Compatibility Issue

[Sev]

I think (a bit clueless I'm afraid) I'm using a form script in the
template of this site: www.flywessex.blogspot.com

What I would ideally like to do is get rid of the 'Go!' buttons from the
right-hand side drop-down menus, so that the user simply has to select
from the list and is taken straight to the selected page.

I tried a script but it only worked in IE, not Firefox. I've been told
that it just cannot be done AND be compatible with both browsers. I
refuse to give up just yet and thought I'd ask you guys before making my
mind up.

Any help greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

P.

[VK]

> so that the user simply has to select

from the list and is taken straight to the selected page.

It is very easy to do for the "mouse users":
<select onchange="myFunction(this.selectedIndex)">

It is indeed very difficult to do for the "keyboard users" (who prefer
to scroll options using up/down keys).

While FF ignores the keyboard caused onchange events untill you hit
<Enter>, IE fires onchange for each scroll. Obviously it makes the
navigation impossible.

The only rather ugly solution I see is to drop onchange event
completely and use onkeypress / onclick / onscroll monitoring instead.

[Michael Winter]

On 29/06/2005 08:58, Sev wrote:

[snip]

What I would ideally like to do is get rid of the 'Go!' buttons from the
right-hand side drop-down menus, so that the user simply has to select
from the list and is taken straight to the selected page.

Don't. It's bad for usability. See a previous article[1] I've written
for some of the issues.

[snip]

Mike
[1]
<URL:http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thread/79d767415248b9e2/01a793f653ba095e?hl=en#01a793f653ba095e>

--
Michael Winter
Replace ".invalid" with ".uk" to reply by e-mail.

[Sev]

Michael Winter wrote:

On 29/06/2005 08:58, Sev wrote:

[snip]

What I would ideally like to do is get rid of the 'Go!' buttons from
the right-hand side drop-down menus, so that the user simply has to
select from the list and is taken straight to the selected page.

Don't. It's bad for usability. See a previous article[1] I've written
for some of the issues.

[snip]

Mike
[1]
<URL:http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thread/79d767415248b9e2/01a793f653ba095e?hl=en#01a793f653ba095e>

Right, thanks. I guess I'm not in the right place to have someone help
me find a site navigation system that IS compatible with both browsers,
doesn't hinder non mouse users AND looks good. Can anyone recommend a
forum please?

[Randy Webb]

Sev wrote:

Michael Winter wrote:

On 29/06/2005 08:58, Sev wrote:

[snip]

What I would ideally like to do is get rid of the 'Go!' buttons from
the right-hand side drop-down menus, so that the user simply has to
select from the list and is taken straight to the selected page.
Don't. It's bad for usability. See a previous article[1] I've written
for some of the issues.

[snip]

Mike
[1]
<URL:http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thread/79d767415248b9e2/01a793f653ba095e?hl=en#01a793f653ba095e>

Right, thanks. I guess I'm not in the right place to have someone help
me find a site navigation system that IS compatible with both browsers,

"both browsers"? Are you referring to Safari and Konqueror by chance?
Or, Opera and ICEBrowser? Be careful when you say "both", because there
are, at least, 150 known browsers on the web.
doesn't hinder non mouse users AND looks good.
Its not as hard as you make it sound.

Can anyone recommend a forum please?

Whats wrong with this Usenet group?
--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly

[Sev]

Randy Webb wrote:

Sev wrote:

Michael Winter wrote:

On 29/06/2005 08:58, Sev wrote:

[snip]

What I would ideally like to do is get rid of the 'Go!' buttons from
the right-hand side drop-down menus, so that the user simply has to
select from the list and is taken straight to the selected page.


Don't. It's bad for usability. See a previous article[1] I've written
for some of the issues.

