how do they do that?

[Paperhat]

Hi there,

I came across a website using this great effect displaying photos. I
know it has to be Javascript, is there a ready-made script for it?
http://cabellhuntington.org/features/photo_gallery/national_cancer_survivors_day/

Thanks in advance.

Ed

 

[Square]

Hi there,

I came across a website using this great effect displaying photos. I
know it has to be Javascript, is there a ready-made script for it?
http://cabellhuntington.org/features/photo_gallery/national_cancer_su...

Thanks in advance.

Ed

If u now using firefox, can install the firebug plugin.when do
that,then u can see all the scripts.

 

[RobG]

Hi there,

I came across a website using this great effect displaying photos. I
know it has to be Javascript, is there a ready-made script for it?
http://cabellhuntington.org/features/photo_gallery/national_cancer_su...

View the page source. It uses a combination of: Prototype.js,
scriptaculous.js and lightbox.js. The effect may look cool the first
couple of times you see it, but it very quickly becomes a boring waste
of time while you wait for the image to display.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

JavaScript? No doubt. It doesn't work in Netscape. That usually means
that JavaScript is involved.

You could not be more wrong. (Netscape) JavaScript of course works in
Netscape since Netscape version 2.0. It is only that few script authors
watch for backwards compatibility.

http://PointedEars.de/scripts/es-matrix

Fortunately, (for the site owner) I am one of the few remaining Netscape
users.

Of which version?


F'up2 comp.lang.javascript

PointedEars

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

View the page source. It uses a combination of: Prototype.js,
scriptaculous.js and lightbox.js. [...]

OMG.


Regards,

PointedEars

 

[Tim Slattery]

JavaScript? No doubt. It doesn't work in Netscape. That usually means
that JavaScript is involved.

Javascript works just fine in Netscape. After all, Netscape pioneered
Javascript!

I'd guess that what's happening is that the Javascript is using
something that's proprietary to MS and works only on IE.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Posted & mailed, because my news server doesn't have
alt.comp.lang.javascript (probably long dead but still with
news.comcast.com), and the poster may not be subscribed to cljs.

Which was actually my point.

You are missing the point completely, maybe intentionally.

There is a lot of JavaScript that does not work cross-browser. Tricky
gizmos, like the one the OP described as "great" often don't work in all
browsers. This leaves some visitors looking at a site that does not work
at all. That isn't a feature I want on my site.

That is not a flaw of JavaScript, but of the authors.

If a site falls apart in Netscape, chances are that JavaScript is involved.

Utter nonsense, chances are that untested MSHTML-proprietary scripting and
DOM usage is involved then.

Do you even read what was posted[1] or are you just trolling?

[1] includes

PointedEars

 

[Paperhat]

Which was actually my point. There is a lot of JavaScript that does not
work cross-browser. Tricky gizmos, like the one the OP described as
"great" often don't work in all browsers. This leaves some visitors
looking at a site that does not work at all. That isn't a feature I want
on my site.

If a site falls apart in Netscape, chances are that JavaScript is involved.

In defense of the site in question, the site does not fall apart without
Javascript support. Furthermore, the effect I wanted to know more about
may not be available without Javascript support, but basic links to the
photos remain. Thus, I do not see it as a hinderance.

Ed

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

I'd guess that what's happening is that the Javascript is using
something that's proprietary to MS and works only on IE.

Which was actually my point. There is a lot of JavaScript that does not
work cross-browser. Tricky gizmos, like the one the OP described as
"great" often don't work in all browsers. This leaves some visitors
looking at a site that does not work at all. That isn't a feature I want
on my site.
[...]

In defense of the site in question, the site does not fall apart without
Javascript support.

It should not fall apart at all. Applying methods of graceful degradation,
any Web site can be made so that it works without client-side scripting,
with client-side scripting but different script engines, and full support
for the used features. And that seldom would include maintaining two or
more versions of the site, as HTML degrades gracefully by default.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - [spam]

Please find a news server and a newsreader.


PointedEars

 

[RobertVA]

Javascript works just fine in Netscape. After all, Netscape pioneered
Javascript!

I'd guess that what's happening is that the Javascript is using
something that's proprietary to MS and works only on IE.

IF you are talking about the slide show feature, it's working fine for
me in Firefox version 2.0.0.6

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

IF you are talking about the slide show feature, it's working fine for
me in Firefox version 2.0.0.6

With "Netscape" probably Netscape 4.06+ is meant, which supports only
JavaScript 1.3 (as Netscape 6.22+ supports JavaScript 1.5 and the W3C DOM
as all Gecko-based UAs do). But as the aforementioned Web site uses
lightbox.js, which requires scriptaculous.js which requires Prototype.js
which needlessly uses features that are not in JavaScript 1.3, without
handling the possibility of an older script engine, it breaks there.

It all boils down to the author of Prototype.js doing a mindbogglingly bad
job, other people being incompetent enough not to recognize that, who build
libraries that depend on Prototype.js and probably doing their job badly,
too, and other people who build libraries that depend on those, probably
doing their part of making the code base even worse. Then the users of the
latter library end up with incompatible code because they are incompetent
enough not to recognize why the underlying concept is helplessly flawed and
because they test only on their favorite browser(s) as they rely only on the
statements of the fools who wrote the libraries.

