[RESOLVED] Alternative for Linking

[eranga262154]

Hi all,

Is there any way to link two HTML pages together without using <a href = ””> ?

[CornedBee]

What's wrong with that method?

There's image maps, forms with submit buttons, and of course <link> elements, which sometimes show up in special UIs.

Or you could use scripts to change the browser location, but of course that depends on JS.

[eranga262154]

Or you could use scripts to change the browser location, but of course that depends on JS.

Correct

I'm going to start a project on web development and going to use JSP, AJAX and Enhydra. So it is easy to used any other way rather than a href

[CornedBee]

Wrong mindset, IMO. First, you should make a site that works, even if JS is turned off. Then you turn it into something cool IF JS is on.

I had never heard of Enhydra before, but I would personally distrust them simply from the amount of buzzwords on their home page

[eranga262154]

Actually I want to develop an aminated image for a web page. Thats why i'm asking this. Because I used Enhydra to fetch the proper pages from root folder or any sub folders. But it not allow to fetch multiple pages at the same time using a href. I looking for another way for it.

[CornedBee]

I don't understand. What pages? What kind of animated image that isn't better handled by AniGIFs or perhaps Flash? What multiple pages using links? I don't understand your problem at all.

[Merri]

If you want to combine two HTML pages to one, you probably want to do that in the server side with PHP, JSP or ASP; or maybe even with SSI (.shtml files). But I don't see how that would work with an image, meaning, I don't understand the connection.

• Do you want to move an element or image over the page?
• Do you want to animate an image, ie. the image changes with new frames?
• Do you want an interactive element or image that changes when user hovers on it?
• Do you want varying page content depending on what user has clicked?

If you want others to help you out, you should explain in detail what you want. At the moment we're short of information. However, it seems clear to me that you don't really understand what methods and tools should be used to achieve what you want. Now if we knew what you want...

[eranga262154]

• Do you want to move an element or image over the page?
• Do you want to animate an image, ie. the image changes with new frames?
• Do you want an interactive element or image that changes when user hovers on it?
• Do you want varying page content depending on what user has clicked?

Correct, Thats I realy want

[CornedBee]

All of them???

[Merri]

So, first you build a regular site that follows normal links (a href) to allow non-JavaScript users to use the site and search bots to index the pages.

Next, you add up JavaScript that overrides the default way of browsing pages so that you use XMLHTTP (one of the so-called AJAX features) to fetch new content from the server. You prevent the default click event from happening and instead do whatever you wish to do, ie. launch the XMLHTTP code.

Then when you receive the new content, you update the rest of the page.

Animation is a different thing as itself. Doing simple animation such as slides and moving of elements might be easy enough, but going for transitions, reordering etc. might make the coding very troublesome, because you need to support atleast five different browsers (IE6, IE7, Firefox, Opera and Safari). Developing for Firefox would be easy enough, it has the best and most working implementation for rendering, but then you have Opera, Safari and IEs which each have their own quirks here and there (atleast there are more issues than what Firefox/Gecko has).

So what to do? Well, you'd go for Flash. It practically allows for everything you want, it probably requires more horsepower but as you're doing a "cool Web 2.0 site" it is easier to develop with.


If you go for JavaScript, CSS, XMLHTTP, AJAX route, you need to spend a fair amount of time learning each of the techniques so you know what you're dealing with. Of course you need to do the same with Flash, but atleast you don't need to care about five different browsers... one code will work for all.



A simpler alternative for featuring a lot of content in one page: http://beta.kontu.info/

[eranga262154]

All of them???

If you can it is fine

[eranga262154]

I'm sorry if you make truble this post to you. I'll explin a little this.

So, first you build a regular site that follows normal links (a href) to allow non-JavaScript users to use the site and search bots to index the pages.

