I am trying to use the built in inspector tool in Google Chrome to manipulate the site http://www.di.se (as it probably has one of the most # layouts I have ever seen on a popular website) with around 300 000 visitors daily.
It seems to be mainly built with three HTML frame tags with the names: historyFrame, headerFrame and contentFrame. I can remove the headerFrame that covers a huge part of the view. However, I don't know how to change the contentFrame size so that it will cover the entire screen.
I have tried to add a CSS height property but it does not seem to change anything. If this is solvable I would be very thankful and so would 300000 other users :) Thanks!
The frameset, which is the parent of the frame you removed, specifies the heights for each of the frames, currently rows="0,210,*". So if you remove the header frame, the content frame becomes the second frame and gets a height of 210. By changing this attribute to 0,* the problem should be fixed.
However I'm not able to modify this property in Chrome's toolkit. Maybe this is a limitation of the developer tools of Chrome. After all, frames are old (removed even from HTML5), so maybe they didn't pay much attention to supporting it.
Note though that the top frame contains the advertising that probably pays for the site. If you got this working and all 300.000 users would use your solution, then the site would probably seize to exist, and you got 300.000 unhappy users. So think twice before you do this.
You can do it by:
First deleting the first Frame(header)
and modify this:
from:
rows=".260,*"
To:
rows="1,*"
So you have only the frame you want, no useless data and the frame you want take 100% of the screen.
Related
I'm trying to make a window based application for web browsers. The number of windows is considerably high, so I'm storing them as HTML files (one per window) that I asynchronously retrieve from the server according to user interaction.
To add a window to the main page, I first add the link elements (CSS) of the downloaded document to its head section, and then I append the content of the body section to a certain div. When a window is closed, I just remove these elements.
This approach seems to be working nicely, but I can see that sometimes when I add a window, its elements are visible out of position with no style, and after a brief moment they are correctly painted.
I don't have a strong background in web programming, but I suspect this might be related to what it is called "browser reflow". Does it mean that it is taking too much time to repaint everything? Is it possible to just hide these "unstyled" elements until it is safe to show them?
Any guidance would be appreciated.
Some time away from the computer seems to have relaxed my mind. I was erroneously assuming that adding new link elements to the head section would load the CSS files immediately. Obviously, the browser needs to retrieve them from the server first. So, the DOM elements I'm adding don't show their style because the CSS files have not been downloaded yet. I think this is the right answer.
I'm working on a page that has some ads on it. One of them loads in an ad with wmode=window. I don't have the ability to change that flash code. I need to put a modal box on top of that flash element, but every combination of using z-indexes and iframe shims has failed (both manually and using bgiframe). Is there a way to place html content on top of a flash element with wmode=window? I'm testing this in chrome so far... figuring if I can't at least get it to work there, it won't work anywhere.
I'm afraid there is no way around it.
WMODE-window forces the browser to render the element on the very top layer, and it will overlap everything.
Rob
Yes it is possible, i had done this before using php and Css, your right though i did use the index "z" properties in my CSS Sheets than i had used php divs to what your trying to do, i maned to get 3 transparent flash Movies on top of each other , it was a pain for me and not much documents on this at the time,
trial and error is your best go, i had deleted my old web server i had used this method for, if you get desperate i will have a look through backup drives, but it is possible so dont give up
I am developing a jQtouch app and each request done via ajax creates a new div in the document for the loaded content. Only a single div is shown at any one time.
How many div's can I have before the app starts getting unresponsive and slow?
Anyone have any ideas on this?
EDIT: Its an iPad app running on Safari, and it would be less than 1000 div's with very basic content
I've had tens of thousands, maybe even a hundred thousand divs, on screen at once.
Performance is either fine, or bad, depending on:
Parsed from HTML or generated Dynamically in JavaScript?
Parsed from HTML means you have a LARGE html source, and this can make browsers hang. Generated in JS is surprisingly fast, even on Internet Explorer, which is the slowest of all browsers for JS.
To be honest, if you really need an absolute answer to this question, then you might want to reconsider your design.
No answer given here will be right, as it depends upon many factors that are specific to your application. E.g. heavy vs. little CSS use, size of the divs, amount of actual graphics rendering required per div, target browser/platform, number of DOM event listeners etc..
Just because you can doesn't mean that you should! :-)
As others have said, there's really no answer.
However, in this talk about the Google Maps API version 3, the speaker brings up the number ten thousand several times, as a basic threshold for browser unhappiness.
http://code.google.com/apis/maps/documentation/javascript/
Without defining a particular environment, it's not possible to answer your question.
And even then, anything anyone tells you is just a guess. You need to do your own testing on real-world configurations with different browsers and hardware. You'll also need to establish some performance benchmarks to decide what "too slow" even means.
I've been able to add several thousand divs without a problem. Depends on what you'll be doing afterwards, of course, and the memory on the client machine. Everyone else is right about that.