[snip]

Mike
[1]
<URL:http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thread/79d767415248b9e2/01a793f653ba095e?hl=en#01a793f653ba095e>

Right, thanks. I guess I'm not in the right place to have someone
help me find a site navigation system that IS compatible with both
browsers,

"both browsers"? Are you referring to Safari and Konqueror by chance?
Or, Opera and ICEBrowser? Be careful when you say "both", because there
are, at least, 150 known browsers on the web.

Yeahbut I don't give a shit about the other 148. *Dramatic pause*

<insert geek whinging here>

doesn't hinder non mouse users AND looks good.

Its not as hard as you make it sound.

Can anyone recommend a forum please?

Whats wrong with this Usenet group?

No one answered. And now I've offended at least 148 people, I doubt
they will.

[VK]

You're not fair here.

You've got a perfect explanation of troubles related to your problem.
Also you've got a perfect explanation of why this particular solution
was not tried to be reached hardly enough so far. No one here is
obligated to drop all his/her current needs to answer your question.
(S)he may do it or (s)he may not: depending of your attitude (which is
not so good so far) or even a smell from your mouth (we cannot really
qualify right now). You have all inspiration ideas to try to accomplish
your task. I have a perfectly working script to show to you. I'll do it
gladly as soon as I see any attempt from your side to *think* around
the problem. Just show me your version of the solution, even if it
doesn't work.

[Sev]

VK wrote:

You've got a perfect explanation of troubles related to your problem.
Hiya VK,

Since I don't have all night to reply in newsgroups (oh how I wish I
did!)I replied to the most conclusive response. I apologise if that
offended you. The response in which I may have appeared 'unfair' was
directed in reply to Webby up there, on his high horse, telling me he
had the solution but wasn't going to give it to me because I'd used the
word 'two'.

Forgive me, but I don't always have the time to argue with people. If
that seems unfair to you, tough.
Also you've got a perfect explanation of why this particular solution
was not tried to be reached hardly enough so far. No one here is
obligated to drop all his/her current needs to answer your question.
Absolutely, nor am I obliged to be fair to time-wasting newsgroup posters.
(S)he may do it or (s)he may not: depending of your attitude (which is
not so good so far) or even a smell from your mouth (we cannot really
qualify right now). You have all inspiration ideas to try to accomplish
your task. I have a perfectly working script to show to you. I'll do it
gladly as soon as I see any attempt from your side to *think* around
the problem. Just show me your version of the solution, even if it
doesn't work.

Firstly, as a blog site, there's not too much scope. The template
pretty much dictates that the navigation belongs on the sidebar. So my
options are along the lines of expanding menus and sub menus therein -
so it seems - I could well be wrong and am not unfamiliar to holding my
hand up in said situations. Secondly, I don't respond well to demands
from people attempting to personally insult me over an issue so
completely trivial, VK. Perhaps Randy and yourself should consider your
own approach to new posters before demanding people are "fair".

[Lee]

Sev said:

VK wrote:

You've got a perfect explanation of troubles related to your problem.
Hiya VK,

Since I don't have all night to reply in newsgroups (oh how I wish I
did!)I replied to the most conclusive response. I apologise if that
offended you. The response in which I may have appeared 'unfair' was
directed in reply to Webby up there, on his high horse, telling me he
had the solution but wasn't going to give it to me because I'd used the
word 'two'.

He didn't say any such thing. He pointed out that you don't seem
to have a good handle on what you're asking about.

Firstly, as a blog site, there's not too much scope. The template
pretty much dictates that the navigation belongs on the sidebar. So my
options are along the lines of expanding menus and sub menus therein -
so it seems - I could well be wrong and am not unfamiliar to holding my
hand up in said situations.

As soon as you received good advice telling you that the approach that
you were asking about is a bad one, you started whining about the
whole newsgroup. That's a pretty stupid approach to asking for help.

[Sev]

Lee wrote:

He didn't say any such thing.

"Its not as hard as you make it sound."

Sure he did.

