Okay, it isn’t possible (as far as I know) to assign more than one
background image to a page. However, it is quite possible to assign a
background image to a layer (div), have that container stretch with
the page width, and set different alignment attributes for different
ones. I haven’t dug deep into the page but I’m fairly sure that’s how
that is done.
Multiple background images are supported in CSS3 but browser support
is limited, at least it was when I tried this trick. I had put
together an example at one time using divs but there’s no reason it
would work as a page background. There are a lot of tutorials to be
found. Google “multiple background images css3” or similar.
Todd
On Oct 28, 2009, at 12:51 PM, Keith Martin wrote:
Okay, it isn’t possible (as far as I know) to assign more than one
background image to a page.
Oh that’s great, thank you Todd!!! (and Keith from early post : )
|
On Oct 28, 2009, at 11:09 AM, Todd wrote:
Multiple background images are supported in CSS3 but browser support
is limited, at least it was when I tried this trick. I had put
together an example at one time using divs but there’s no reason it
would work as a page background. There are a lot of tutorials to be
found. Google “multiple background images css3” or similar.
Todd
On Oct 28, 2009, at 12:51 PM, Keith Martin wrote:
Okay, it isn’t possible (as far as I know) to assign more than one
background image to a page.
Hi Jamie,
Looking at the source code for the page you’ll see, as Keith
suspected, that the technique uses nested divs each with a background
image that floats over the last.
Here’s another cool one;
Hi Jamie,
Looking at the source code for the page you’ll see, as Keith
suspected, that the technique uses nested divs each with a background
image that floats over the last.
Here’s another cool one;
. Because there’s so little browser support for this technique - it
only works in Safari (I think) - it’s not much help; the nested div/
parallax trick as mentioned is by far the better option. Still, it’s
fun to see what could be if there wasn’t such a lag in browser
support.
. Because there’s so little browser support for this technique - it
only works in Safari (I think) - it’s not much help; the nested div/
parallax trick as mentioned is by far the better option. Still, it’s
fun to see what could be if there wasn’t such a lag in browser
support.
One other note I would add is-
from the original first link I posted, the interesting part for me,
was that it’s only visible when the window is resized (visible with
all platforms?), whereas the Parallax approach needs you to mouse-over
it to see the effect!
. Because there’s so little browser support for this technique - it
only works in Safari (I think) - it’s not much help; the nested div/
parallax trick as mentioned is by far the better option. Still, it’s
fun to see what could be if there wasn’t such a lag in browser
support.
It’s still the same thing, you can just set it to be defined by the
width of the browser (I say just, I haven’t tried this :)).
On 28 Oct 2009, at 20:27, Jaimie wrote:
One other note I would add is-
from the original first link I posted, the interesting part for me,
was that it’s only visible when the window is resized (visible with
all platforms?), whereas the Parallax approach needs you to mouse-
over it to see the effect!
. Because there’s so little browser support for this technique -
it only works in Safari (I think) - it’s not much help; the nested
div/parallax trick as mentioned is by far the better option. Still,
it’s fun to see what could be if there wasn’t such a lag in
browser support.
It’s still the same thing, you can just set it to be defined by the
width of the browser (I say just, I haven’t tried this :)).
On 28 Oct 2009, at 20:27, Jaimie wrote:
One other note I would add is-
from the original first link I posted, the interesting part for me,
was that it’s only visible when the window is resized (visible with
all platforms?), whereas the Parallax approach needs you to mouse-
over it to see the effect!
. Because there’s so little browser support for this technique -
it only works in Safari (I think) - it’s not much help; the nested
div/parallax trick as mentioned is by far the better option. Still,
it’s fun to see what could be if there wasn’t such a lag in
browser support.