Placing multiple swiffy conversions on the same page seems to conflict, only the first one shows up. Is there an area of code, possibly instance names, that I can change on each one so that multiple conversions can appear on the same page?
Here's a link to the page I'm talking about: http://www.ufonies.com/fansmobi.html
The animation in the header works fine, there should be another small animation under the "Space Golf" image but it just appears as a blank space, the conversion code there.
Thanks
I had this problem too with a slider - each slide was a swiffy animation and every time I used two or more animations, swiffy threw an error.
I got around this by using iframe containers for slides instead of divs - this way each animation had its own namespace for variables and scripts.
I hope this helps.
It's pretty simple actually
The swiffyobject should be renamed to anything ex. swiffyobject2, swiffyobject3 and so on.
See in this example the container is renamed to container2 so is the Element id
And then i call swiffyobject2 instead of swiffyobject. that way we can use as much instances of swiffyobjects as we want.
<div id="swiffycontainer2" style="width: 190px; height: 195px">
</div>
<script>
var stage = new swiffy.Stage(document.getElementById('swiffycontainer2'),
swiffyobject2);
stage.start();
</script>
I like to create separate js files for every object and just call one instance of
<script src="https://www.gstatic.com/swiffy/v5.2/runtime.js"></script>
but that's just a personal taste. Hope this helps.
Try to make new instance.
Example:
var swiffyIntroSlide = new swiffy.Stage(document.getElementById('intro-slide'), introSlide);
swiffyIntroSlide.start();
var swiffyBanquePopulaire = new swiffy.Stage(document.getElementById('top-banner'), banquePopulaire);
swiffyBanquePopulaire.start();
Notes:
introSlide & banquePopulaire are variables of swiffy objects.
Related
If you forget to close a HTML-Tag, Chrome will validate your code and try to fix problems like this.
I had a major problem because I forgot a closing Form-Tag, and instead of closing it correctly, Chrome deleted a following form, not the inputs, simply the Form-Tags.
When I looked at the Source Code itself, the Form-Tag was there, but not in the Elements-Tab in the console.
So at first, I thought it must have something to do with some JS deleting this DOM-Node and set a DOM-Breakpoint to find the script.
To cut a long story short, it took me hours to find out, that no JS deleted my form, but Chrome itself thought: There is a missing so I delete some other to fix that...
Is there any possibilty to see if Chrome automatically changes your DOM?
Thank You!
The browser Engine does indeed. They use string replace methods, although it happens internally.
<div>
</div>> // mistake
<div> //missing end tag
<div></div>
---------------------------------------------------
Methods
file=file.stringreplace('>>', '>')
an uneven count will add the missing div just after the next beginning div and conditionally if the missing is not found by the end of the file:
file=file.stringreplace('
<div>', '</div>
<div>')
The Parsing Engine after the missing and broken tags are repaired then parses the file and can then with a positive count set the screens GUI widgets by opening and closing tags as GUI Frames. It does this by adding tokens delimiters to the actual div tags making them easily distinguished from each other.
<div1s>
</div1e>
<div1s>//section columns
<div2s></div2e>
<div2s></div2e>
<div2s></div2e>
</div1e>
<div1s>Footer</div1e>
-----------------------------------------------------
The GUI Frame Tokens
for each "<dive1>"{
FrameCreate(CSS--ATTRIBUTES FROM ASSOCIATIVE ARRAYS--)
//the GUI Frame Widgets VERTICAL SECTIONS
}
//Next it finds the nested divs2 and embeds these into the thir parents above but with embedded Text Widgets also.
FrameTextBoxCreate(--CSS MATED ATTRIBUTES RULES--)
div3 etc------and so on.
In fact it is in the WebView GUI Widget Sets in its customized Mosaic Canvas Widget Sets in Chrome would be where they are repaired.
I have two histograms with .on("mouseover") listeners. Each is bound to a unique div id. For some reason they plot on the same SVG element.
I've tried to follow the pattern from "D3 Tips and Tricks" ...
<div id="Dx"></div>
<script src="Dx.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<div id="Cpt"></div>
<script src="Cpt.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
The code for the "Dx.js" chart is very similar to the "Cpt.js" chart.