[Randy Webb]

Sev wrote:

Randy Webb wrote:

Sev wrote:

Michael Winter wrote:

On 29/06/2005 08:58, Sev wrote:

[snip]

> What I would ideally like to do is get rid of the 'Go!' buttons
> from the right-hand side drop-down menus, so that the user simply
> has to select from the list and is taken straight to the selected
> page.

Don't. It's bad for usability. See a previous article[1] I've
written for some of the issues.

[snip]

Mike
[1]
<URL:http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thread/79d767415248b9e2/01a793f653ba095e?hl=en#01a793f653ba095e>



Right, thanks. I guess I'm not in the right place to have someone
help me find a site navigation system that IS compatible with both
browsers,
"both browsers"? Are you referring to Safari and Konqueror by chance?
Or, Opera and ICEBrowser? Be careful when you say "both", because
there are, at least, 150 known browsers on the web.

Yeahbut I don't give a shit about the other 148. *Dramatic pause*

That's your loss, but I doubt you could ever figure out whether they
were using one of those 148 or so or not. But then again, you can't
figure out why we don't give a shit about you either.
<insert geek whinging here>

doesn't hinder non mouse users AND looks good.

Its not as hard as you make it sound.

Can anyone recommend a forum please?

Whats wrong with this Usenet group?

No one answered. And now I've offended at least 148 people, I doubt
they will.

Nah, nothing in Usenet is worth getting offended about. It will all be
gone by tomorrow anyway.

The problem is not this group, nor the 150 or so browsers. The problem
is your impossible requirements based just on the "two browsers" that
you give a shit about. It's impossible to do what you were asking. So,
you either have to accept defeat or change your requirements.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly

[Randy Webb]

Sev wrote:

Lee wrote:

He didn't say any such thing.

"Its not as hard as you make it sound."

Sure he did.

Yep, I said that. But what I meant by "It's" may not be, no, its not,
what you think I meant. It is not that hard to create a navigation
system that is both user friendly and mouse independent. Do a search for
"CSS driven fly out menus" in the Usenet archives or Google proper. You
will find them. And, they will also work with a "blog" site, whatever
you may decide to define as a "blog".

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly

[Sev]

Randy Webb wrote:

Sev wrote:

Randy Webb wrote:

Sev wrote:

Michael Winter wrote:

> On 29/06/2005 08:58, Sev wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> What I would ideally like to do is get rid of the 'Go!' buttons
>> from the right-hand side drop-down menus, so that the user simply
>> has to select from the list and is taken straight to the selected
>> page.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Don't. It's bad for usability. See a previous article[1] I've
> written for some of the issues.
>
> [snip]
>
> Mike
>
>
> [1]
> <URL:http://groups.google.co.uk/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thread/79d767415248b9e2/01a793f653ba095e?hl=en#01a793f653ba095e>



Right, thanks. I guess I'm not in the right place to have someone
help me find a site navigation system that IS compatible with both
browsers,


"both browsers"? Are you referring to Safari and Konqueror by chance?
Or, Opera and ICEBrowser? Be careful when you say "both", because
there are, at least, 150 known browsers on the web.
Yeahbut I don't give a shit about the other 148. *Dramatic pause*

That's your loss

Not according to my site stats it isn't. 7,400 visits. 30 of which
weren't from IE or FF. 29 of those were Safari. 17 of those I can
track back to the DTP editor who says the site 'works'. I'm not about
to spend a week reading some Tolstoyesque manual for the sake of one
user. If my stats said otherwise, I would accommodate.
but I doubt you could ever figure out whether they
were using one of those 148 or so or not. But then again, you can't
figure out why we don't give a shit about you either.
I don't care. I may have said already.

<insert geek whinging here>

doesn't hinder non mouse users AND looks good.


Its not as hard as you make it sound.
Can anyone recommend a forum please?


Whats wrong with this Usenet group?

No one answered. And now I've offended at least 148 people, I doubt
they will.

Nah, nothing in Usenet is worth getting offended about.

Except for that bit where I used the word 'two' and you got all pissy
with me.
It will all be gone by tomorrow anyway.

