everydaysushi

Here's my problem:I have a simple rollover menu, where the links light up whenever your mouse is over one of them. It works fine. In the simplest sense, I used this CSS code:(in .css file)a:link, a:visited {color:#000000}a:hover {color:#FF0000}This works! Yay! Okay. But when I click on any of the links (it is therefore considered "visited"), the hover function doesn't work anymore. The link becomes static (hover does not work anymore). And yes, I want my unvisited and visited links to be the same color. Question: How do I get the hover function to work on VISITED links, as it apparently does not? Is there some kind of property value I can put on either the a:hover tag, or the a:visited tag?Please help me!!

I have this same exact problem, and apparently it's a tough one to solve. From what I've discussed with friends (because we looove discussing scripting in our free time), there're two elements to this. 1. Javascript is client-side, meaning it depends on the user's interaction with your website for anything to be activated. This is why rollover menus can be done through javascript, because there's a lot if-then action.2. SSI by definition is server-side, meaning it loads everything up previous to any user input. It's useful to use SSI when you're doing headers, footers, or other things that are consistent on many pages. It sounds like SSI is to script/coding much like the CSS of the style/designing of a page. EXCEPT that SSI is a little more complicated because it depends on what kind of hosting provider you have (Microsoft IIS 5.0? 6.0? Apache?) Yeah, I don't really know what that means in technical terms, but I know that SSI doesn't like to work unless it's in the right environment and all the rules are applied correctly.Another thing... make sure that when you have a regular .html file and you start thinking of using SSI in it (in other words, you decide to reference outside .html files--which are sometimes tagged .inc instead of .html, to avoid confusion), you change the initial file to .shtml. This is a sign to the computer to look for the referenced .html/.inc files before it finishes loading.Hope this helps your problem... it wasn't enough to help mine, but it's a start!

True dat! Haha, I don't have epilepsy, but I feel like I could *develop* it because of those blinking ads. I just hate that the point of most pop-ups seem to be to ANNOY you, rather than to get you to go their site. It'd be one thing if they were normal pop-ups, and then you might give them some sort of respect by taking a brief moment of time to look at them... then politely close them. However, most pop-ups are just plain rude nowadays. I really really hate the ones that say "Congratulations, etc etc [i hope I've closed it at this point]." And the fake "X" so you click-thru instead of closing? What is this, guerilla-advertising? It's just not cool, and it's not savvy. However, even if they were web-savvy, I guess I'd still be annoyed. Example: those ads that appear across the middle of your browser, with motion and fancy effects. Most of the time, the "X"/"Close" button is hidden somewhere in this half-transparent ad/pop-up... It's quite annoying when you're in a rush and trying to just get the info off the page. I think banners are the LEAST offensive. As long as they're not blinking. And when they're nicely designed, I quite like banners.

I was just wondering how effective all those pop-ups really are. I know that I personally hate them with a passion, and I try not to even look at them because I don't want to encourage the pop-up makers. Also the place where I'm working has hinted that they'd like me to make pop-ups for their site, and I just don't think it can bring any good. I mean, it just doesn't reflect well on a business if they have pop-ups, that's my opinion. I know there're some really good ones out there, but they're still annoying. But maybe I'm totally wrong and there's a large portion of people who actually do click-thru, etc. There must obviously be these people somewhere, otherwise why would they still be using pop-ups??? There should be a law!!

Thanks everyone for your help. Yes, it would be a lot easier with Dreamweaver... But I don't have it right now. It's hard to realize I'm a bit helpless without it! That's a bad sign! I've tried learning CSS in the past. It seems simple at first, then daunting. The way "microscopic" puts it, it seems understandable. Can I try a little test myself? Just rename a TXT file with .css extension? Realize that I only have Notepad to play with (for now)! This is a good exercise in learning though.I will research some more CSS via the link. Thanks again!PS. I believe you can adjust cellpadding/border inside the <table> tag. Without CSS. Maybe "singledaddy" is talking about something even more advanced than that? Where each cell has its own attributes? ...Now *that* would be classy.

Okay well I'm not that much less clueless than you, but I went through this whole laptop debacle a few months ago. How old is you computer? I went to the Toshiba website and they don't even list it, but you said you only got it a year ago?! The problems you're experiencing with your DVD player and music definitely sounds like a problem with your processor and/or memory. Upgrade one or the other, or both, if you can. Although it doesn't sound like you can upgrade your memory. What kind of processor do you have now? Right-click on My Computer and check out Properties to find out.

