly ever need that if
the markup and CSS are properly written and used to the full extend.
Especially CSS, it is astonishing to learn more and more what that can do.

--

Barbara

http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/weblog.html
http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html

Jul 20 '05 #21

P: n/a
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:53:17 +0100, Barbara de Zoete <b_********@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Mason A. Clark wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:31:41 +0100, Barbara de Zoete <b_********@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Second of
>all, it uses CSS expressions like:
>"POSITION: expression("absolute"); TOP: 0px; TOP:
>expression(parseInt(document.body.scrollTop + 0));"

Yes, javascript must be active, but I think that is a safe bet.

I can see now we are at the opposite ends of a scale here. I dont like
anything depending on javascript in my site.


What is your objection to javascript? *Java* has a bad reputation,
at least with me, but *javascript* seems useful and safe. I've
rarely encountered any problem with it. What is the probability
that it is not active? Good question.


Since that is not answered, I hate to take the risk of excluding a
visitor of something I think so worthfull that I took time to describe
it all in markup and CSS and JavaScript, only to see it get ruined with
javascript not running in the GUI of the visitor. :-)

Not entirely true. I didn't take time to learn JavaScript, because I
think most of the effects I want can be achieved without it. I have the
philisophy to write my code first for the markup, second for the CSS and
then perhaps some javascript. But as I said, I hardly ever need that if
the markup and CSS are properly written and used to the full extend.
Especially CSS, it is astonishing to learn more and more what that can do.


It's astonishing what *Javascript* can do. I created the quizes for
William Hummel and will do similar on my own web site:

http://wfhummel.cnchost.com/moneyquiz.shtml

However, that was before I learned any CSS for the layout :-)

It's been an instructive pleasure, Barbara. I learn a lot by
annoying people here. See you on my next troll.

Mason C

Jul 20 '05 #22

P: n/a
Mason A. Clark wrote:
It's been an instructive pleasure, Barbara. I learn a lot by
annoying people here. See you on my next troll.


rofl Likewise and hope so,
See you,

--

Barbara

http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/weblog.html
http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html

Jul 20 '05 #23

P: n/a
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:20:49 GMT, Mason A. Clark
<ma*******@THISix.netcom.comQ> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:13:05 +0100, Barbara de Zoete <b_********@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Second of
all, it uses CSS expressions like:
"POSITION: expression("absolute"); TOP: 0px; TOP:
expression(parseInt(document.body.scrollTop + 0));"


Yes, javascript must be active, but I think that is a safe bet.


Bookies must love you. There are numerous good reasons for disabling
Javascript, and 10% - 20% of web users do so.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Jul 20 '05 #24

P: n/a
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:18:44 +0100, Stephen Poley
<sb******************@xs4all.nl> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:20:49 GMT, Mason A. Clark
<ma*******@THISix.netcom.comQ> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:13:05 +0100, Barbara de Zoete <b_********@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Second of
all, it uses CSS expressions like:
"POSITION: expression("absolute"); TOP: 0px; TOP:
expression(parseInt(document.body.scrollTop + 0));"


Yes, javascript must be active, but I think that is a safe bet.


Bookies must love you. There are numerous good reasons for disabling
Javascript, and 10% - 20% of web users do so.


Where can I find the "good reasons"? Knowing them would be
helpful in deciding on the use of javascript. I have some good
web pages that must use javascript.

( As a footnote: I have been unable to disable javascript in
MSIE, OP, NS -- in spite of their simple menus to do so. ??? )

Mason C

Jul 20 '05 #25

P: n/a
In article <qr********************************@4ax.com>,
ma*******@THISix.netcom.comQ enlightened us with...

( As a footnote: I have been unable to disable javascript in
MSIE, OP, NS -- in spite of their simple menus to do so. ??? )


You have to refresh the page after disabling it to see the effects. Did
you?

--
--
~kaeli~
If a turtle doesn't have a shell, is he homeless or naked?
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

Jul 20 '05 #26

P: n/a
Stephen Poley <sb******************@xs4all.nl> wrote:
Bookies must love you. There are numerous good reasons for disabling
Javascript, and 10% - 20% of web users do so.

Mason A. Clark <ma*******@THISix.netcom.comQ> wrote: Where can I find the "good reasons"?
Here's one list: http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/whatnojs.html
Knowing them would be helpful in deciding on the use of javascript.
Using JavaScript isn't the issue. Depending on JavaScript is the issue.
I have some good web pages that must use javascript.


There are pages that must rely upon JavaScript by their very nature. But
it's silly to depend on JavaScript elsewhere.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"We are Microsoft. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated."
Jul 20 '05 #27

P: n/a
Mason A. Clark wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:18:44 +0100, Stephen Poley
<sb******************@xs4all.nl> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:20:49 GMT, Mason A. Clark
<ma*******@THISix.netcom.comQ> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:13:05 +0100, Barbara de Zoete <b_********@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Second of
all, it uses CSS expressions like:
"POSITION: expression("absolute"); TOP: 0px; TOP:
expression(parseInt(document.body.scrollTop + 0));"

Yes, javascript must be active, but I think that is a safe bet.


