 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneralPHPASPPerlColdFusionFlashHTML, CSS, ScriptsBrowsers |
Webmaster Forum / HTML, CSS, Scripts / CSS / May 2009CSS drop-down menus
I'm experimenting with drop-down menus using one of Stu Nichols' designs: http://www.cssplay.co.uk/menus/final_drop.html My test-case files: http://edmullen.net/menutest.php http://edmullen.net/styles/menutest.css Here's my problem. I can position the right and left fly-out third-level menus. However, if the text is zoomed/enlarged, the space between the second-level item and the fly-out changes. I've tried px, % and em units with no success. What's making me crazy is that my current menu scheme works fine when enlarging the text: The third-level menu stays locked to its parent. At this stage I'm only testing in SeaMonkey 1.1.16 and Firefox 2.0.0.20. I'll deal with IE versions later. Any help or advice greatly appreciated. I don't have enough hair left to keep pulling it out.  SignatureEd Mullen http://edmullen.net When cheese gets it's picture taken, what does it say? > I'm experimenting with drop-down menus ... > http://edmullen.net/menutest.php > Here's my problem. I can position the right and left fly-out > third-level menus. However, if the text is zoomed/enlarged, the space > between the second-level item and the fly-out changes. I've tried px, % > and em units with no success. I wouldn't expect px to be at all satisfying, althouth in the current form of the page you've pointed to, you're using them all over the place. > What's making me crazy is that my current menu scheme works fine when > enlarging the text: The third-level menu stays locked to its parent. Possibly I haven't understood your problem thoroughly, but I see that under MUSIC, the "sub" sits nicely to the left of "item w/ subs" no matter the text size, while under MOZILLA, "sub2" is a varying distance to the right of "item w/ subs", depending on font size ("sub2" is stays in the same place). I'm guessing you don't like the behavior under MOZILLA. Perhaps you would be happy with this: .menu ul ul ul { left: 10.3em; top: -1px; } in which I've changed your 182px to 10.3em. Tested (heh, sort of) in FF 2.0.0.20 using the Web Developer extension. > Any help or advice greatly appreciated. I don't have enough hair left > to keep pulling it out. I'd probably feel the same way if I had taht many stylesheets with that many menu rules. SignatureJohn >> I'm experimenting with drop-down menus ... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I wouldn't expect px to be at all satisfying, althouth in the current > form of the page you've pointed to, you're using them all over the place. So? Specific recommendations to change specific cases? Or is this just a general objection/criticism? >> What's making me crazy is that my current menu scheme works fine when >> enlarging the text: The third-level menu stays locked to its parent. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to the right of "item w/ subs", depending on font size ("sub2" is stays > in the same place). I'm guessing you don't like the behavior under MOZILLA. Did you try enlarging/zooming the text up and down? That's the problem. Regardless of what unit I use to position the 3rd level it's position relative to its parent 2nd level changes upon zooming. AND, if you view any of my regular pages (non-experimental menus) that does not happen. What I'm trying to figure out is why. > Perhaps you would be happy with this: > .menu ul ul ul { [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in which I've changed your 182px to 10.3em. Tested (heh, sort of) in FF > 2.0.0.20 using the Web Developer extension. Nope, doesn't change the problem of text zooming. And that is the crux of the problem. >> Any help or advice greatly appreciated. I don't have enough hair left >> to keep pulling it out. > > I'd probably feel the same way if I had taht many stylesheets with that > many menu rules. Not a helpful comment on the surface. However, without meaning to, you may have given me a hint. I took out the default.css style sheet from the test page. The problem of texst zooming and 3rd level positioning goes away. What is befuddling me about that is the cascade. The style sheets in the test page load in this order: default.css (this is loaded on every page on my site and the menus work as they should) menutest.css (the new experimental menu system style sheet.) So. 1. On all current non-test pages using default.css the menus have no positioning issue. 2. On the test page an additional style sheet is loading (menutest.css) and the test page has the positioning issue. 3. That leads me to think that something in menutest.css is over-riding something in default.css and this is causing the problem. 