Hi all! I was trying to use (invisible) tables in the design of my site. I have an image that I would like to be placed statically on the right, since it is a point of reference for the rest of my site. I then have a header image that I wanted to be at the top of the page, running up right next to the static image on the right. The lower-left hand corner of the page is the dynamic part, where all the action happens. It's not as small a space as it sounds, don't worry. But my problem is, I can't get the tables to work out the way I want. Is there a way to FORCE a row height? I know when using frames, you can do like "50,*" meaning the first frame will be 50 pixels height/width (whichever you specify) and the * represents the remaining pixelage. But can you do that with tables? I tried messing around with it but it's just not working out the way I want. It could be because the image is not aligning to the very TOP of the table. Or the table itself is not aligning to the very TOP of the screen. If anyone could shed some light on this, I'd greatly appreciate it!!

Wow I was in the middle of making my new website WITH frames *and* iFrames and now I'm seriously rethinking it. I guess I come from the old-skool, learn-it-yourself crowd, so that's why I used frames in the first place (because it seems more accessible than something like PHP or CSS, which are just a bunch of non-sensical acronyms to me... Too scary to even look into--how hard is it to learn, honestly? I'm fairly technically intuitive, but not a genius computer programmer and I *don't* like writing too much code like if x=1, then true; etc.) Anyway I think that, although outdated, frames and iFrames can still be useful, if used correctly and by experienced designers. Yeah, I'm one of them. (not) But I've seen iFrames used in some pretty neat ways, like with the dynamic scrolling (hopefully not that hard--I'll have to look into it as I build my page)... and invisible framing can be *very* useful without the user even knowing it's there. It just depends on what kind of site you have and how you set things up. So don't be so quick to rule things out. We progress as a website-building community and have new tools at our disposal everyday, but that doesn't always mean the new ones are better than the old ones. It just means we have more tools to choose from.

Hi there! I've done a little web-researching for you, and it seems the problem is common, although in varied forms. Do you know if you have Windows XP SP 2? Also, how old is your computer, and what other MS products do you have installed (do you have MS Office)? There seems to be a common problem involving Outlook. If you don't use Outlook, then try messing with the power options, like vizskywalker suggested. Try the "Minimal Power Management" setting. I personally have XP on a 6-month old Fujitsu Lifebook S-series, and everything has worked fine. Although, I got XP Home Edition.Hope this helped!!

One of my favorite things about Google is that it has Google Images, Local, News, etc... all of which are searchable. Google Images is REALLY helpful when I'm updating my blog or website. You know another thing I noticed about search functions... they NEVER work on corporate websites. Has anyone else noticed this? For instance, if I want to search for the Director at the Citisearch website, it'll give me all this mumbo-jumbo. That's the same with university websites too. It's like... the search function is written to be totally logical to computers, but in reality, it doesn't work in a way that's useful to us humans!! Google, on the other hand, spits out human-logical answers (most of the time). It's a real skill to figure out how to enter things so that you can find exactly what you're looking for...

I have a folder of 50 mb worth of pics that I need to transfer to my friend for a photo project. Now, I was trying to zip it but no matter what zip program I used, it barely decreased the size. Are pictures just not zippable? Also, are there any free image-hosting sites that allow larger file sizes? I normally use imageshack.us, but that limits file sizes (like most free hosting sites). I even looked into free websites, but most of them limit files sizes to be uploaded. The only other option we're trying now is transfer via AIM, but that's hard because it's hard to be online at the same time. So it'd be great to have some kind of online "depository" ...or at least be able to zip these things!! Notice from microscopic^earthling: Wrong section. Moved to Internet & Websites

Wow, excellent tips! Bonus for you!! Yes, that's a good point about the minimum screen resolution being at 800x600. I've been using a width of 6" (at 72dpi) for horizontal, but a width of 5" for vertical... It's a good point about the fact that people can't print well with 72dpi, but I guess no one knows anything about watermarking using any image processing softwares? Or is that a thing of the past...I guess I won't be so paranoid. Since there's tons of webspace and image-hosting sites out there, more and more pictures are being posted... so I won't be THAT special anymore. Which is a good thing, in this case, because I can just blend in. )ps. I was taught in photo class to use a 2-pixel black border around my photos.. but sometimes if the photo is not a perfect 4x6 or whatever, the black border doesn't show up properly. IE the left, bottom and right sides will show a black border but the top won't. (I use Corel, so I have to increase Page Size with black background; I'm not sure if the same problem would occur using Photoshop's Stroke feature...)