As Harpo said, 10K is probably a good ceiling. At one time, I noticed speed problems starting at about 4K divs, but hardware has improved since then.
And, as Neil N said, adding the divs via scripting is better than having a huge HTML source.
And, to answer Harpo's comment, one way to "break it up" so that JS doesn't lock the page and produce a "page is running slowly" error is to call a timer at the end of each "add a div" routine, and the timer in turn calls your "add a div" function again.
Now, MY question is: is it possible to "paint" so that you don't need to add thousands of divs? This can be done with the canvas tag with some browsers, but I don't think it's possible with VML (the excanvas project) on IE. Or is it? I think VML "paints" by adding new elements to the DOM, at which point you may as well use DIVs, unless it's a simple shape.
Is it possible to alter the source of an image via scripting? (the image in the DOM, of course -- not the original image on the server.)
We have an HTML page which displays a bunch of pretty bars using divs and repeating backgrounds. We are in the process of making a report out of this that can be printed nicely, but this may take some time because we don't have a reporting framework in place. As an interm solution we'd like to make the HTML version printable. The background of the divs are the only problem, and they don't print because of the default setting (which can't be enabled because the workstations are locked down).
I have found a work around for printing background images, but this doesn't work when the background needs to be repeated.
Are there any other work arounds which might be able to help? I have also been trying to insert an image inside the dive and stretch it, but this is throwing off all the other relative positions and is proving to be very difficult to fix. I am still looking into this however.
I have used this ActiveX Component in situations where controlling the printer output was absolutely neccessary (think printing stickers etc).
The function you'd want is : printBackground
However this doesn't come with their free license but perhaps the cost of that license outweigh the other work arounds implementation time.
Drawback: IE only.
If you can educate your users, there is an option in the print dialog box of IE and Firefox that is labeled something like 'Include Background Images' or 'Print Background Images'
This will include repeating background images.
I couldn't load the link, and I may not be understanding the problem correctly, but...
This is more of a work-around than a solution, but would you be able to make a single image that just appears to be repeated? Or at least, is repeated (for variable browser and screen sizes), but is large enough to be 'proper' for printing (which is a much more standard size)?
The easiest way I can think of achieving this is to have different stylesheet for printing that uses standardised images that fit the containers printed on paper.
The display stylesheet would continue to use the repeated images which wouldn't hinder performance as the full images loaded in the print stylesheet would only be loaded when the page is sent to the printer.
...at least, that's what the HTML spec says should happen. Whether this is actually the case, I can't be 100% sure.
I have a large, hi-def JavaScript-intensive image banner for a site I'm designing. What is everyone's opinion of using iframes so that you incur the load time only once? Is there a CSS alternative to the iframe?
Feel free to preview the site.
It is very much a work in progress.
I should also have mentioned that I would like the banner rotation to keep moving. When the visitor clicks on a link, the banner rotation starts over. It would be nice if the "animation" kept rotating, regardless of the page the user visits.Blockquote
Well, in that case I would strongly recommend not doing that. The only real way of achieving that is to have the actual website content in the iframe, which means that you suddenly have lots of negative sides to the site: not being able to bookmark urls easily due to the address bar not changing; accessibility concerns; etc
I think you'll find that most people won't care that it reloads again. Once a visitor lands on your website, they'll marvel at the wonderful banner immediately, and then will continue to ignore it while they browse your site - until an image they haven't seen appears and distracts them away from your content.
Keep the rotation random enough, and with enough images, and people will stop to look at it from whatever page they're on.
I find the main challenge with iFrame headers is resizing. Since the font in your header is of static size, I don't see a problem with using an iFrame. Although I'm not sure if it's really intensive enough to be worth it.
Well, the browser appears to cache all seven banner images upon the first load, and runs them out from the cache (for each subsequent page) thereafter. I don't think you have a problem :D
Try it out with Firebug's Net monitoring tool in Firefox.
This may work without CSS also, but if you use CSS to load the background and your server is configured correctly, the image should already only be downloaded once.
Usually the browser will request a resource by asking for it only if it has not been modified since the last time it was downloaded. In this case, the only things sent back and forth are the HTTP headers, no content.
If you want to ensure the image is only downloaded once, add an .htacces or an apache2.conf rule to make the image expire a few days into the future so that users will only request it again if their cache is cleared or the content expiration date passes. An .htaccess file is probably too excessive to use in your case, though results may vary.
You could have it load the main page once, then asynchronously load the other elements when needed (ajax). If you did that, an iFrame would not be necessary. Here is an example of loading only the new material.
While using IFrames as a sort of master page/template for your pages might be a good thing, IFrames have a known negative impact to searchability/SEO.
It might also be unnecessary in the first place because once your images are loaded the first time (and with the large high-def images you have on your site, that would be slow no matter what you do) the images are cached by browsers and will not be reloaded until the user clears their cache or does a Ctrl+F5.