I define the svg container and append to my unique div ID with
var svg = d3.select("#Cpt").append("svg")
later I svg.selectAll("#Cpt.bar") before data(data).enter().append("rect").
Can anyone help me understand what I'm doing wrong?
It looks like you're including both scripts in the same namespace. This means that svg will be overwritten at some point. For the code that runs sequentially, this is not a problem because first everything related to the first chart will be done and then everything related to the second. The problem occurs when the asynchronous data loading handler functions run.
In particular, by the time they are run, all the sequential code has been executed. This means that svg now references the SVG you created last. This is what's used for all the drawing.
To fix, change the variable names to be different, e.g. svg1 in the first file and svg2 in the second. Alternatively, you can select the element you want explicitly at the start of the handler function, i.e.
var svg = d3.select("#Dx > svg");
and similarly in Cpt.js.
I want to be able to have one image that loads into static html pages based on a conditional argument; so if X="something" then src="something.jpg", if X="another" then src="another.jpg" and so on.
I can't use a database.
So I am looking for some other technique or method that can use some kind of array and load one image from that array depending on something unique within the page.
I'm guessing that jQuery might do the job or maybe using XML/XSLT but I'm no programmer so any suggestions/guidelines/pointers will be gratefully received :)
If you are willing to use jQuery, you can add the image once the DOM finishes loading.
Add a div tag in your html
<div id="test"></div>
and add the image with your logic using JavaScript
$(document).ready(){
yourLogic = true;
if (yourLogic){
('#test').prepend('<img id="imgId" src="path.png" />')
}else{
('#test').prepend('<img id="imgId" src="someOtherPath.png" />')
}
}
The reason I want to use the together is that I want to hide the content like display: none does, without leaving any whitespace as visibility: hidden does.
At the same time I want the hidden content not to be copied when the user copies the entire table from the webpage, not because it is sensitive information but because the user hid the field and therefore doesn't want it copied. visibility: hidden doesn't copy but display: none does, so I have quite a dilemma.
Anyone know a solution?
Edit:
What I ended up doing was just what was suggested, save the information as Javascript (as it is not sensitive information anyways) and create/remove dynamically with Javascript.
I do not think giving the element visibility: hidden prevents the user copying the information in the table, although this may be browser specific behavior. Have a look at the test I've set up: http://jsfiddle.net/a9JhV/
The results from Firefox 3.6.8 on Windows 7 is
Copy ME! Don't copy me :( Copy ME! Copy ME!
Copy ME! Don't copy me :( Copy ME! Copy ME!
Which doesn't work as expected.
I've cooked up some code, it took the quite a bit work of cook up... have a look here: http://jsfiddle.net/a9JhV/7/
It uses jQuery to hide and show the table columns - actually removes them from the DOM, not just play around with their visibility and whatnot. Whee!
Why not remove the node from the page? You could accomplish this by using:
<script type = 'text/javascript' language = 'JavaScript'>
document.getElementById('yourDivId').innerHTML = '';
//OR
document.removeChild(getElementById('yourDivId')); //(I think this is right...document might need to be replaced by the div's parent)
</script>
You should remove the "hidden" DOM object using javascript and then recreate it again if user wants it back. Data from deleted records can be stored in session storage or hidden inputs for example.
If you want elements HIDDEN from the source, place them in a separate text file and load it using an ajax-like call... this will prevent the html from being in the source.
If you place a clear image OVER the content they also will not be able to highlight it easily (and by using javascript you can likely disable their ability to do a ctrl+a)
hope that helps!
It's a good idea to create an object to represent the table:
var myTable = function(tableName){
// If you want to assign columns dynamically you could create this.addColumn();
this.Columns = new Array(
new Array("row1","row2","row3","row4"),
new Array("row1","row2","row3","row4")
);
this.reBuild = function(){
for (col in this.Columns){
for(row in this.Columns[col]){
// put the cell in the table
}
}
};
};
I didn't test this code, it should just illustrate the gist of storing and building a table.
