|
Posted by dorayme on 02/16/07 21:58
In article <orednUC73pvY60jYnZ2dnUVZ8tOmnZ2d@pipex.net>,
"Brian Cryer" <brian.cryer@127.0.0.1.ntlworld.com> wrote:
> "dorayme" <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> > The difficulties of cross popular browser implementation -
> > without using frames (which have other unrelated problems) - are
> > a good reason to consider it is not worth using fixed. So too is
> > something not mentioned so far. Some people report a jerkiness in
> > the scrolling as a side effect. This also is a good argument
> > against.
>
> I'd always assumed that the "jerkiness" was because the implementation
> relied on JavaScript - at least on the sites I've seen (but then I never
> actually looked to see how it was implemented).. If I ever do decide to go
> down this route I'll try a prototype out on a number of browsers. Certainly
> if its "jerky" then that's a good reason for not doing it.
>
Well no... no lesser a being than Spartanicus [God] has reported
this as a result of css implementation. Imagine how it shakes and
shudders for lesser mortals...
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|