silversurfer5150 — 2012-02-25T14:14:44-05:00 — #1
Lately I find myself trying to avoid using too many hover effects, mainly because they aren't effective on tablets as they have no mouse.
So...I was thinking of some alternatives and I thought wouldn't it be cool if the user clicked a button and it spun round on a 360 axis before sending the request for the next page.
I can't seem to find anything, I am aware of flip and other such 3d plugins but 3d isn't what I'm after. I just want to do a 360 degree, in place rotation on a 2D axis. Can anyone suggest where I would start?
paul_wilkins — 2012-02-25T17:06:28-05:00 — #2
Perhaps with effect #6 at http://webdeveloperjuice.com/demos/css/css3effects.html
jason__c — 2012-02-26T03:02:39-05:00 — #3
Note: That jquery effect oesn't work in IE9.
paul_wilkins — 2012-02-26T03:12:24-05:00 — #4
When being compatible with most of the web browsers that are out there, you just don't have as many options available to you.
jason__c — 2012-02-26T03:17:26-05:00 — #5
I agree. I blame the W3C for this bs incompatability. Their is some blame for the browser manufactures, but not as severe as the W3C. That is another story.
paul_wilkins — 2012-02-26T03:41:02-05:00 — #6
Without someone like the W3C to set standards, how then are the different browser vendors supposed to supply a consistent set of features?
jason__c — 2012-02-26T03:57:46-05:00 — #7
A simple anwser to this is to boot everyone that is not a browser maker, and have the browser makers come up with a standard that ALL browsers will share a Core. Then, if browser makers want to attract developers/users they can add their extras to make their browser unique. In the end, all browser should be 99% compatable with eachother. I've disliked the W3C when they went HTML5 over XHTML2 Why in the hell would they do that? Now we have this mess known as HTML5/CSS3.
paul_wilkins — 2012-02-26T04:00:52-05:00 — #8
Were you aware that the browser makers for Internet Explorer just flat-out refused to do anything in terms of XHTML?
If progress was to be made in terms of HTML, it had to be done in a way that was politically acceptable to all the major browser makers. Such is why moving forward with the HTML spec was done, for Microsoft had made their disregard for XHTML loud and clear.
jason__c — 2012-02-26T04:05:06-05:00 — #9
No, was not aware of that, good to know. Funny, I am a huge supporter of XHTML, and now I see MS didn't want to support it, while I am typing this with IE9. Irony.
silversurfer5150 — 2012-02-26T06:50:00-05:00 — #10
Hey thanks for your input guys, I'm with you too, XHTML was the way to go.
The new features in html5 (apart from video because this is doing lots of good for smartphone providers minus flash) are just not necessary and save only minimal bandwidth that image replacement currently takes up.
For the amount of time it takes to create certain elements of html5, canvas drawings in particular, it makes much more sense with todays increasing bandwidth to take the hit of a few more kb using image replacement than to lose hours trying to draw vectors programmatically.
What a waste of time when during the next decade, the broadband worldwide will be so fast that a few extra kb will mean nothing.
People should just learn Illustrator which creates vectors natively and if they use Photoshop should read the manuals and compress images to their full potential.
As for Microsoft, they are they culprits for making the lives of web developers like us a misery and have been since the start, why is it that I hardly even have to make a css hack for opera, firefox or chrome and in every project I finish, I am html* hacking all over the place to please IE7. They have a lot to answer for.