4. However, by removing default.css from the test page formatting, the positioning problem on text zooming goes away in the test page. Shouldn't menutest.css override the same declarations in default.css? If so, why does removing default.css from the cascade "fix" the problem? I have /very/ little hair left. In fact, I've checked and I have fresh razor blades and shaving cream in the bathroom for the morning. I may just do away with this whole issue that way. SignatureEd Mullen http://edmullen.net "A politician is a man who approaches every problem with an open mouth." - Adlai Stevenson > I'm experimenting with drop-down menus using one of Stu Nichols' designs: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > between the second-level item and the fly-out changes. I've tried px, % > and em units with no success. I looked at one of the samples here: http://www.cssplay.co.uk/menus/flyout2.html and notice that there is no problem there. So, I'm thinking you need to either pick a different menu (it is unreal the number he has made) or take the stylesheet back to square one and see what changes you've made that break it. On a side note. I've found that even in very complex multiple tier sites that such multiple flyouts aren't needed. I tend to do combos of menus with a context sensitive submenu. Of course, you may already have a specific use in mind. Jeff > What's making me crazy is that my current menu scheme works fine when > enlarging the text: The third-level menu stays locked to its parent. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Any help or advice greatly appreciated. I don't have enough hair left > to keep pulling it out. >> I'm experimenting with drop-down menus using one of Stu Nichols' designs: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > take the stylesheet back to square one and see what changes you've made > that break it. His originals (all that I have looked at) have a similar problem. If you zoom text in your browser, the menus fall apart. > On a side note. I've found that even in very complex multiple tier > sites that such multiple flyouts aren't needed. I tend to do combos of > menus with a context sensitive submenu. Of course, you may already have > a specific use in mind. It's an experiment, Jeff. I may have a need for it, I may not. I'm just trying to solve the zoom and positioning issue. The point is, the current scheme on my pages works at any reasonable zoom level (go to the link in my sig. Hover over a second-level link that leads to a 3rd level menu. Note the 3rd level position. Then text zoom up. Not the 3rd level menu horizontal position. No matter the zoom level the 3rd level menu is stuck to the parent 2nd level list.) and the experimental one does not. I'm trying to figure out why this experimental one does not, the specific issue being that the 3rd level positioning breaks when text zooming. And, listen, I freely admit I adapted these examples without a great deal of knowledge of the underlying logic to them. I accept the criticisms you all might offer given that statement. But that's not the issue. The issue is: What's going on and how to fix it. From this I hope to learn. I only have thirteen hairs left. SignatureEd Mullen http://edmullen.net Home computers are being called upon to perform many new functions, including the consumption of homework formerly eaten by the dog. - Doug Larson > > I'm experimenting with drop-down menus using one of Stu Nichols' designs: > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > take the stylesheet back to square one and see what changes you've made > that break it. Did you try looking at the Ruthsarian menus? There are drop down versions of those. http://webhost.bridgew.edu/etribou/layouts/rMenu/ ... Perhaps someone should remind everyone here that drop down menus are often a bloody nuisance to make and maintain, and often an excuse for poor design of the website in the first place. And multi level ones are often of doubtful value all things considered. They are to be avoided by anyone new to website making in the same way that website generators are to be avoided. Signaturedorayme Gazing into my crystal ball I observed dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> writing in news:doraymeRidThis- 78D8C5.08425209052009@news.albasani.net: > ... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > They are to be avoided by anyone new to website making in the same way > that website generators are to be avoided. Thank you, my dear friend! I am redoing a site [http://kitchenbuilders.net/]. It's got all sorts of problems. Probably the worst is a javascript generated multilevel menu. No js - no way to navigate. I was thinking about redoing correctly, but the more I think about it, the more I realize it's more a matter of reorganization that fixing bad navigation. I really don't like multi-level flyout type menus, they are a PITA if you don't move your mouse in just the right way. That goes for web based, and programs. SignatureAdrienne Boswell at Home Arbpen Web Site Design Services http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info Please respond to the group so others can share > Gazing into my crystal ball I observed dorayme > <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> writing in news:doraymeRidThis- [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > don't move your mouse in just the right way. That goes for web based, > and programs. Yes, I think good navigation follows naturally upon good organization. To try to fix up poor organization by a super drop down is really sweeping things under the carpet. A website is not like a city such as Sydney, easy enough to get about if you have a great street directory! I looked at the site you are to redo and that menu flashes on and off as you hold the mouse over it to read the submenus - very distracting! But, apart from this, here is a good example of what should be avoided. A nice thing for a