PHOTOSHOP?? I've never heard of Photoshop helping to make galleries... can you tell me how? Thx!

Nice web design. I'm on a Mac using the Safari browser and the page looks fine on first load. However when I click through, say, one of the packages, the images start misaligning. I think because the right side image is dependent on the text in the middle... So when the middle text changed, it changed size, thus sucking in or pushing out the image on the right that was supposed to line up seamlessly with the header. Have you looked into iFrames? I just discovered these the other day and haven't gotten a chance to use them but they SOUND amazing. Lots of possibility and hopefully can help avoid problems like you're having. The frames are self-contained and can be placed INSIDE the window... so you could create your "container" image like you have, and put an iFrame inside with all your body text, etc... links can be placed on the "container" image and and target the iFrame... I think that's basically how you have your site set up now. So check it out!

Ah okay no one here an expert on Quicktime, eh? Guess it's old stuff, but some of us still have to work with rocks here because we're still in the Stone Age. It's all good though--a good test in versatility and creativity. Well, I went another way since I couldn't figure out how to redirect from a .mov. Guess it's not possible. Here's another question that no one will no the answer to: Is it possible to have a screen/text come up on the Quicktime screen as the movie's loading, that simply says "Your movie is loading..." or something like that? Something to put in the <embed src...> tag? I went to Apple's section on encoding QT movies but they didn't mention anything like that. And they pretty much listed ALL the possible properties and values that QT has... But still, thought I'd take a shot in the dark, and see if there were any suggestions. Because it sucks to just stare at a black screen while it's loading for 3 minutes...

That's so true about navigation--I absolutely hate it when the page loads and then you get deep into the page and want to get to the front again, but some pages don't have links back to it!! There should be a law or something!! Also, I commend your loyalty to still images but doesn't that make your site seem static? I guess the whole point to Flash and Java was to make the pages more alive... vibrant. Remember in the beginning how the scrolling text was the most awesome thing around?? Then came rollover buttons and the rest was history. Anyway, I still am a Flash fan, no matter what... but I'd like to see more a balance and moderation. Especially considering there're still people with dial-up and/or slow computers... The Web Design Group should make a scholarship simply to update people's computers... ;oP Also, what's mysql and is it hard to learn? I'm interested now that it was mentioned in the same sentence as Flash. )

You know I believe there is some serious lag going on. I just got my post erased for the THIRD time. Gah. Anyway, I seriously tried to search (and destroy) this problem and mine but I just can't find the specific solution. Well, I thought I had a good lead on some other site, but then turns out you had to PAY TO SEE THE ANSWER. Those bastards. Hip hip for Xisto! This place is turning out more useful than I thought... So here's what I have and here's what I want to do: .mov file that I want to act as a Flash intro. (Yes yes I know Flash would be much better and if you give me a few hundred bucks, I'll go get it.) I want the user to see the movie then for the browser to redirect to the content pages inside. After the movie's finished. Just redirect. So far, the only help I've found is for timed redirects (below, for anyone who wants it): <meta http-equiv="refresh" content="5;URL=put your own site link here"> (where 5 refers to the number of seconds before the redirect...) And there's lots of help for people with Flash but that doesn't help me. So is there anyone who can? Thaaaaanks!!

