data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b00d4/b00d48f71f9dc28c5dae3c0555c0b4b5ef416e98" alt=""
Using the marquee tag was considered a blemish for years. So it was important to make it look different, I went for a vertical scroll (up). The scroll could have contained an embedded GIF or JPEG image (like a logo.) Here is the end result.
The HTML code is just over 1K for the entire page.
How much weight would it take to do this in Adobe Flash or as a GIF animation? I don't know—yet—but I will find out. One of the primary goals of LoBand websites is faster load times. My guess is this effect couldn't be done for less than 100K minimum with other means. How many GIF animation frames would it take to simulate this effect? A bunch.
Is a LoBand slider marquee appropriate or in good taste?
Just because something is LoBand and fast doesn't mean it's "good." Opinions will differ—but most animation is gratutious waste. With that said, just a little motion onscreen attracts the human eye like a magnet. If too much motion is presented, it's overwhelming and garish. It will repel instead of attract. The idea then is use very little and stick to the website communication goal.
Does this slider animation work in all browsers?
Nope! It just worked in the important ones (more on this in a moment.) To do this multiple browser testing, I visited www.browsershots.org and loaded the test page URL. In a matter of minutes, I had results from 32 different browser screens. The only browser that completely flunked was Dillo, a lightweight Linux Debian browser. Anybody using that one? It did show some readable text but that was it.
What matters most in browser testing?
Obviously, consistency from browser to browser. But really only in the most POPULAR browsers. How do you find out what is currently most popular? This chart is from www.w3schools.com
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/66f23/66f234994d528e7554936360bc370cf0b2babf7e" alt=""
css3 animation advanced marquee
No comments:
Post a Comment