Yes, I have a site that follows normal links(a href)

Next, you add up JavaScript that overrides the default way of browsing pages so that you use XMLHTTP (one of the so-called AJAX features) to fetch new content from the server. You prevent the default click event from happening and instead do whatever you wish to do, ie. launch the XMLHTTP code.

Going to used AJAX and I think I can manage it.

Then when you receive the new content, you update the rest of the page.

What you mean here, please explain little.

Animation is a different thing as itself. Doing simple animation such as slides and moving of elements might be easy enough, but going for transitions, reordering etc. might make the coding very troublesome, because you need to support atleast five different browsers (IE6, IE7, Firefox, Opera and Safari). Developing for Firefox would be easy enough, it has the best and most working implementation for rendering, but then you have Opera, Safari and IEs which each have their own quirks here and there (atleast there are more issues than what Firefox/Gecko has).

So what to do? Well, you'd go for Flash. It practically allows for everything you want, it probably requires more horsepower but as you're doing a "cool Web 2.0 site" it is easier to develop with.

Ya I decide to move to Flsh. I know it for some distance.

If you go for JavaScript, CSS, XMLHTTP, AJAX route, you need to spend a fair amount of time learning each of the techniques so you know what you're dealing with. Of course you need to do the same with Flash, but atleast you don't need to care about five different browsers... one code will work for all.

Have to used JavaScript because it is easy to handle in AJAX.

A simpler alternative for featuring a lot of content in one page: http://beta.kontu.info/

Can you put an english version of this. Please.

[penagate]

It's just the layout Merri's referring to. Roll your mouse over the "tabs" above the main content to see the effect.

[Merri]

Indeed, content has no meaning in this case. There is no tutorial page or what-so-ever as it is my own code all the way (except for events.js). Users of my site have liked that so I guess it works fine for everyone when it goes out of development stage. The advantage in this is that you don't need to load new content (which always has a loading time), instead just display one "page" at a time and you can show it immediately when you need to. But that's enough about that, apparently it is of no interest or there is no need for this kind of solution

What you mean here, please explain little.

I simply meant that you create a new element or update the old content element and possibly do animation at that point so that the page looks like it should with the new loaded content.

I'm not sure if combining AJAX techniques and Flash is a good idea, because afaik Flash contains all you need. Probably soon enough many search engines are able to read Flash files and there are some advantages in Flash over HTML/CSS/JS such as the ability to use sound reliably (and many accessibility issues were taken care of in a release over two years ago or so; but that's a different story). In the other hand, I'm not familiar with Flash at all and I haven't used AJAX techniques this far as I haven't had the need (but I will eventually do something).

[CornedBee]

If you can it is fine

Well, I can, but those are four different topics, each warranting its own thread, provided that you have a concrete use case for each of them.

[eranga262154]

Indeed, content has no meaning in this case. There is no tutorial page or what-so-ever as it is my own code all the way (except for events.js). Users of my site have liked that so I guess it works fine for everyone when it goes out of development stage. The advantage in this is that you don't need to load new content (which always has a loading time), instead just display one "page" at a time and you can show it immediately when you need to. But that's enough about that, apparently it is of no interest or there is no need for this kind of solution


I simply meant that you create a new element or update the old content element and possibly do animation at that point so that the page looks like it should with the new loaded content.

I'm not sure if combining AJAX techniques and Flash is a good idea, because afaik Flash contains all you need. Probably soon enough many search engines are able to read Flash files and there are some advantages in Flash over HTML/CSS/JS such as the ability to use sound reliably (and many accessibility issues were taken care of in a release over two years ago or so; but that's a different story). In the other hand, I'm not familiar with Flash at all and I haven't used AJAX techniques this far as I haven't had the need (but I will eventually do something).

Thanks

[eranga262154]

Well, I can, but those are four different topics, each warranting its own thread, provided that you have a concrete use case for each of them.

Ok,
First of all I want to add a button to the main HTML page. It is ok.What I want to do is if I click that button an image (Flash animated/gif/etc) should appear on the page. How can I do it.