home page to be is *uncomplicated*. Sure, folks want to know where to look for different sorts of slabs. But not everyone knows or is interested in what types there are straight off to the extent that they want to go to the trouble of doing pesky mousy things. A simple 'slabs' menu item should do, and on the destination, say to the page of the most popular type of slab, a visible local menu to pages for other slab types. What can be simpler and more useful? By the author choosing the most popular and likely page as destination, he or she caters for more people straight off. And others are not disadvantaged because they had to mess about the other way too (with the dropdown) (btw, considering a lot of the pics do not have captions, you have a perfect excuse to float them and avoid the table and its inability to wrap lines and so not be as flexible for different screens. Now, where is that thing I used for pics of my daughter's wedding? Here it is, you would need simpler still, no captions: <http://preview.tinyurl.com/2jcs5r> ) Signaturedorayme >> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed dorayme >> <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> writing in news:doraymeRidThis- [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Sydney, easy enough to get about if you have a great street > directory! Or Glendale, where the streets are in alphabetic order, well at least the ones that run north and south. > I looked at the site you are to redo and that menu flashes on and off > as you hold the mouse over it to read the submenus - very distracting! Yup, I don't like that either. > But, apart from this, here is a good example of what should be > avoided. A nice thing for a home page to be is *uncomplicated*. Sure, > folks want to know where to look for different sorts of slabs. But not > everyone knows or is interested in what types there are straight off > to the extent that they want to go to the trouble of doing pesky mousy > things. I had fun last night duplicating that first page. As you know, most of it is graphics, including all the text about the special. Completely unavailable to search engines and others. I'll be posting later with just that page, to see how and if it breaks. > A simple 'slabs' menu item should do, and on the destination, say to > the page of the most popular type of slab, a visible local menu to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > disadvantaged because they had to mess about the other way too (with > the dropdown) Yes, I was thinking of my friend the bread crumb trail. I really like those. Home-->Slabs-->Granite > (btw, considering a lot of the pics do not have captions, you have a > perfect excuse to float them and avoid the table and its inability to > wrap lines and so not be as flexible for different screens. Tables? Almost never use 'em, unless, of course, it's for real tabular data. I can stick a pic and a caption in a div, and float those til the cows come home. It's all going to be coming out from a db server side anyway, so it'll eventually be a piece of cake. > Now, where is that thing I used for pics of my daughter's wedding? > Here it is, you would need simpler still, no captions: > ><http://preview.tinyurl.com/2jcs5r> > ) Nice - I like it. Thank you, and hope you have a nice weekend. We're off to go to Los Angeles Union Station for National Train Day. My son, Spane (5), loves trains and Stephen (57, my partner) has never been on a train so it should be a really fun day. Happy Mother's Day to you! SignatureAdrienne Boswell at Home Arbpen Web Site Design Services http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info Please respond to the group so others can share > They are to be avoided by anyone new to website making in the same way > that website generators are to be avoided. Generators are to be avoided? Then how am I supposed to power my data center when the power grid fails, hmmm? Not everyone has access to your fancy Martian technology, you know! sherm-- SignatureMy blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net > > They are to be avoided by anyone new to website making in the same way > > that website generators are to be avoided. > > Generators are to be avoided? Then how am I supposed to power my data > center when the power grid fails, hmmm? Not everyone has access to your > fancy Martian technology, you know! I always recommend that *newbie data* centre operators operate the crank handle in such situations. Like on old Rovers and Bentleys when the batteries are flat. <g> Signaturedorayme >>> They are to be avoided by anyone new to website making in the same >>> way that website generators are to be avoided. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > crank handle in such situations. Like on old Rovers and Bentleys when > the batteries are flat. <g> Hamsters. One needs lots of hamsters. Lots of them running in little turbines. Lots. > ... > > Perhaps someone should remind everyone here that drop down menus are > often a bloody nuisance to make and maintain, Very very easy to maintain with javascript. If you put the list of items in an external javascript file you can update all the pages on your site at once, and if the list is driven by your CMS, trivial to maintain. CSS dropdowns are a different story. and often an excuse for > poor design of the website in the first place. And multi level ones are > often of doubtful value all things considered. I agree. Jeff > They are to be avoided by anyone new to website making in the same way > that website generators are to be avoided. >> Perhaps someone should remind everyone here that drop down menus are >> often a bloody nuisance to make and maintain, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > site at once, and if the list is driven by your CMS, trivial to > maintain. CSS dropdowns are a different story. Have to disagree with you there. Keeping your items in a server side include is one thing, but an external javascript is not going to be available for search engines and users without javascript. There is another post in this thread about a site I am redoing [http://kitchenbuilders.net] that uses a javascript menu such as you describe, and the site is not navigable with js off. SignatureAdrienne Boswell at Home Arbpen Web Site Design Services http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info Please respond to the group so others can share >>> Perhaps someone should remind everyone here that drop down menus are >>> often a bloody nuisance to make and maintain, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > include is one thing, but an external javascript is not going to be > available for search engines and users without javascript. What we often do in this group is concentrate on the very few and ignore the convenience of the vast majority. Any site with a site map will be indexed properly, and any well designed site will have more that one way of navigating. There is > another post in this thread about a site I am redoing > [http://kitchenbuilders.net] that uses a javascript menu such as you > describe, and the site is not navigable with js off. Typically the links in such a top nav should function and not point to "#". The type of navigation should be tuned to the site and the audience. Sites marketing to businesses behind firewalls would do well not having a javascript nav. Javascript is widely turned on (perhaps not in this group) and with such related bits as AJAX can do many of the same things as Flash, which is far less accessible and SEO friendly. With all that said, most sites I make use no javascript navigation, but some use javascript with some side nav also. Relying on multi tier js only is bad practice. Good navigation on complex sites is context sensitive. The trouble with so much of this is that navigation should be a means to an end. Often styling the navigation trumps styling the content. BTW, good luck with your redo, the html is a fright! Jeff >>>> Perhaps someone should remind everyone here that drop down menus >>>> are often a bloody nuisance to make and maintain, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Any site with a site map will be indexed properly, and any well > designed site will have more that one way of navigating. Absolutely, and when I can generate almost all of it server side, I'm a happy camper. > There is >> another post in this thread about a site I am redoing [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Typically the links in such a top nav should function and not point to > "#". Even worse, some of them are 404s. I would rather not go anywhere than go to a 404. > The type of navigation should be tuned to the site and the > audience. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > such related bits as AJAX can do many of the same things as Flash, > which is far less accessible and SEO friendly. AJAX! When it fails, it fails miserably. I was changing owership on a domain at GoDaddy yesterday, and the AJAX they used for that particular part was horrible. Opera did not work at all, Firefox did not show all my domains, IE chugged along and never produced a page - I gave up and used Chrome. > With all that said, most sites I make use no javascript navigation, > but some use javascript with some side nav also. Relying on multi tier [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > BTW, good luck with your redo, the html is a fright! Thank you. I know the markup is bad and terribly bloated, but I'll be cutting and pasting from the broswer, so no nasties in the finished markup. SignatureAdrienne Boswell at Home Arbpen Web Site Design Services http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info Please respond to the group so others can share >>> Have to disagree with you there. Keeping your items in a server side >>> include is one thing, but an external javascript is not going to be [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Absolutely, and when I can generate almost all of it server side, I'm a > happy camper. Ha! But there is the rub. If you use JavaScript to maintain and generate your site navigation AND hard code an alternate (or use server-side) then you now produce a maintenance problem, you have to sync TWO systems. I long ago had a JavaScript OOPs system that was efficient and easy BUT for the shortcomings previously mentioned. I found it was easier just to acknowledge that for now and in the foreseeable future sites CANNOT depend on JavaScript and JavaScript is ALWAYS optional. Bite the bullet and generate and maintain your site's navigation with server-side technologies. SignatureTake care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com >>>> Have to disagree with