By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
455,776 Members | 1,397 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 455,776 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

opera, java

P: n/a
Hi Folk

I recently completed an interactive map. I have now discovered that it is not working in Opera.

The address is:

http://switch.hosts.net.nz/~admin64/search.php

The map is basically 20+ images over each other, each of which are transparent gifs.

Apart from the first one (bottom, showing the country), they are not visible until the mouse moves over the map. That is to say,
the JavaScript swaps the image from hidden to visible. The css for the hidden part is:

#map IMG.n {position: absolute; left: 0px; top: 0px; visibility: hidden; z-index: 5}
and for those that are visible:
#map IMG.v {position: absolute; left: 0px; top: 0px; visibility: visible; z-index: 10}
I think this is where the problem lies. The map seems to be working on Netscape, IE and firefox, but in Opera the areas are not
highlighted.

FYI, the way the styles get swapped is as follows:
.....
if (document.layers) {
img = findElement('i'+r,0);
}
else {
img = document.images['i'+r];
}
if (img) {
img.className = "v";
}
....

Do you think that perhaps Opera does not recognise this swap (it seems to, because at times it shows parts of the images).

Does anyone have any hints?

Cheers
- Nicolaas
Jul 23 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
17 Replies


P: n/a
windandwaves wrote:
I recently completed an interactive map. I have now discovered that it
is not working in Opera.
http://switch.hosts.net.nz/~admin64/search.php


Firstly, please understand the difference between Java and Javascript.

Secondly, seems to work fine here, except these problems (that seem to
effect *all* browsers):

* Ticking the "North Island" box doesn't tick Wellington, but
does highlight it, and it ticks Stewart Island, but doesn't
highlight it.

* Ticking South Island highlights Stewart Island, but doesn't
tick it.

* Hovering over Fiji doesn't cause the hover effect over the
tick box.

* Ticking New Zealand doesn't tick Wellington, but does highlight
it on the map.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Jul 23 '05 #2

P: n/a

"windandwaves" <wi*********@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:42********@clear.net.nz...
Hi Folk

I recently completed an interactive map. I have now discovered that it is not working in Opera.
The address is:

http://switch.hosts.net.nz/~admin64/search.php

The map is basically 20+ images over each other, each of which are transparent gifs.
Apart from the first one (bottom, showing the country), they are not visible until the mouse moves over the map. That is to say, the JavaScript swaps the image from hidden to visible. The css for the hidden part is:
#map IMG.n {position: absolute; left: 0px; top: 0px; visibility: hidden; z-index: 5} and for those that are visible:
#map IMG.v {position: absolute; left: 0px; top: 0px; visibility: visible; z-index: 10} I think this is where the problem lies. The map seems to be working on Netscape, IE and firefox, but in Opera the areas are not highlighted.

FYI, the way the styles get swapped is as follows:
....
if (document.layers) {
img = findElement('i'+r,0);
}
else {
img = document.images['i'+r];
}
if (img) {
img.className = "v";
}
...

Do you think that perhaps Opera does not recognise this swap (it seems to, because at times it shows parts of the images).
Does anyone have any hints?

ive just looked at it in opera 7.6 and it works for me..
when downloading opera you have the choice of versions with or without java
installed i seem to remember.
Jul 23 '05 #3

P: n/a
the idiot wrote:
"windandwaves" <wi*********@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:42********@clear.net.nz...
Hi Folk

I recently completed an interactive map. I have now discovered that it is


not working in Opera.
The address is:

http://switch.hosts.net.nz/~admin64/search.php

The map is basically 20+ images over each other, each of which are


transparent gifs.
Apart from the first one (bottom, showing the country), they are not


visible until the mouse moves over the map. That is to say,
the JavaScript swaps the image from hidden to visible. The css for the


hidden part is:
#map IMG.n {position: absolute; left: 0px; top: 0px; visibility: hidden;


z-index: 5}
and for those that are visible:
#map IMG.v {position: absolute; left: 0px; top: 0px; visibility: visible;


z-index: 10}
I think this is where the problem lies. The map seems to be working on


Netscape, IE and firefox, but in Opera the areas are not
highlighted.

FYI, the way the styles get swapped is as follows:
....
if (document.layers) {
img = findElement('i'+r,0);
}
else {
img = document.images['i'+r];
}
if (img) {
img.className = "v";
}
...

Do you think that perhaps Opera does not recognise this swap (it seems to,


because at times it shows parts of the images).
Does anyone have any hints?


ive just looked at it in opera 7.6 and it works for me..
when downloading opera you have the choice of versions with or without java
installed i seem to remember.