Bookies must love you. There are numerous good reasons for disabling
Javascript, and 10% - 20% of web users do so.


Where can I find the "good reasons"? Knowing them would be
helpful in deciding on the use of javascript. I have some good
web pages that must use javascript.


Do you know that one visitor that matters (to me anyway) has no
JavaScript possibilities? That one visitor being Google? So if any
clientside scripting is _needed_ for getting to the content or for
linking further down the hierarchy of the site, Google wont be able to.
Ask Google for its reasons not to use clientside scripting :-)
--

Barbara

http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/weblog.html
http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html

Jul 20 '05 #28

P: n/a
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Barbara de Zoete wrote:
Ask Google for its reasons not to use clientside scripting :-)


Yup, "ask Google" indeed: just type "this site needs javascript"
(including the quotes) into a Google query, and you'll get a sizeable
selection of such losers.

Deutscher Evangelischer Kirchentag

Bitte aktivieren sie Javascript und laden sie diese Seite neu!! You
^^^ huh?
have JavaScript disabled, this site needs JavaScript

See, Javascript is the nearest thing to Godliness in some people's
(mis)understanding.
Jul 20 '05 #29

P: n/a
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
Yup, "ask Google" indeed: just type "this site needs javascript"
(including the quotes) into a Google query, and you'll get a sizeable
selection of such losers.


A tiny selection compared with
<http://www.google.com/search?q=%22please+enable+javascript%22> or
<http://www.google.com/search?q=%22enable+javascript%22>

--
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?
Jul 20 '05 #30

P: n/a
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004, Andreas Prilop wrote:
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
Yup, "ask Google" indeed: just type "this site needs javascript"
(including the quotes) into a Google query, and you'll get a sizeable
selection of such losers.


A tiny selection compared with
<http://www.google.com/search?q=%22please+enable+javascript%22> or
<http://www.google.com/search?q=%22enable+javascript%22>


Yes, but those *might* be optional, whereas the phrase that I used
purports to be mandatory for the site.

Doubtless there are other forms of words that would fit either
profile: "you must enable javascript" gets a bigger return than my
first suggestion - but many of the hits appear to be for optional
functionality, which is surely less offensive than stating that JS is
a necessity for using a whole site.

Instructions. In order to request a duplicate Driver License on the
Internet, you must enable Javascript in your browser

na sowas...
Jul 20 '05 #31

P: n/a
Stephen Poley wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 20:20:49 GMT, Mason A. Clark
<ma*******@THISix.netcom.comQ> wrote:
Yes, javascript must be active, but I think that is a safe bet.


Bookies must love you.


LOL. Thanks Stephen.
Jul 20 '05 #32

P: n/a
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:04:44 +0100, Andreas Prilop
<nh******@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de> wrote:
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
Yup, "ask Google" indeed: just type "this site needs javascript"
(including the quotes) into a Google query, and you'll get a sizeable
selection of such losers.


A tiny selection compared with
<http://www.google.com/search?q=%22please+enable+javascript%22> or
<http://www.google.com/search?q=%22enable+javascript%22>

--
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?


Bottom posting on very long threads.

Jul 20 '05 #33

P: n/a
In article <c1*************@ID-52872.news.uni-berlin.de>,
b_********@hotmail.com enlightened us with...

Do you know that one visitor that matters (to me anyway) has no
JavaScript possibilities? That one visitor being Google? So if any
clientside scripting is _needed_ for getting to the content or for
linking further down the hierarchy of the site, Google wont be able to.
Ask Google for its reasons not to use clientside scripting :-)


An excellent example for providing text links as navigation in addition
to any javascript menus.

--
--
~kaeli~
Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they
taste funny?
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

Jul 20 '05 #34

P: n/a
In article <t6********************************@4ax.com>,
ma*******@THISix.netcom.comQ enlightened us with...
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?


Bottom posting on very long threads.


Not snipping anything and then bottom posting "yeah, I agree!"

LOL
--
--
~kaeli~
Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they
taste funny?
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

Jul 20 '05 #35

P: n/a
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 06:51:38 GMT, Mason A. Clark
<ma*******@THISix.netcom.comQ> wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:04:44 +0100, Andreas Prilop
<nh******@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de> wrote:
--
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?


Bottom posting on very long threads.


Adding only six words without trimming irrelevent excess. :)
Jul 20 '05 #36

P: n/a
Mason A. Clark wrote:
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:04:44 +0100, Andreas Prilop
<nh******@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de> wrote:
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?

Bottom posting on very long threads.


That's normally due to an inability to quote properly, though.

*My* pet hate is "inline" repsonses with no whitespace.
--
jc

Remove the -not from email
Jul 20 '05 #37

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.