you there. Keeping your items in a server side >>>> include is one thing, but an external javascript is not going to be [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > your site navigation AND hard code an alternate (or use server-side) > then you now produce a maintenance problem, you have to sync TWO systems. Every site has (or should have) a structure. Generally subsections are nested in their parent section. Sometimes even more tiers are needed. It's like a family tier flowchart. I know that some of you are handcoding every page for your clients. I run almost all CMS and it's a simple matter to generate a list of all the sections on a site, or all the subsections,... Now, whether you use that to generate a javascript menu or a sidebar navigation, is immaterial. The CMS hold the site structure, and you slice and dice that as needed. There is no maintenance issue. > I long ago had a JavaScript OOPs system that was efficient and easy BUT > for the shortcomings previously mentioned. I found it was easier just to > acknowledge that for now and in the foreseeable future sites CANNOT > depend on JavaScript and JavaScript is ALWAYS optional. But it is almost always on. Bite the bullet > and generate and maintain your site's navigation with server-side > technologies. I only write static pages, except for stuff that is clearly dynamic. And I haven't seen a CSS based dropdown that I like, javascript flyouts have less trouble. Jeff > ... > > Perhaps someone should remind everyone here that drop down menus are > often a bloody nuisance to make and maintain, Agreed. Hence my quest for a better implementation. > and often an excuse for > poor design of the website in the first place. That seems a very generalized and out-of-hand comment and unsubstantiated. > And multi level ones are > often of doubtful value all things considered. Well, virtually every program on my Windows computers uses them. So. My premise is that *most* users/visitors will be familiar with the concept. Which was, by the way, not a Microsoft innovation, it was an Apple one. Or, more correctly, Apple stole it from PARC, MS stole it from Apple ... but, hey, drop-down menus? Of all the multi-millions of computer users today how many don't use them for hours every day? Hell, in this Mozilla-based email client I'm using I look up at the menu bar. I click on File. I get a drop-down menu with 10 options, three of which lead to another menu. > They are to be avoided by anyone new to website making So, could you suggest an alternative? Or are you just condemning? Should we make a Web site that deviates from the most-commonly used menu structure in the most-common OS? Or attempt to mimic it to give users something very familiar? I don't know about you, dorayme, but I enjoy not having to guess what human interface I need to employ. I prefer it when I see something familiar. Yes, I heard the comment about maintenance etc. Hello? That was the point of my experiment: I'm trying to find the latest and greatest, something that requires the fewest hacks for IE, something that is well-documented, simply templated. IT IS AN EXPERIMENT. Labeled as such. Now. I've abandoned Stu Nichols' stuff. Too pixel perfect, poorly documented, not easily adaptable. But, while that menu has died, relative to my OP, the discussion rages on ... SignatureEd Mullen http://edmullen.net "Yes, I guess, they oughtta name a drink after you." - John Prine ... > > and often an excuse for > > poor design of the website in the first place. > > That seems a very generalized and out-of-hand comment and unsubstantiated. I take it you disagree? Otherwise, presumably, my remark would not have been "very" unsubstantiated and "out of hand" in addition to being not substantiated there and then in the post. How do we settle this? Let's cut a bit of slack so we can have a bet. You have mentioned often how comfortable you are buckeroo-wise, so this will not be a bet for fun, this will be a potential retirement opportunity for me, old boy. Let's say we have an empirical test, I say that often multi level menus are an excuse for poor design. Let's say that this means for testing purposes that where we find multi level drop down menus there is a more than 25% chance that the site is poorly designed - 25% seems reasonable quantification for my vaguer "often". So, what we do is get sites with multi-level dropdowns at random and take a look at how well they are designed. (Please Ed, let's not have any controls on this experiment and get all complicated as this would delay my acquisition). > > And multi level ones are > > often of doubtful value all things considered. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > concept. Which was, by the way, not a Microsoft innovation, it was an > Apple one. Oh well then! An Apple one eh! I take all my words back and now say it is perfectly OK to use them everywhere! > Or, more correctly, Apple stole it from PARC, MS stole it > from Apple ... but, hey, drop-down menus? Of all the multi-millions of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > bar. I click on File. I get a drop-down menu with 10 options, three of > which lead to another menu. I say they are of doubtful value in websites and you reply that they are familiar to folk? Is this quite on the button? But let me make a remark on dropdowns in OSs anyway. Remember that in OSs we are talking a very controlled environment. Of course they are going to work damn well in that environment, the dropdown maker made the environment itself. In the case of the dropdowns put in by a website maker he is often more like *hoping* it will work in that big environment called the world, a world that he did not create and probably does not fully understand. A world of folk with different skills, different capacities, different equipment, different software (including IE). Just by the way, on an Apple Mac, the menu items have key commands next to them. Now that is really handy because it allows us to get away from the pesky things. It has been a long time since I used an Apple menu to copy or paste or save or save as, I can tell you. > > They are to be avoided by anyone new to website making > > So, could you suggest an alternative? Or are you just condemning? So, you don't bother to read my other posts at all? Not even in this thread? I don't blame you! It is always better to have a cartoon view of extra terrestrials. > Should we make a Web site that deviates from the most-commonly used menu > structure in the most-common OS? Or attempt to mimic it to give users > something very familiar? > > I don't know about you, dorayme, but I enjoy not having to guess what > human interface I need to employ. I prefer it when I see something familiar. Yes, of course, I am obviously advocating quite wild alternatives! Like a simple home page that simply lists the general sections of the website and local menus and breadcrumbs in the inner sections. That is so unfamiliar eh? Wild 'ol obscure me... I sooooo wish I was a regular good ol boy earthling... Keep your shirt on Ed.. It's Sunday and my head hurts from drinking some disgracefully cheap wine last night. I will never ever forgive the friend that supplied it, the miserable cheapskate sod... So please don't fly off the handle at my post that I have carefully crafted to drip with sarcasm and smarty pants remarks. Signaturedorayme > Keep your shirt on Ed.. It's Sunday and my head hurts from drinking some > disgracefully cheap wine last night. I will never ever forgive the > friend that supplied it, the miserable cheapskate sod... So please don't > fly off the handle at my post that I have carefully crafted to drip with > sarcasm and smarty pants remarks. Of all the things you said this makes the most sense to me. In fact, I think I shall join in the spirit of the statement and go get another drink. Other than that? A totally silly discussion. Look. You design your Web sites navigation your way. I'll design mine my way. Don't like mine? Don't visit. No problem! It is, for me, all a hobby. I don't care if anyone views the sites. It's an exercise. An experiment. Fun. Now, you and I disagree on the issue of drop-down menus. Fine. Call Bill Gates. It is a paradigm that is older than some of my grand-nephews. Sheesh. What the f.ck are we arguing about this for? Cripes. I asked a question seeking a solution to a technical problems. By the way, never mind, I don't care anymore. SignatureEd Mullen http://edmullen.net Why do you need a driver's license to buy alcohol when you can't drink and drive? *** > Of all the things you said this makes the most sense to me. I rather hoped you would have got a benefit from my remarks pointing you to *one of the reasons* why dropdowns are likely to work well in an OS rather than cross browser in a website (there are other reasons too. But because it seems from below that all I do is drive you to drink, I better not mention them) > Look. You design your Web sites navigation your way. I'll design mine > my way. Don't like mine? Don't visit. No problem! It is, for me, all > a hobby. I don't care if anyone views the sites. It's an exercise. An > experiment. Fun. I would far more prefer for you to design my websites and I do the drinking. > Now, you and I disagree on the issue of drop-down menus. Fine. Call > Bill Gates. It is a paradigm that is older than some of my > grand-nephews. Sheesh. What the f.ck are we arguing about this for? > Cripes. I *did* call Bill Gates this morning and we had a blazing row straight away. I said to him at one heated moment, "Do you have the slightest idea who I am" and he just completely and utterly blew his top. Such filthy words and phrases, my phone is still too hot to touch. The last thing I said to him was something like "Hey Dude, even your IE8 has bugs..." > I asked a question seeking a solution to a technical problems. By the > way, never mind, I don't care anymore. No, no, you are only pretending not to care, you can't fool me Ed. The only technical problem I can see on my Mac browsers at this very moment is 1. The second level item disappearing disconcertingly when hovered over while the third level appears. This looks weird to me and also has some aesthetic problems in that it sometimes slightly mars the white set color on hover having the effect of marring the text underneath. This comes from you not giving a background colour on your: div#menu ul#navigation li span.exlink:hover {...