JavaSCRIPT. The OP confused Java for JavaScript, and the two languages
are totally different. I think all browsers ship with JavaScript (it's
built in). His site works fine with or without Java installed. He just
needs to rework the code to use getElementById and dump all of that
antiquated innerHTML stuff. This can all be done via JS and CSS without
too much heartache.
Jul 23 '05 #4

P: n/a
Previously in comp.lang.javascript,alt.html, SpaceGirl
<NO****************@subhuman.net> said:
I think all browsers ship with JavaScript


Lynx doesn't. ;-)

SCNR

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
Jul 23 '05 #5

P: n/a
Mark Parnell wrote:
SpaceGirl said:
I think all browsers ship with JavaScript


Lynx doesn't. ;-)


Vast numbers don't.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Jul 23 '05 #6

P: n/a
Toby Inkster wrote:
Mark Parnell wrote:
SpaceGirl said:

I think all browsers ship with JavaScript


Lynx doesn't. ;-)

Vast numbers don't.


All browsers that matter. We're talking tiny fractions of percentages
that dont have JS installed. While MANY of those may have it DISABLED,
that wasn't what we were talking about. The only major market where
there is no JS is the PDA and phone market. Handhelds dont usually seem
to have JS.
Jul 23 '05 #7

P: n/a
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:23:12 +0000, SpaceGirl wrote:
Toby Inkster wrote:
Mark Parnell wrote:
SpaceGirl said:
I think all browsers ship with JavaScript

Lynx doesn't. ;-)

Vast numbers don't.


All browsers that matter. We're talking tiny fractions of percentages
that dont have JS installed. While MANY of those may have it DISABLED,
that wasn't what we were talking about. The only major market where
there is no JS is the PDA and phone market. Handhelds dont usually seem
to have JS.


I like to think that any potential client, is potential revenue. As such,
any potential client matters, and so does their browser - even if it is
Lynx or one of the many others that doesn't ship with JavaScript. They
may be a fraction of a percentage - say 0.1% but in a million web users,
that still comes out to 1,000 people that may not be able to view and/or
use your site. You can say No to them if you want to, I will gladly
welcome them with open arms.

Carolyn
Jul 23 '05 #8

P: n/a
Carolyn Marenger wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:23:12 +0000, SpaceGirl wrote:

Toby Inkster wrote:
Mark Parnell wrote:
SpaceGirl said:

>I think all browsers ship with JavaScript

Lynx doesn't. ;-)
Vast numbers don't.


All browsers that matter. We're talking tiny fractions of percentages
that dont have JS installed. While MANY of those may have it DISABLED,
that wasn't what we were talking about. The only major market where
there is no JS is the PDA and phone market. Handhelds dont usually seem
to have JS.

I like to think that any potential client, is potential revenue. As such,
any potential client matters, and so does their browser - even if it is
Lynx or one of the many others that doesn't ship with JavaScript. They
may be a fraction of a percentage - say 0.1% but in a million web users,
that still comes out to 1,000 people that may not be able to view and/or
use your site. You can say No to them if you want to, I will gladly
welcome them with open arms.

Carolyn


That's too black and white. The internet using public only accounts for
a small portion of the total population the planet. Can you afford to
cut of 5 billion people because your medium in the intenet? You have to
remember you cannot design sites for everyone, and if you try to you run
the risk of alienating the people you really want to talk to. While
text-only web sites are pretty much full accessible and available on ALL
browsers, they are hardly going to sell products.

--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
Jul 23 '05 #9

P: n/a
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 20:18:04 +0000, SpaceGirl wrote:
Carolyn Marenger wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:23:12 +0000, SpaceGirl wrote:
All browsers that matter. We're talking tiny fractions of percentages
that dont have JS installed. While MANY of those may have it DISABLED,
that wasn't what we were talking about. The only major market where
there is no JS is the PDA and phone market. Handhelds dont usually seem
to have JS.
I like to think that any potential client, is potential revenue. As such,
any potential client matters, and so does their browser - even if it is
Lynx or one of the many others that doesn't ship with JavaScript. They
may be a fraction of a percentage - say 0.1% but in a million web users,
that still comes out to 1,000 people that may not be able to view and/or
use your site. You can say No to them if you want to, I will gladly
welcome them with open arms.


That's too black and white. The internet using public only accounts for
a small portion of the total population the planet.


I think in the end, we'll probably agree that we are saying pretty much
the same thing, that we are both argueing the same side, and just refusing
to see it, for the semantics.

A number of good points in there. You are correct, internet
users are a very small portion of the global population. Internet is one
of many ways to reach people, but only one. It is not the be all and end
all, but it is very popular at the moment. It is not a medium that I have
limited myself to. However, it is the one that has been able to reach the
largest, geographically speaking, market.
Can you afford to cut of 5 billion people because your medium in the
intenet?
Yes, in fact I can. I have a little under a hundred thousand hours in the computer industry. At least half of that has been in software development. That is probably why I am a stong
believer in structured development and standards compliance. It isn't for
everyone, but it works for me.
You have to remember you cannot design sites for everyone, and if you try to you run the risk of alienating the people you really want to talk to
I don't think it is cost effective to build sites for everyone, but it is
possible. It certainly isn't easy. Not even easy if you just want to get
the same look and feel on all the various MS IE versions. I won't
outright say it is impossible, but for all practicality it isn't worth it.
While text-only web sites are pretty much full accessible and available on ALL

browsers, they are hardly going to sell products.