The problem is not this group, nor the 150 or so browsers. The problem
is your
impossible requirements
An answer at last. Thank you.
based just on the "two browsers" that
you give a shit about. It's impossible to do what you were asking. So,
you either have to accept defeat or change your requirements.

[Sev]

Randy Webb wrote:

Sev wrote:

Lee wrote:

He didn't say any such thing.
"Its not as hard as you make it sound."

Sure he did.

Yep, I said that. But what I meant by "It's" may not be, no, its not,
what you think I meant. It is not that hard to create a navigation
system that is both user friendly and mouse independent. Do a search for
"CSS driven fly out menus"

Smashing. Will do. Thanks.

in the Usenet archives or Google proper. You will find them. And, they will also work with a "blog" site, whatever
you may decide to define as a "blog".

That would be self-defined by the host.

The user chooses a template that contains both JS and CSS already. It's
been a way of helping me learn about something I know nothing about.
The templates are predefined but can be altered. Any alterations are
'to an extent' unless you are very capable at these things - which I am not.

[Randy Webb]

Sev wrote:

Randy Webb wrote:

Sev wrote:

Randy Webb wrote:

<snip>
"both browsers"? Are you referring to Safari and Konqueror by
chance? Or, Opera and ICEBrowser? Be careful when you say "both",
because there are, at least, 150 known browsers on the web.


Yeahbut I don't give a shit about the other 148. *Dramatic pause*

That's your loss

Not according to my site stats it isn't. 7,400 visits. 30 of which
weren't from IE or FF. 29 of those were Safari. 17 of those I can
track back to the DTP editor who says the site 'works'. I'm not about
to spend a week reading some Tolstoyesque manual for the sake of one
user. If my stats said otherwise, I would accommodate.

How dependable your site stats are is totally dependent on how those
stats are gathered though. If the stats are gathered based on the
userAgent string of the browser, then they are totally unreliable as
many browser/UA's fake the userAgent string to portray themselves as a
different browser/UA. The irony is that you have no entries for Opera
which is, to many, the #3 browser on the web. But how dependable your
stats are is another thread.

<snip>

Nah, nothing in Usenet is worth getting offended about.

Except for that bit where I used the word 'two' and you got all pissy
with me.

I give you my solemn word as an anonymous Usenet user that I didn't get
pissy. Nothing in Usenet is worth getting pissy about. I simply showed a
flaw in your reasoning.

It will all be gone by tomorrow anyway.

The problem is not this group, nor the 150 or so browsers. The problem
is your impossible requirements

An answer at last. Thank you.

Welcome, and good luck with the CSS menus if that is they way you decide
to go.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly

[Sev]

Randy Webb wrote:

Sev wrote:

Randy Webb wrote:

Sev wrote:

Randy Webb wrote:

<snip>
"both browsers"? Are you referring to Safari and Konqueror by
> chance? Or, Opera and ICEBrowser? Be careful when you say "both",
> because there are, at least, 150 known browsers on the web.

Yeahbut I don't give a shit about the other 148. *Dramatic pause*


That's your loss
Not according to my site stats it isn't. 7,400 visits. 30 of which
weren't from IE or FF. 29 of those were Safari. 17 of those I can
track back to the DTP editor who says the site 'works'. I'm not about
to spend a week reading some Tolstoyesque manual for the sake of one
user. If my stats said otherwise, I would accommodate.

How dependable your site stats are is totally dependent on how those
stats are gathered though. If the stats are gathered based on the
userAgent string of the browser, then they are totally unreliable as
many browser/UA's fake the userAgent string to portray themselves as a
different browser/UA.

I know a fake when I see it, Randy.
The irony is that you have no entries for Opera
You can't count.
which is, to many, the #3 browser on the web. But how dependable your
stats are is another thread.
Hey, you may have seen that the site is directed at 'local' (to me)
bands. It's a fucking miracle some of them have the savi to get an MP3
online, never mind give a toss what browser they're using, know what I'm
sayin'?
<snip>

Nah, nothing in Usenet is worth getting offended about.