} Signaturedorayme > in that it sometimes slightly mars the white set > color on hover having the effect of marring the text underneath. That should better read: in that it sometimes slightly mars the body text underneath with the white set link hover text. (To see this, enlarge user text size so your menu drop downs go over you body text) Signaturedorayme > ... >>> and often an excuse for [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > than 25% chance that the site is poorly designed - 25% seems reasonable > quantification for my vaguer "often". Many beginning "web developers" are enamored with bells, whistles and tricks. Multi level dropdowns fall in that category and you are more apt to find multi tier websites there than elsewhere. That's not to say that multi tier sites could not be used in pro sites, indeed I can see potential uses in technical sites, but largely single tier takes enough room. Lets look at a few single tier websites: http://www.washingtonpost.com/?reload=true http://www.whitehouse.gov/ http://www.tomshardware.com Irregardless of what anyone here might consider, all are highly successful. And, you should note that the rolldown links are available elswhere. The rolldowns here serve as quick access navigation. I've spent a bit of time looking for multi tier pro sites and have come up empty... What have you got? > So, what we do is get sites with multi-level dropdowns at random and > take a look at how well they are designed. Jeff > > ... > >>> and often an excuse for [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > tricks. Multi level dropdowns fall in that category and you are more apt > to find multi tier websites there than elsewhere. I agree that there *could* be situations that would benefit from multi level drop down menus. It could be useful for people who *constantly* visit a site and know what they want. From the home page they can go *anywhere* (including mars). If author can be sure this will not annoy and confuse others, fine! ' > That's not to say that multi tier sites could not be used in pro > sites, indeed I can see potential uses in technical sites, but largely > single tier takes enough room. > > Lets look at a few single tier websites: Well, should we? The argument was really more about multilevel. Single dropdown is even something I have employed (very, very rarely). And, of course, if I have used something, it must be OK. > http://www.washingtonpost.com/?reload=true > > http://www.whitehouse.gov/ > > http://www.tomshardware.com As it happens, even single level, if combined with other incompetence, can be awful: <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/justPics/dropdownwashpost.png> The Whitehouse one seems more competent but it makes me realise how greatly I object to these drop downs now! It looks horrible and confusing because never mind the distracting moving Flash object underneath, it is too complicated! There are too many items! Who knows what the briefing room is or means? Sounds intriguing, OK. Then leave it be and make it a link to a page for this with a local menu (as happens roughly (except the site mappy breadcrumy thing is last on that destination - should be better organised). This is partly what I meant when I said these things are often an excuse not to design well. Thanks for the example Jeff! <g> > Irregardless of what anyone here might consider, all are highly > successful. And, you should note that the rolldown links are available [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Jeff Signaturedorayme >>> I'm experimenting with drop-down menus using one of Stu Nichols' designs: >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > http://webhost.bridgew.edu/etribou/layouts/rMenu/ I'll look into it tomorrow or the next day. But, just going to the link you posted sent me into sensory overload. I don't think I've seen more content posted on a single page - EVER. Either I've had too much to drink or not enough. I'll give it a go tomorrow. Much appreciate the suggestion. SignatureEd Mullen http://edmullen.net How much deeper would oceans be if sponges didn't live there? Wed, 06 May 2009 14:31:12 -0400 from Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net>: > I'm experimenting with drop-down menus using one of Stu Nichols' designs: > > http://www.cssplay.co.uk/menus/final_drop.html I don't know about that one in particular, but I found the ones that I've tried very frustrating because he does so much of them in pixels and with fixed font sizes. The result, as you observe, is that they don't scale at all well. It's a pity because he's obviously got a lot of ability and he is very generous in making these designs available. YMMV, but I found that once I had settled on one of his designs I had to do a lot of tweaking to make it work under even a reasonable amount of browser- based resizing. SignatureStan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com/ HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/ validator: http://validator.w3.org/ CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/ validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ Why We Won't Help You: http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you > Wed, 06 May 2009 14:31:12 -0400 from Ed Mullen <ed@edmullen.net>: >> I'm experimenting with drop-down menus using one of Stu Nichols' designs: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > tweaking to make it work under even a reasonable amount of browser- > based resizing. Yeah, that's what I'm finding, Stan. However, the reason I'm playing with it is that it doesn't require javascript and some other