I don't advocate text-only web sites, but I do advocate text only support.
For example including alt="" for all graphics, title="" for all links.
The site may not be designed for text only browsers, but at least text
only users can get a good idea of what the site is about.

You are right however, most users expect graphics of some sort, and many won't read
their way through text to find what they are looking for. "A picture is
worth a thousand words." The trick is finding the balance - users like
myself, won't hang around an all graphic site. I leave business websites
that require I use cookies to shop there. I would prefer to risk
paying more than to have to use someone else's preference of a browser, to
have to upgrade to the latest media format, and so forth. Many business
have lost my business for things like that. I usually email the web site
contact to let them know they are losing business - that is when I can
even find that.

As far as your sites go, and this is assuming alot after only a quick
look at one of your sites, I am probably not your market audience anyway.
So, I doubt you are losing any of my business. I would lay odds that a
site I would design/develop for your clients, would lose them lots more
business.

Have a good one,

Carolyn
Jul 23 '05 #10

P: n/a
Carolyn Marenger wrote:
I like to think that any potential client, is potential revenue.


But not every visitor is a potential client. Everyone that walks down
the mall is not a potential client to every store in the mall. The same
is true for web sites. Note, I am not disagreeing about the use of
javascript.

--
-=tn=-
Jul 23 '05 #11

P: n/a
Carolyn Marenger wrote:
I don't think it is cost effective to build sites for everyone, but it is
possible. It certainly isn't easy.
Sure it is. All text. Bam the site is for everyone.
I don't advocate text-only web sites..
Phew...
The trick is finding the balance
Ahh THAT is the true Key!!!! Find a balance that works for YOUR
website. If an all flash site gets your more business than text, then
use it. If no javascript and text gets you the most clients then do
that. Each site has to weight the pros and cons of using a technology.
Not all sites are for all people. Using these technologies DOES NOT
mean you can not accessible to everyone. A properly built Flash heavy
web site can still usable by someone using lynx, or a reader. They may
not get the same enjoyment, and it may be a little harder for them to
find things, but the content will still be accessible to them.
myself, won't hang around an all graphic site. I leave business websites
that require I use cookies to shop there.
Not me, flash, javascript, multimedia, bring it on, I love it all!
As far as your sites go, and this is assuming alot after only a quick
look at one of your sites, I am probably not your market audience anyway.
So, I doubt you are losing any of my business. I would lay odds that a
site I would design/develop for your clients, would lose them lots more
business.


Finally some common sense in the group.
--
-=tn=-
Jul 23 '05 #12

P: n/a
SpaceGirl wrote:
Toby Inkster wrote:
Mark Parnell wrote:
SpaceGirl said:

I think all browsers ship with JavaScript

Lynx doesn't. ;-)


Vast numbers don't.


All browsers that matter.


GoogleBot doesn't matter?
Jul 23 '05 #13

P: n/a
Travis Newbury wrote:
Carolyn Marenger wrote:
I don't think it is cost effective to build sites for everyone, but it is
possible. It certainly isn't easy.

Sure it is. All text. Bam the site is for everyone.

Everyone that understands the language in which its written...

Mick
Jul 23 '05 #14

P: n/a

Leif K-Brooks wrote:
GoogleBot doesn't matter?


Interestingly I think google is actually beginning to index the text in
javascript:
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showt...03be8168&t=122

Though your point still stands, you need to make your pages with search
engine spiders in mind.

Jul 23 '05 #15

P: n/a
On 10 Mar 2005 20:31:59 -0800, "Matthew Lock" <lo******@gmail.com>
wrote:

Leif K-Brooks wrote:
GoogleBot doesn't matter?


Interestingly I think google is actually beginning to index the text in
javascript:
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showt...03be8168&t=122

Though your point still stands, you need to make your pages with search
engine spiders in mind.


I don't believe it's the text as such, it's beginning to recognise
links in some javascript.

BB
--
www.kruse.co.uk/ SE*@kruse.demon.co.uk
Affordable SEO!
--
Jul 23 '05 #16

P: n/a
Mick White wrote:
Sure it is. All text. Bam the site is for everyone.

Everyone that understands the language in which its written...


Everyone understands English. If they don't then they have no need to
be on the web... (0_o)

--
-=tn=-

Jul 23 '05 #17

P: n/a
Travis Newbury wrote:
Everyone understands English. If they don't then they have no need to
be on the web... (0_o)


Nice troll.

Jul 23 '05 #18

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.