I have an array of 2000 items, that I need to display in html - each of the items is placed into a div. Now each of the items can have 6 links to click on for further action. Here is how a single item currently looks:
<div class='b'>
<div class='r'>
<span id='l1' onclick='doSomething(itemId, linkId);'>1</span>
<span id='l2' onclick='doSomething(itemId, linkId);'>2</span>
<span id='l3' onclick='doSomething(itemId, linkId);'>3</span>
<span id='l4' onclick='doSomething(itemId, linkId);'>4</span>
<span id='l5' onclick='doSomething(itemId, linkId);'>5</span>
<span id='l6' onclick='doSomething(itemId, linkId);'>6</span>
</div>
<div class='c'>
some item text
</div>
</div>
Now the problem is with the performance. I am using innerHTML to set the items into a master div on the page. The more html my "single item" contains the longer the DOM takes to add it. I am now trying to reduce the HTML to make it small as possible. Is there a way to render the span's differently without me having to use a single span for each of them? Maybe using jQuery?
First thing you should be doing is attaching the onclick event to the DIV via jQuery or some other framework and let it bubble down so that you can use doSomething to cover all cases and depending on which element you clicked on, you could extract the item ID and link ID. Also do the spans really need IDs? I don't know based on your sample code. Also, maybe instead of loading the link and item IDs on page load, get them via AJAX on a as you need them basis.
My two cents while eating salad for lunch,
nickyt
Update off the top of my head for vikasde . Syntax of this might not be entirely correct. I'm on lunch break.
$(".b").bind( // the class of your div, use an ID , e.g. #someID if you have more than one element with class b
"click",
function(e) { // e is the event object
// do something with $(e.target), like check if it's one of your links and then do something with it.
}
);
If you set the InnerHtml property of a node, the DOM has to interpret your HTML text and convert it into nodes. Essentially, you're running a language interpreter here. More text, more processing time. I suspect (but am not sure) that it would be faster to create actual DOM element nodes, with all requisite nesting of contents, and hook those to the containing node. Your "InnerHTML" solution is doing the same thing under the covers but also the additional work of making sense of your text.
I also second the suggestion of someone else who said it might be more economical to build all this content on the server rather than in the client via JS.
Finally, I think you can eliminate much of the content of your spans. You don't need an ID, you don't need arguments in your onclick(). Call a JS function which will figure out which node it's called from, go up one node to find the containing div and perhaps loop down the contained nodes and/or look at the text to figure out which item within a div it should be responding to. You can make the onclick handler do a whole lot of work - this work only gets done once, at mouse click time, and will not be multiplied by 2000x something. It will not take a perceptible amount of user time.
John Resig wrote a blog on documentDragments http://ejohn.org/blog/dom-documentfragments/
My suggestion is to create a documentDragment for each row and append that to the DOM as you create it. A timeout wrapping each appendChild may help if there is any hanging from the browser
function addRow(row) {
var fragment = document.createDocumentFragment();
var div = document.createElement('div');
div.addAttribute('class', 'b');
fragment.appendChild(div);
div.innerHtml = "<div>what ever you want in each row</div>";
// setting a timeout of zero will allow the browser to intersperse the action of attaching to the dom with other things so that the delay isn't so noticable
window.setTimeout(function() {
document.body.appendChild(div);
}, 0);
};
hope that helps
One other problem is that there's too much stuff on the page for your browser to handle gracefully. I'm not sure if the page's design permits this, but how about putting those 2000 lines into a DIV with a fixed size and overflow: auto so the user gets a scrollable window in the page?
It's not what I'd prefer as a user, but if it fixes the cursor weirdness it might be an acceptable workaround.
Yet Another Solution
...to the "too much stuff on the page" problem:
(please let me know when you get sick and tired of these suggestions!)
If you have the option of using an embedded object, say a Java Applet (my personal preference but most people won't touch it) or JavaFX or Flash or Silverlight or...
then you could display all that funky data in that technology, embedded into your browser page. The contents of the page wouldn't be any of the browser's business and hence it wouldn't choke up on you.
Apart from the load time for Java or whatever, this could be transparent and invisible to the user, i.e. it's (almost) possible to do this so the text appears to be displayed on the page just as if it were directly in the HTML.