Having trouble removing banner (image in a div)

[Terry]

Hi foks.

I am trying to use javascript to cause a banner to show at the bottom
of the browser 30 seconds after the document has loaded. After the
banner appears user should have ability to close the banner.

Unfortunately, my code is closing the banner, refreshing the screen
and then causing the banner to reappear 30 seconds later. I also get
an error message saying that one of my javascript functions cannot be
found.

I would appreciate help with this.

The url is: http://theamazing.onlinewebshop.net/traditional/traditional-kitchens.html

Thanks in advance,
Terry

 

[Terry]

In which one of those 9 external files do you want me to spend my free
morning looking through to try to find the problem?

Thanks Randy. I fixed the problem I had a typo in one of my
functions.

The site was already created and the designer wanted someone to add
the functionality where the banner would appear at the bottom of the
page 30 seconds after the document loaded. He also wanted it to
resize horizontally with the browser. And finally he wanted the
ability to close the banner as well.

I am wondering if anyone out there is using safari or anything on a
mac. I am hoping that it is okay there as well.

Thanks,
Terry

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

From what I understand (I haven't tested personally, it is only from
what I read), the Windows version of Safari (3.0) is extremely close (if
not exactly) equal to the Mac version of Safari as far as what it does
or doesn't support.

Our CSS tests say otherwise. I would expect that there are differences
regarding scripting as well.

It is part of the reason Safari was ported to Windows was to allow Mac
testing on a PC (or close to it).

So far that is merely your unfounded assumption.


PointedEars

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 10/13/2007 4:28 AM:

My response was with regards to scripting support. Are there
differences?

I am going to find that out from the moment on Safari for Windows becomes
viable for such comparative tests, i.e. when it exits beta status.

I am sure there will be simply because of the differences in the OS they
are running on.

Have you not just stated that you understand from what you have read that
there are/will be few differences, if any?

That was an "unfounded assumption" that was read on the Safari site.

Given that you argued before that just because of the differences in the OS
there will be differences in the UA, this statement which "was read" (by
whom?) would be rendered ridiculous. You have just managed to produce two
contradictory arguments in only one posting.

And I don't see it there. URL?


PointedEars

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 10/13/2007 6:40 AM:

Wouldn't it be a better time to find out while it is in Beta so it could
be reported to Safari and hopefully corrected before it exits beta
status?

My point is that a *comparitative test* does not make sense until then,
unless that test is used to initiate changes towards similar support,
provided that this support is intended or even possible (which I seriously
doubt).

<sigh> Pedanticism is amazing sometimes.

It is rather your argumentation that is confused and contradictory more
often than it is not; what you call pedantism is merely the need for
exactness which is then required to point out the contradictions.

There is, to me, a world of difference between a "few differences" and
totally different.

Doesn't matter. You have stated something and then stated something only a
few lines below from which follows the exact opposite of what you had said
before. I don't think this was intentional (I do hope it was not), however
it needed to be pointed out.

You missed "(or close to it)" but I didn't expect otherwise.

I did not miss it, it did matter and I considered it in my argument.
Nevertheless that did not help your argumentation to walk.

Only in your mind.

No, in objective terms.

FIYFS.

Pardon?


PointedEars

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 10/14/2007 2:12 PM:

Isn't that the purpose of a Beta release though? For people to test it,
point out problems, and request changes to it before a Final Release?
The chances of something getting corrected, to me, are better when it is
Beta than when it is Final Release.

So, if someone were to have the capability to test the two against one
another, then it could be sent to Safari in the hopes they would make
the two browsers behave the same (as closely as possible) before
releasing a final release.

I think you misunderstand my point. Anybody is welcome to try to convince
the Safari developers to fix what they consider a bug or an inconsistence
as compared to Safari for the Mac, or contribute to the code themselves. I
just don't think it is wise for a software developer who writes client-side
script code to make design decisions or recommendations based on what a beta
version supports or does not support, for precisely that reason.

In the end, my personal opinion is that if Safari/Win doesn't act/behave
the same way as Safari/Mac then it will go the way of Netscape4 as the
only reason Windows user would ever have a need for it is parallel testing.

Given the statements Apple makes on the Safari Web site then there may be
greater an incentive for Joe User to use Safari on Windows than you now
think. For example, who would not really want such fast a browser?


PointedEars

 

[David Cox]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 10/13/2007 6:40 AM:

Wouldn't it be a better time to find out while it is in Beta so it could
be reported to Safari and hopefully corrected before it exits beta status?


<sigh> Pedanticism is amazing sometimes. There is, to me, a world of
difference between a "few differences" and totally different. If the list
of differences were 5 or so then there are only a few differences and
testing on one would give you a pretty good, and reliable, indication of
what would happen in the other version. If there were hundreds of
differences in the two then testing on one wouldn't mean a thing about the
other.


You missed "(or close to it)" but I didn't expect otherwise.


Only in your mind.


FIYFS.

Your signature is broken.

--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/index.html
Javascript Best Practices -
http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

I did a search of FIYFS, because I did not know what it meant, but only dug
up sites relating to Tamil culture. Never afraid to ask a stupid question I
was just about to ask, when the translation came to mind.

I now worry I am spending too much time reading this group. :-<

 

[David Mark]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn said the following on 10/14/2007 3:38 PM:








That statement on the Safari site was a joke to me. Faster than IE? Not
in my testing it isn't. Faster than Firefox? Not in my testing it isn't.
It takes 10 times longer to load the browser itself and about that long
for it to retrieve and load a simple webpage. In short? The claim of it
being faster than other browsers, in my experience, is utterly false.

Not to mention that it is outrageously slow resizing and re-painting
in response to a maximize or restore command (and crashes sometimes as
well.) The only good thing I can say about it performance-wise is
that its rendering of scripted animations is on par with IE (ie very
fast and smooth.) Its font rendering is nice too. Other than that, I
can't imagine a Windows user wanting anything to do with it (at least
not in its current form.)