Prev: sorry for the link in the footer
Next: Javascript Concatenator - has bugs
From: Scott Sauyet on 12 Apr 2010 16:47
On Apr 12, 7:55 am, Richard Cornford wrote:
> On Apr 12, 12:52 am, Stefan Weiss wrote:
>> On 11/04/10 16:03, VK wrote:

>>> So the initial functionality
>>>  "imgOver.src = 'some/url';" equals image precaching
>>> had to be blocked. As it was still POD era, rollovers became slow
>>> again on the first pass and caused a lot of complains about "my old
>>> menu doesn't behave as before" By the connection speed increase this
>>> issue became eliminated by itself, as delays became hardly
>>> noticeable. Also a workaround became used by caching images over
>>> hidden (i)frame instead of imgOver.src = 'some/url';
>
>> What? I never heard about any "cache overflow attack" or any of the
>> other stuff you mentioned, and I certainly wouldn't recommend using
>> a hidden Iframe to preload images (and why should Iframes be
>> immune to this "attack"?). Could you provide a source or citation?
>
> What is the correct form of citation for; made up off the top of his
> head?

I believe MLA style is sufficient:

VK. "FAQ Topic - Why are my rollovers so slow?",
comp.lang.javascript:
top of head, 11 April 2010.

-- Scott
From: Dr J R Stockton on 14 Apr 2010 13:06
In comp.lang.javascript message <hptjqk$lv0$1(a)news.eternal-
september.org>, Sun, 11 Apr 2010 15:51:58, Garrett Smith
<dhtmlkitchen(a)gmail.com> posted:

>>> FAQ Topic - Why are my rollovers so slow?

As a question, that presumes that a user of "rollovers" will actually
recognise the word. A coder who has copied rollover code from a Web
site that uses them will not necessarily know the word.

Would this be a rollover? :
<input type=button value='expected'
onmouseover="this.value='arrived'"
onmouseout="this.value='departed'">
Of course, that should not be slow.

Consider the display of an ornate digital clock, in which the digits are
images. As I see it, that's not a rollover. But the answer to coding a
rollover may also be the answer to coding a fancy clock.

In composing a FAQ entry, one question should be "Is this answer more
general than the original question needs, or can it readily be made so?"
If the answer is "Yes", then the question needs to be generalised.

Maybe the question should be "Why do my images reload so slowly" or "My
images reload too slowly; what can be done?", with rollovers and clocks
being mentioned as examples[*].


[*] Clock proliferation is pointless; but, as everyone knows what a
clock should do, they provide a good example.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
From: nick on 14 Apr 2010 21:22
On Apr 11, 10:03 am, VK <schools_r...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 3:00 am, "FAQ server" <javascr...(a)dotinternet.be> wrote:
>
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > FAQ Topic - Why are my rollovers so slow?
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> [...]
> Someone should finally remove this IE/NN 4 times silliness from the
> FAQ.

If the entry is really meant to target rollovers, and most of the
entry is not javascript related anyway, wouldn't it be best to suggest
using single-image CSS background-position rollovers? I think this is
generally accepted as being the proper way to handle rollover images
now days. For example Apple uses this technique for their site
navigation...

http://images.apple.com/global/nav/images/globalnavbg.png

-- Nick
From: Garrett Smith on 16 Apr 2010 02:49
Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> In comp.lang.javascript message <hptjqk$lv0$1(a)news.eternal-
> september.org>, Sun, 11 Apr 2010 15:51:58, Garrett Smith
> <dhtmlkitchen(a)gmail.com> posted:
>
>>>> FAQ Topic - Why are my rollovers so slow?
>
> As a question, that presumes that a user of "rollovers" will actually
> recognise the word. A coder who has copied rollover code from a Web
> site that uses them will not necessarily know the word.
>
> Would this be a rollover? :
> <input type=button value='expected'
> onmouseover="this.value='arrived'"
> onmouseout="this.value='departed'">
> Of course, that should not be slow.
>
> Consider the display of an ornate digital clock, in which the digits are
> images. As I see it, that's not a rollover. But the answer to coding a
> rollover may also be the answer to coding a fancy clock.
>
> In composing a FAQ entry, one question should be "Is this answer more
> general than the original question needs, or can it readily be made so?"
> If the answer is "Yes", then the question needs to be generalised.
>
> Maybe the question should be "Why do my images reload so slowly" or "My
> images reload too slowly; what can be done?", with rollovers and clocks
> being mentioned as examples[*].
>
"Why do my images reload so slowly"

CSS sprites technique may also be used effectively.

A link might also be added. I haven't reviewed this, but maybe:
<http://css-tricks.com/css-sprites/>
--
Garrett
comp.lang.javascript FAQ: http://jibbering.com/faq/
From: VK on 16 Apr 2010 14:01
On Apr 12, 3:55 pm, Richard Cornford <Rich...(a)litotes.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> Since the point of a FAQ is to provide the answers to questions that
> get frequently asked in order that it is possible for people to
> quickly find those answers, and so don't need to ask (and so don't
> need to be given repetitive answers), observing that a question
> answered in a FAQ is not frequently asked might be no more than
> testimony that the FAQ is doing its job.

Such logic is bulletproof ad absurdum. This way we may add a pizza
recipe to the FAQ and say that the fact of no one asking about it in
here just demonstrates that this exact FAQ was really needed and does
its jobe well :-)

How about removing some FAQs on a monthly basis to see if relevant
questions ever arise?


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: sorry for the link in the footer
Next: Javascript Concatenator - has bugs