This is how come that especially JavaScript and client-side scripting in
general, and last but not least reasonable developers of client-side
scripting, are eventually discredited among end users. Up to the point that
someone actually states ridiculously in this newsgroup that if something
does not work in the browser of the company who first implemented the
JavaScript language as invented by one of their employees (Brendan Eich)
usually means that this language is involved.

One could have a good laugh about all that nonsense if the outcome
wasn't so sad.


PointedEars

 

[Paperhat]

The script in question being used is called "Lightbox 2.0", its used on a
number of websites and *degrades gracefully* when Javascript isn't enabled
on a browser.

It's frightfully easy to get going, is free (donations accepted) and *
works on all modern browsers *

http://www.huddletogether.com/projects/lightbox2/

Thank you very much - I am eager to try it out. I am usually not one
for such eye-candy but indeed, I viewed the page without Javascript and
all content remained accessible.

Ed

 

[Jake Barnes]

Tim Slattery wrote:
I'd guess that what's happening is that the Javascript is using
something that's proprietary to MS and works only on IE.
Which was actually my point. There is a lot of JavaScript that does not
work cross-browser. Tricky gizmos, like the one the OP described as
"great" often don't work in all browsers. This leaves some visitors
looking at a site that does not work at all. That isn't a feature I want
on my site.
[...]

In defense of the site in question, the site does not fall apart without
Javascript support.

It should not fall apart at all. Applying methods of graceful degradation,
any Web site can be made so that it works without client-side scripting,
with client-side scripting but different script engines, and full support
for the used features. And that seldom would include maintaining two or
more versions of the site, as HTML degrades gracefully by default.

The lightbox is fairly unobtrusive. The whole site works just fine
without Javascript. The Javascript is just an added visual feature,
for visitors who have browsers that support it. I don't see that this
script violated any principle of unobtrusive Javascript.

 

[Jake Barnes]

With "Netscape" probably Netscape 4.06+ is meant, which supports only
JavaScript 1.3 (as Netscape 6.22+ supports JavaScript 1.5 and the W3C DOM
as all Gecko-based UAs do). But as the aforementioned Web site uses
lightbox.js, which requires scriptaculous.js which requires Prototype.js
which needlessly uses features that are not in JavaScript 1.3, without
handling the possibility of an older script engine, it breaks there.

What are you talking about? The content of the site is accessible with
Javascript turned off. Therefore the site obeys the principles of
unobtrusive Javascript. I don't see how the word "breaks" is
justified.

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Scott Bryce [...] wrote [...]:

Netscape 7.2, no.
Netscape 8.0, yes.
FireFox 2.0.0.6, no.

I don't know what your settings are, but certainly it has worked flawlessly
for me since Firefox 1.5 ... 2.0.0.6 and 2.0.0.7 included

JFTR: Netscape 8.0+ uses MSHTML instead of Gecko when convenient which
would explain why it works there.

Please stop crossposting to alt.comp.lang.javascript, that group is
dead on Usenet (i.e. properly configured Usenet servers don't have it anymore).


PointedEars

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

What are you talking about? The content of the site is accessible with
Javascript turned off.

You miss the point. See the marker above.

Therefore the site obeys the principles of unobtrusive Javascript.

"Unobtrusive JavaScript" is but a buzzword used by people who don't know
how to use built-in properties of standard HTML to facilitate graceful
degradation and use inherently error-prone proprietary approaches instead.

I don't see how the word "breaks" is justified.

If a site *breaks* (i.e. does not work without errors) with a support for
a technology present and enabled (as it is with JavaScript support and
Netscape 4.x), or absent or disabled, it is seriously broken and not
accessible at all (because to make it work required efforts by the *user*).
As simple as that.


PointedEars

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

"Unobtrusive JavaScript" is but a buzzword used by people who don't know
how to use built-in properties of standard HTML to facilitate graceful
degradation

-- or refuse to see that, I might add --

and use inherently error-prone proprietary approaches instead.
[...]

PointedEars

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

It should not fall apart at all. Applying methods of graceful degradation, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
any Web site can be made so that it works without client-side scripting, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
with client-side scripting but different script engines, and full support ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
for the used features. And that seldom would include maintaining two or
more versions of the site, as HTML degrades gracefully by default.

The lightbox is fairly unobtrusive. The whole site works just fine
without Javascript. [...]

 

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn [...]:

Please stop crossposting to alt.comp.lang.javascript, that group is
dead on Usenet (i.e. properly configured Usenet servers don't have it
anymore).

I was just wondering if it were possible for you to make a post without
admonishing someone or complaining!

I have made a polite and well-founded request. If you cannot differentiate
that from admonishing or complaining, you are definitely wrong here.


PointedEars, Score adjusted

 

[Steve Swift]

I was just wondering if it were possible for you to make a post without

I have made a polite and well-founded request. If you cannot differentiate
that from admonishing or complaining, you are definitely wrong here.

Or, more succinctly, "No".