hacks to be workable in older versions of IE. SignatureEd Mullen http://edmullen.net We have enough youth. How about a fountain of smart? > I'm experimenting with drop-down menus using one of Stu Nichols' designs: ... > My test-case files: > > http://edmullen.net/menutest.php > > Any help or advice greatly appreciated. I don't have enough hair left > to keep pulling it out. Don't bite my head off Ed, but was there some problem getting rid of the validation errors I am seeing? I would think that maybe this is always a good start to eliminate things from our enquiries. I had you marked out for a position in my new vigilante detective frying squad (a team of undercover "chefs" I need for a special operation... don't ask). Signaturedorayme >> I'm experimenting with drop-down menus using one of Stu Nichols' designs: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > validation errors I am seeing? I would think that maybe this is always a > good start to eliminate things from our enquiries. I just had a friend that used one of these CSS menus. He then ran it through the validator and fixed all the errors. The end result result was that this worked fine in FF and IE7, but was hopelessly and very badly broken in IE6 and IE8. That may not be the case here, but perfectly Valid code does not necessarily make a well functioning site. Jeff > I had you marked out for a position in my new vigilante detective frying > squad (a team of undercover "chefs" I need for a special operation... > don't ask). > >> I'm experimenting with drop-down menus using one of Stu Nichols' designs: > >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > That may not be the case here, but perfectly Valid code does not > necessarily make a well functioning site. The point is always "that may not be the case". I train my detectives in interrogation as well as great violence and I tell them to try first to concentrate on the first skill. <g> You see, if you get it kosher first, you then have the lie of the land and can work out what to maybe do for IE's eyes. Signaturedorayme >>>> I'm experimenting with drop-down menus using one of Stu Nichols' designs: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > You see, if you get it kosher first, you then have the lie of the land > and can work out what to maybe do for IE's eyes. All that is fine if you wrote it and know what you are doing. Some of these CSS menus have complex bits in them to deal with these browsers. In the OPs case, I don't think anybody here understands just what all this html does. But the point I really wanted to make is that just because something is valid does not mean it makes sense or should even work as we think it should. You can write a lot of valid html that is complete nonsense, the validator can't tell. It's better not to use anything you don't understand. Jeff >> The point is always "that may not be the case". I train my detectives >> in interrogation as well as great violence and I tell them to try [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > In the OPs case, I don't think anybody here understands just what all > this html does. It's not the HTML that's the problem, it's the CSS. > It's better not to use anything you don't > understand. Umm, in my OP I pointed out that this is an experiment. How else would you suggest I figure out how this works? SignatureEd Mullen http://edmullen.net You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you. > That may not be the case here, but perfectly Valid code does not > necessarily make a well functioning site. True - but it does eliminate one possible cause when investigating a broken site. sherm-- SignatureMy blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net >> I'm experimenting with drop-down menus using one of Stu Nichols' designs: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > validation errors I am seeing? I would think that maybe this is always a > good start to eliminate things from our enquiries. Hey, no problem. And an always sensible suggestion. However, none of the HTML validation errors are in the menu structure, just the boilerplate body text. The two minor erros in the CSS also weren't causing any problem. > I had you marked out for a position in my new vigilante detective frying > squad (a team of undercover "chefs" I need for a special operation... > don't ask). Umm, ok, I'll await further instructions. :-) SignatureEd Mullen http://edmullen.net Confidence is the feeling you have before you really understand the problem. > > Don't bite my head off Ed, but was there some problem getting rid of the > > validation errors I am seeing? I would think that maybe this is always a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > boilerplate body text. The two minor erros in the CSS also weren't > causing any problem. I am sure you are right. I want now to modify my suggestion, to weaken or strengthen it depending on your point of view: If a troublesome layout has validation errors, either fix them up or don't. If you don't, consider saying you know they are irrelevant. Now, because I know this sounds a bit ... well... moralistic... I will compensate - I am reminded of this one because this morning I have to ring the tax office - with: <http://dorayme.890m.com/jokes/taxmanRabbi.html> Signaturedorayme |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.