Except for that bit where I used the word 'two' and you got all pissy
with me.

I give you my solemn word as an anonymous Usenet user that I didn't get
pissy. Nothing in Usenet is worth getting pissy about. I simply showed a
flaw in your reasoning.

No, you didn't. You assumed a flaw in my reasoning without asking me.
There's a big difference. I have justified why I said 'two'. I've also
assured you I can spot a fake. Now apologise this minute because I'm
almost getting to like you. And we can't have that.

It will all be gone by tomorrow anyway.

The problem is not this group, nor the 150 or so browsers. The
problem is your impossible requirements

An answer at last. Thank you.

Welcome, and good luck with the CSS menus if that is they way you decide
to go.

Mucho obligo.

[Randy Webb]

Sev wrote:

Randy Webb wrote:

Sev wrote:

Randy Webb wrote:

Sev wrote:

> Randy Webb wrote:
>
<snip>

>> "both browsers"? Are you referring to Safari and Konqueror by
>> chance? Or, Opera and ICEBrowser? Be careful when you say "both",
>> because there are, at least, 150 known browsers on the web.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yeahbut I don't give a shit about the other 148. *Dramatic pause*

That's your loss


Not according to my site stats it isn't. 7,400 visits. 30 of which
weren't from IE or FF. 29 of those were Safari. 17 of those I can
track back to the DTP editor who says the site 'works'. I'm not
about to spend a week reading some Tolstoyesque manual for the sake
of one user. If my stats said otherwise, I would accommodate.

How dependable your site stats are is totally dependent on how those
stats are gathered though. If the stats are gathered based on the
userAgent string of the browser, then they are totally unreliable as
many browser/UA's fake the userAgent string to portray themselves as a
different browser/UA.

I know a fake when I see it, Randy.

Cool, glad that you can.

The irony is that you have no entries for Opera

You can't count.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Hmmm, yes I can :)

which is, to many, the #3 browser on the web. But how dependable your
stats are is another thread.

Hey, you may have seen that the site is directed at 'local' (to me)
bands. It's a fucking miracle some of them have the savi to get an MP3
online, never mind give a toss what browser they're using, know what I'm
sayin'?

Uh huh :) I know some web savvy people that are not that lucky.

<snip>

Nah, nothing in Usenet is worth getting offended about.


Except for that bit where I used the word 'two' and you got all pissy
with me.

I give you my solemn word as an anonymous Usenet user that I didn't
get pissy. Nothing in Usenet is worth getting pissy about. I simply
showed a flaw in your reasoning.

No, you didn't. You assumed a flaw in my reasoning without asking me.

Hmmm, maybe.
There's a big difference. I have justified why I said 'two'. I've also
assured you I can spot a fake. Now apologise this minute because I'm
almost getting to like you. And we can't have that.

Uh oh, can't have anybody liking me, it might ruin my reputation. Shit.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly

[Sev]

Randy Webb wrote:

Sev wrote:

Randy Webb wrote:

Sev wrote:

Randy Webb wrote:

> Sev wrote:
>
>> Randy Webb wrote:
>>

<snip>

>>> "both browsers"? Are you referring to Safari and Konqueror by
>>> chance? Or, Opera and ICEBrowser? Be careful when you say "both",
>>> because there are, at least, 150 known browsers on the web.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yeahbut I don't give a shit about the other 148. *Dramatic pause*
>
>
>
>
>
>
> That's your loss

Not according to my site stats it isn't. 7,400 visits. 30 of which
weren't from IE or FF. 29 of those were Safari. 17 of those I can
track back to the DTP editor who says the site 'works'. I'm not
about to spend a week reading some Tolstoyesque manual for the sake
of one user. If my stats said otherwise, I would accommodate.