Aaagh why is my internet so slow right now... anyway, this is kind of on topic, but I didn't want to make a whole new thread, so here's an ADDENDUM of sorts to this topic... What is the average speed of the typical internet user's connection? I'm working on this webpage for my boss and it's a bit tricky because we want a short video on it. This vid is only like 500kb because he only has dial-up at the office. And at the office, I was playing around with the website and it took about 3-4 minutes to load the video. But I have DSL at home, and here I am, with a click of the mouse and the vid's loaded and playing beautifully. Boy it'd be so much simpler to design this thing with DSL speed in mind, but it would NOT look the same on a dial-up. Basically I want to know what you think can be considered the SPEED to design for. Dial-up or DSL? I know there are higher speeds, but for the past decade, dial-up was stuck around 28.8 and 56. Then came the DSL/Cable revolution and I'm not sure if I'm overestimating people's speeds now. Because there is still middle-America to consider (and don't even get me started on worldwide, because then I have NO clue). I know it's always safer to go for the lowest speed, so then EVERYONE can enjoy your site, but that's surely sacrificing a lot of creative freedom. I should just split the pages in two, one entrance labeled "The tortoise" and the other "The hare"?! But it's just tough because the whole reason the boss wants to revamp the website is because it's too static... and you just can't get away from that if you have lower internet speeds. Obviously I need help. Thanks for it, everyone!

Is this true? I've heard this but can anyone explain to me WHY? Otherwise it just sounds like hearsay to me. :oP Plus, HOW can Macs not get spyware? Mac users use the internet and sometimes even IE, like PC users... o_0

ah great idea. only problem... i don't have flash making software. is there any i can get freeware or at least cheaper than like the $400 Macromedia charges?

Thanks for all the help. Good to know I'm not alone on this. Anyone have any opinions/thoughts on watermarking images? I mean, just to protect yourself so they're not stolen or anything? Or... making the image less-than-desirable quality? Sucks because that's destroying your own image, but sometimes you want control over what you're displaying all over the web... Or am I just being paranoid?

Right on. I think web design has progressed in stages. First it was simple, when Windows was first designed and all that (CAN YOU REMEMBER LIFE BEFORE WINDOWS? crazy)... Then years later, there was more and more you could do. I remember when HTML was THE thing to do, and it was so exciting seeing words scrolling across your screen. Then came Flash and Java and all that JAZZ, and it got real crazy. We're still feeling the after-effects of that, at least those with dial-up are still loading them!! Now, I think we're backing away from the EDGE of possibility... web design is more about balancing potential with design... I think there's a serious "simple but complex" philosophy going on... hey some of the most simple things are deceivingly complex... think in terms of modern art!!

Me again. I'm about to build a new site to house my photography/portfolio, and I realize that the same thought always occurs when I'm about to get started. What's the perfect image size? I'm talking specifically about sites that house a lot of photography/images. My first sites had rather large photos, because I thought bigger was better. With digicams getting better resolution and spitting out bigger and bigger pics, it seemed reasonable. But it was annoying how the scrolling bar would appear on the right when the image reached "page-capacity" so I scaled down the size. Now, I'm at about a 400x600 pixel size happiness (see below). But is that still too big? And while I've got your expert attention on the subject, I assume most photo sites have functions that allow you to "slideshow" through them... (ie. next/previous). Does anyone have suggestions for how I could set that up, WITHOUT having superior knowledge in advanced scripts (I can only write HTML). It seems to me that I'd have to use some Java or something for that... have some kind of numerical sequencing system IF NEXT=TRUE, THEN X+1, X being the picture, pictures numbered 1-10. Ok I just made that up, but you get the picture (HAH!) But really, I need help. Notice from microscopic^earthling: Moved to Desgning > Photography

Total ditto. Though, the article did may say "wow." Simply because it seems so implausible to track a common eye movement across the screen (and SO COMPLEX A MOVEMENT?!) Yeah no wonder everyone's saying it seems a bit unrealistic, so don't take it as a fact, but as something to think about. I don't think the researchers meant it as anything more than an interesting point, since they tested so small a group. But if you think about it, the pattern isn't that surprising. We grow up reading from left to right, then up to down (at least, in the Western world, we do). So naturally we start from the upper left hand corner. Next thing I do is scan the whole screen if there is something interesting going on, so that would be the zigzagging down. And then maybe a flourish to the top, summing up the page's content in your mind. Hah, at least that's how I figure. But that's all irrelevant in some page designs (yours, maybe? ) because say you have a blank page with a blinking element in one corner, so the person's eye is going to zoom to that, and stay and watch that... I dunno, you should use this to think about what NOT to do, or how you can do things DIFFERENTLY. Sorry, I ramble.

Right on, right on! The first thing that interested me in flash was its ability to animate!! Sure, it's great for graphic designers, but what about those closeted animators? Homestar Runneris all flash!! If only there were more like that out there... To limit Flash to measly intros is so stifling, I think!