|
|
Posted by James Hutton on 06/22/06 11:14
Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote:
> James Hutton wrote:
>
>> I've just completed a small site (DW 8.02), and on one of the pages is a
>> jump menu with about 75 links on it.
>
> As general web design, there's a significant problem with that page in
> that it's entirely dependent on JavaScript. This really isn't a good
> idea, not just because of AOL.
>
> I strongly suggest that you re-write it. A simple list is bulky, but
> much more accessible to some users.
>
> Ideally I'd suggest that you write the page as two <div>s. The upper
> one contains the <select>s you have at present. The lower one is
> simple lists, as <dl> or <ul>
>
> In CSS, make the top <div> (with the <select>s) display:none; If it's
> not going to work, there's no sense in taunting the poor users with it.
> Make the lower <div> (lists) normally visible.
>
> In some JavaScript on the page onload event, turn on the display of the
> top <div> and turn off the display of the lower <div>. This will only
> happen for users who are running JavaScript, so everyone gets the
> appropriate sort of interface. You might even leave the lists visible
> -- JavaScript users can always scroll down to look at them, they're not
> actually harmful.
>
> Leave the print CSS for the big list so that it always prints, even if
> normally hidden (by JavaScript). This gives a much more useful page
> when printed.
>
> When making big lists of external links, it's also my practice to
> duplicate the URL onto the page and to have it printed (by CSS), not
> usually displayed on screen. This makes hard-copy paper records of the
> page far more useful in the future.
>
> As to the AOL problem, then you've used the JavaScript evil() function
> -- sorry, eval().
> You never need this -- once in a blue moon, it's that rare. It also
> causes no end of trouble with browsers, particularly if one is being at
> all security conscious. Just avoid it entirely, you certainly don't
> need it here. Write some simple JavaScript navigation code.
>
>
> PS - You've no CSS background-color set either
>
Andy,
Many thanks for your detailed reply, rewrites in the pipeline.
James
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|