How dependable your site stats are is totally dependent on how those
stats are gathered though. If the stats are gathered based on the
userAgent string of the browser, then they are totally unreliable as
many browser/UA's fake the userAgent string to portray themselves as
a different browser/UA.

I know a fake when I see it, Randy.

Cool, glad that you can.

The irony is that you have no entries for Opera

You can't count.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Hmmm, yes I can :)

So you'll know that 29 from 30 doesn't leave 0.

No, you didn't. You assumed a flaw in my reasoning without asking me.

Hmmm, maybe.

Aww.

There's a big difference. I have justified why I said 'two'. I've
also assured you I can spot a fake. Now apologise this minute because
I'm almost getting to like you. And we can't have that.

Uh oh, can't have anybody liking me, it might ruin my reputation. Shit.

Well ok. Feel free to have an unnecessary go at me for anything in the
future - with my full blessing - but before you do, could you please
take a look here
http://www.featurestoday.co.uk/sport...ortcode=guidex
and tell me how ridiculously hard that would be to put on the front page
of my blogsite, as a navigation/changing 'news' text set-up, and that I
would be mental to even attempt it without the money or the experience...

[VK]

So what do you really want here? There is a *small* difference between
asking an advise/hint and a requirement to write a ready-to-use code
upon your requirements.

IE users constitute about 90% (often more) of the server stats. Around
15% of them prefer (or forced to physically) to use the keyboard as the
ultimate input device. That gives you (to be conservative) about 9% of
your daily visitors you are ready (or not) to send to the hell. *All
the rest is up to you*. If you think that the hell is their place
anyway, then:
<select name="foo" onchange="myFunction(this.selectedIndex)">

If you want to show some care about then, then the obstacles and
possible solutions have been shown in my previous postings. But again,
it's yours to decide.

[Randy Webb]

Sev wrote:

Randy Webb wrote:

<--snip-->

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Hmmm, yes I can :)

So you'll know that 29 from 30 doesn't leave 0.

That depends, totally, on context and what you are taking away from
what. If you have an array that has 30 elements, in order, starting at
0, and you take 29 elements away from the end, you are left at element
0. After all JScript, Javascript and ECMAScript all start counting at 0.

But, if you are referring to your browser stats, I place as much faith
in browser stats as I do the tooth fairy. But since you did not specify
that your one Opera user was the one you left out.....

<snip>

But, just for kicks and giggles (since you can spot a fake), what
browser produced this userAgent string:

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)

It's not what you think it is.

Uh oh, can't have anybody liking me, it might ruin my reputation. Shit.

Well ok. Feel free to have an unnecessary go at me for anything in the
future - with my full blessing - but before you do, could you please
take a look here
http://www.featurestoday.co.uk/sport...ortcode=guidex
and tell me how ridiculously hard that would be to put on the front page
of my blogsite, as a navigation/changing 'news' text set-up, and that I
would be mental to even attempt it without the money or the experience...

That depends on which parts of that page you are referring to. On a
quick glance, it looked relatively easy to duplicate.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly

[Sev]

Randy Webb wrote:

Sev wrote:

Randy Webb wrote:

<--snip-->

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Hmmm, yes I can :)

So you'll know that 29 from 30 doesn't leave 0.

That depends, totally, on context

It was your context.

You said: "The irony is that you have no entries for Opera"

You did not say: "Is the one remaining entry Opera by any chance?"

The latter would have presented you with a) an answer in the affirmative
and b) slightly less irony.
and what you are taking away from
what. If you have an array that has 30 elements, in order, starting at
0, and you take 29 elements away from the end, you are left at element
0. After all JScript, Javascript and ECMAScript all start counting at 0.

But, if you are referring to your browser stats, I place as much faith
in browser stats as I do the tooth fairy. But since you did not specify
that your one Opera user was the one you left out.....
You are right, I did not. I have also not specified what sex I am,
where I live or what I like to eat for breakfast.
<snip>

But, just for kicks and giggles (since you can spot a fake), what
browser produced this userAgent string:

Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)
I would say Mozilla but perhaps not exclusively. I would say it is not
IE. When I spoke of spotting a fake, I rather meant a user who is using
an anonymous browsing doobry (the technical term, I assure you). I'd
really rather not have to look up the answers to your questions next
time, so please stop trolling me.
It's not what you think it is.

