|
|
Posted by Guy Doucet on 06/02/05 13:57
"dorayme" <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:BEC4FD1F.122B2%dorayme@optusnet.com.au...
> > From: "Guy Doucet" <someone@somewhere.nb.ca>
>
> > This is just an example of the real site I'm working on, but this
example
> > works the same way.
> >
> > http://www3.nbnet.nb.ca/gljsd/map/index.htm
>
>
> Excuse me for not dealing with this particular url (it is too crazy for
> words on my browsers. A pop up window opens - for some unknown reason -
that
> is way too small and to make matters truly worse (and here is the real
> craziness), it itself has a further sub window within it that has
scollbars.
> Surely this cannot be any kind of useful lead to any problem anyone has?).
This is just an example of how it works. In this example, I made the popup
window bigger than the sub window making it easier for you -maybe- to access
the source code. With IE you right click on the page and click View Source.
But since the sub window is an image, when you right click on it you would
not get the option to View Source.
In the real site, the popup window and the sub window are the same size. The
map is approx 2000x2000 pixels, and the window is 650 x 1000 pixels which
fits on our monitors which are set to 1024 x 768 pixels. So it's not really
a small window.
I the example, I made the map and the window smaller to save bandwidth.
> I wonder again about your original query: how many links are there in fact
> in the list that can be chosen by users? You have 50 "red squares"
> representing offices. You have 100 cells representing each 1/100th of the
> map. (See your original post). Why these relative figures for a start? Are
> 50 of the squares not to be highlighted because not containing offices? If
> so, why have so many cells? OK, there may be reasons...
I haben't finished yet. To be honest, I haven't counted all the offices yet
either. There are probably between 50 and 100. They will all be included.
> If the list is just to 50, 50 html pages each with a cell different is not
> that bad (They are all nearly the very same following the scheme I
suggested
> earlier. It is rock solid for all browsers. No rollovers, no javascript,
no
> hanky panky like in this url.)
I will re-examine your earlier post.
> dorayme
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|