Hello has anyone else found transition fx a bit ‘jumpy’ and not very smooth? Especially noticeable in firefox.
http://www.istprintingservices.co.uk is the link.
Also noticed that once an image is in your cache and changing page it briefly displays the image before hiding it and re-fading. Is there anything I can do to stop that?
Cheers,
Ed
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
Wow … impressing site design … this is how a Freeway created site really shows how it’s been done. Me like!
But back to your initional question … I don’t see the issue you’re having, neither on Safari nor Firefox on Windows XP.
All seems fine over here …
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
On 17 Oct 2008, at 12:26, ed watt wrote:
http://www.istprintingservices.co.uk is the link.
Can’t really help with your problems, but that is one nice site!
best wishes,
Paul Bradforth
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
thanks for the kind words guys,
would really appreciate if somebody can help though:)
it’s not a major thing but would be nice if it was a bit smoother…
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
All of these effects are highly dependent on the speed and power of
the client computer. Scriptaculous effects “scale” to the local
computer, dropping frames when necessary to maintain effect timing.
(If you set an effect to take a half second to complete, it will take
exactly that long to finish. Whether it takes 4 steps or 200 to do
that transition is a function of how fast your local processor is,
and how much real memory your browser can allocate to its process.)
Making the effect do less work is one way to make things run more
smoothly. If the objects you are animating are large, make them
smaller. If you are animating many elements at once, try doing fewer.
Walter
On Oct 17, 2008, at 10:26 AM, ed watt wrote:
thanks for the kind words guys,
would really appreciate if somebody can help though:)
it’s not a major thing but would be nice if it was a bit smoother…
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
Walter’s right. I have site that uses around 6 large images to fade in and out - at first they are a little jumpy, but once they have loaded and the sequence begins again all is well.
p.s. v nice site
Nathan Garner
Partner
Member of NAPP
On 17 Oct 2008, at 16:22, Walter Lee Davis wrote:
All of these effects are highly dependent on the speed and power of the client computer. Scriptaculous effects “scale” to the local computer, dropping frames when necessary to maintain effect timing. (If you set an effect to take a half second to complete, it will take exactly that long to finish. Whether it takes 4 steps or 200 to do that transition is a function of how fast your local processor is, and how much real memory your browser can allocate to its process.)
Making the effect do less work is one way to make things run more smoothly. If the objects you are animating are large, make them smaller. If you are animating many elements at once, try doing fewer.
Walter
On Oct 17, 2008, at 10:26 AM, ed watt wrote:
thanks for the kind words guys,
would really appreciate if somebody can help though:)
it’s not a major thing but would be nice if it was a bit smoother…
freewaytalk mailing list
Update your subscriptions at:
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
ok thanks very much!
I’ll keep that in mind and maybe play around a bit with the transition timing.
Really appreciate all your comments,
Ed
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
My Transition FX seems to play when it feels like it, but not at other
times. It’s completely random, hence if you go to
http://www.volunteercentrewf.org.uk/vcwf-howyoucanvo.html
it may or may not work, and I can’t tell why
It’s the ‘Give to Grow’ Banner at the top left; seems to be OK on the
homepage but quite unreliable on other pages
all the best
Dick
On 20 Oct 2008, at 09:53, ed watt wrote:
ok thanks very much!
I’ll keep that in mind and maybe play around a bit with the
transition timing.Really appreciate all your comments,
Ed
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
Aargh…
Can upu set your HTML Code output to More Readable for http://www.volunteercentrewf.org.uk/vcwf-howyoucanvo.html
The give to grow doesn’t appear for me at all - just the alt text and it is really difficult to read your code.
David
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
Hi dave
Yeah, have done this. Sorry, didn’t realise it helps.
all the best
Dick
On 20 Oct 2008, at 15:38, DeltaDave wrote:
Aargh…
Can upu set your HTML Code output to More Readable for http://www.volunteercentrewf.org.uk/vcwf-howyoucanvo.html
The give to grow doesn’t appear for me at all - just the alt text
and it is really difficult to read your code.David
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
And now it displays fine.
There has been some discussion here about certain things working better with Code More Readable - I do not know if this is a case in point or not!
How is it for you now?
David
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
The difference is because Action-generated code (along with the HTML)
gets converted in the process of More/Less Readable, and some
portions of the JavaScript don’t take kindly to having their
whitespace removed in this fashion. So the JavaScript will fail to
run, and thus the effect is dead. There is a flag that the Action-
writer can set which “freezes” the code and keeps it from being
influenced by the end-user’s choice of whitespace, but unless this is
set, the script will be mangled.
Not all JavaScript functions are sensitive to this, but there’s
something in the FX scripts that is. Hopefully Joe can find it and
add the missing semicolon or what-have-you that is the real sticking
point here.
Walter
On Oct 20, 2008, at 11:16 AM, DeltaDave wrote:
And now it displays fine.
There has been some discussion here about certain things working
better with Code More Readable - I do not know if this is a case in
point or not!How is it for you now?
David
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
Yo Dave my Main Man!
You (and Walter) are genuine, cast iron geniusssses! (or genii,
whatever).
It does indeed now display OK
Oodles of Thanks.
Dick
On 20 Oct 2008, at 16:16, DeltaDave wrote:
And now it displays fine.
There has been some discussion here about certain things working
better with Code More Readable - I do not know if this is a case in
point or not!How is it for you now?
David
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options
Certainly not a genius like Walter
More of a sponge like Bob
D
freewaytalk mailing list
email@hidden
Update your subscriptions at:
http://freewaytalk.net/person/options