Oh.

Uh oh, can't have anybody liking me, it might ruin my reputation. Shit.

Well ok. Feel free to have an unnecessary go at me for anything in
the future - with my full blessing - but before you do, could you
please take a look here
http://www.featurestoday.co.uk/sport...ortcode=guidex
and tell me how ridiculously hard that would be to put on the front
page of my blogsite, as a navigation/changing 'news' text set-up, and
that I would be mental to even attempt it without the money or the
experience...

That depends on which parts of that page you are referring to. On a
quick glance, it looked relatively easy to duplicate.

The main parts. The boxes and such. I like the snippet headlines with
the "more" option.

[Sev]

VK wrote:

So what do you really want here? There is a *small* difference between
asking an advise/hint and a requirement to write a ready-to-use code
upon your requirements.
I know. I just want to be told I can do it with no money and little
experience and that I'm not mental for trying.
IE users constitute about 90% (often more) of the server stats. Around
15% of them prefer (or forced to physically) to use the keyboard as the
ultimate input device. That gives you (to be conservative) about 9% of
your daily visitors you are ready (or not) to send to the hell.
If I made it look like the page in that link I would be alienating 9% of
visitors?
*All
the rest is up to you*. If you think that the hell is their place
anyway, then:
<select name="foo" onchange="myFunction(this.selectedIndex)">

If you want to show some care about then, then the obstacles and
possible solutions have been shown in my previous postings. But again,
it's yours to decide.

[VK]

> I just want to be told I can do it with no money

and little experience and that I'm not mental for trying.

Of course you can. But with little experience it will take *a lot* of
time and you may still miss some options. I started to prepare this
script, but I just droped it. Not because I'm not mental for it. It
just would take a full working day of writing and testing to make it
even semi-reliable (as long as JavaScript enabled). I don't feel like
to do it, sorry. Just the final aim itself is not inspiring enough.

"Buttonless select list" should take into account *at least* these
input alternatives:
1) Click the list, move over, click on the option.
2) Click the list, hold the button, drag to the option.
3) Click the list, scroll the list with mouse wheel, click the option.
4) Click the list, scroll using cursor keys, press <Enter> on the
option
5) Activate the list by pressing <Tab>, scroll using cursor keys, press
<Enter> on the option

Behind each of these options (and neither one of them is something
unusual) are your users. Also don't forget that each option must be
doubled for simple menu (size=1) and multiple list (size > 1) : there
are plenty of extra issues here. And after that it must be doubled
again to support at least Strict-DOM browsers (FF) and IE.

As a consolation I can repeat again that the "inspiring sites" you
wanted to imitate is the exact sample of sending your users to the
hell. All of them just doing
<..onchange="myFunction(this.selectedIndex"..> and feeling themselves
as great webmasters I guess.

[Randy Webb]

Sev wrote:

Randy Webb wrote:

Sev wrote:

Randy Webb wrote:

Well ok. Feel free to have an unnecessary go at me for anything in
the future - with my full blessing - but before you do, could you
please take a look here
http://www.featurestoday.co.uk/sport...ortcode=guidex
and tell me how ridiculously hard that would be to put on the front
page of my blogsite, as a navigation/changing 'news' text set-up, and
that I would be mental to even attempt it without the money or the
experience...

That depends on which parts of that page you are referring to. On a
quick glance, it looked relatively easy to duplicate.

The main parts. The boxes and such. I like the snippet headlines with
the "more" option.

The "more" option is a mere link to a different article for me. Probably
what they intended and what you like. Its a simple matter of an <a
href="somePage.html">More</a> type link. The layout itself, simply right
click, view source, save as, save it locally and edit out the parts you
don't want.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly

[Sev]

Randy Webb wrote:

Sev wrote:

Randy Webb wrote:

Sev wrote:

Randy Webb wrote:

Well ok. Feel free to have an unnecessary go at me for anything in
the future - with my full blessing - but before you do, could you
please take a look here
http://www.featurestoday.co.uk/sport...ortcode=guidex
and tell me how ridiculously hard that would be to put on the front
page of my blogsite, as a navigation/changing 'news' text set-up,
and that I would be mental to even attempt it without the money or
the experience...


That depends on which parts of that page you are referring to. On a
quick glance, it looked relatively easy to duplicate.

The main parts. The boxes and such. I like the snippet headlines
with the "more" option.

The "more" option is a mere link to a different article for me. Probably
what they intended and what you like. Its a simple matter of an <a
href="somePage.html">More</a> type link. The layout itself, simply right
click, view source, save as, save it locally and edit out the parts you
don't want.

Thanks. So what was the answer to your browser question?

[Randy Webb]

Sev wrote:

Randy Webb wrote:

Sev wrote:

Randy Webb wrote:

Sev wrote:

> Randy Webb wrote:
>
> Well ok. Feel free to have an unnecessary go at me for anything in
> the future - with my full blessing - but before you do, could you
> please take a look here
> http://www.featurestoday.co.uk/sport...ortcode=guidex
> and tell me how ridiculously hard that would be to put on the front
> page of my blogsite, as a navigation/changing 'news' text set-up,
> and that I would be mental to even attempt it without the money or
> the experience...

That depends on which parts of that page you are referring to. On a
quick glance, it looked relatively easy to duplicate.


The main parts. The boxes and such. I like the snippet headlines
with the "more" option.

The "more" option is a mere link to a different article for me.
Probably what they intended and what you like. Its a simple matter of
an <a href="somePage.html">More</a> type link. The layout itself,
simply right click, view source, save as, save it locally and edit out
the parts you don't want.

Thanks. So what was the answer to your browser question?

I have a menu thingie somewhere that does close to what that site does
but instead of the more link linking to a new page, it expands content.
I will try to find it and post a URL to it.

It was indeed IE6 :-)

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly

[Sev]

Randy Webb wrote:

Sev wrote:

Randy Webb wrote:

Sev wrote:

Randy Webb wrote:

> Sev wrote:
>
>> Randy Webb wrote:
>>
>> Well ok. Feel free to have an unnecessary go at me for anything
>> in the future - with my full blessing - but before you do, could
>> you please take a look here
>> http://www.featurestoday.co.uk/sport...ortcode=guidex
>> and tell me how ridiculously hard that would be to put on the
>> front page of my blogsite, as a navigation/changing 'news' text
>> set-up, and that I would be mental to even attempt it without the
>> money or the experience...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> That depends on which parts of that page you are referring to. On a
> quick glance, it looked relatively easy to duplicate.

The main parts. The boxes and such. I like the snippet headlines
with the "more" option.


The "more" option is a mere link to a different article for me.
Probably what they intended and what you like. Its a simple matter of
an <a href="somePage.html">More</a> type link. The layout itself,
simply right click, view source, save as, save it locally and edit
out the parts you don't want.

Thanks. So what was the answer to your browser question?

I have a menu thingie somewhere that does close to what that site does
but instead of the more link linking to a new page, it expands content.
I will try to find it and post a URL to it.

It was indeed IE6 :-)

Are you aware that you only smile at weekends? It's kinda cute.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Sev wrote:

Randy Webb wrote:

Whats wrong with this Usenet group?

No one answered. And now I've offended at least 148 people,

You have offended yourself by posting nonsense.

You probably have offended some people by your attitude and posting
style that does not take heed of the recommendations in the FAQ
(which includes, but is not limited to, undesired top-posting).

You have at least managed to piss me off this thread although I
probably could have helped you.

Congratulations.
PointedEars