Printer Friendly Version
Email this thread to a friend
|
Featured Web Site Template |
|
Reflects user activity within the last 5 minutes
|
|
| Member |
Message |
karrella
Joined: Aug 19, 2005
# Posts: 41
|
Posted: 2007-Jun-19 23:56
Hey there I am having trouble changing the font color of my links.
I can easily change the link styles alone but in a larger css like this I'm kinda lost on how to incorporate it and I don't see it included in the script. The script is off of dynamic drive and I actually found that from a link on these boards. As you can see by the weird colors I have already input I want the menu orange, hover black and links white. (hopefully It will look as good as I think, those are the store colors) Thanks,
|
 |
g1smd
Staff
Joined: Jul 28, 2002
# Posts: 10437
|
Posted: 2007-Jun-20 02:08
I would be very careful, because this type of script is NOT search engine friendly.
Robots don't always follow links that are buried inside javascript code; and not all visitors will have javascript enabled in their browser either.
I would make sure that you have alternative hard-coded HTML navigation on your page otherwise you will run into a lot of indexing problems.
|
|
karrella
Joined: Aug 19, 2005
# Posts: 41
|
Posted: 2007-Jun-20 02:26
What kind of menu would you suggest? I tried a few others but with them I ran into browser compatibility problems. I did figure out how to fix the font color, although now my parade is rained on, haha jk, thanks for the advice.
I'm not worried about search engines I plan on having all the links in plain text at the bottom of the page (and every page) but when it comes to segregating users thats were its bad and I don't want that.
|
|
david68
Joined: May 16, 2005
# Posts: 144
|
Posted: 2007-Jun-20 12:14
I don't use JS if we're voting on that issue. It's a security risk (one example, if you use GMAIL, a bad website can steal your contacts list if you enable JS).
Search for "CSS dropdown menu" - it's the same as the JS style but it's CSS and should work on all browsers which support CSS. First google result is "seoconsultants dot com/css/menus/horizontal/" and it works in my firefox just fine without JS.
|
|
karrella
Joined: Aug 19, 2005
# Posts: 41
|
Posted: 2007-Jun-20 21:40
I visited a bunch of large corporate websites with my JS turned off, all of which obviously spent tons of cash on web development and design and rely solely on their main JS menus to navigate their clients around their site. Most shut down completely while some included some kind of text menu that would appear if JS wasn't on. I would never turn off my JS and regarding security issues, I trust my anti-evilthing program to do the work and I haven't had any problems. By my original dumb question you can see I am a beginner at coding, my forte is the graphics so I don't think I'll try that particular css menu, G1smd needs a vacation for all the questions I've asked anyways! haha
|
|
g1smd
Staff
Joined: Jul 28, 2002
# Posts: 10437
|
Posted: 2007-Jun-20 23:37
Good on you for trying a few sites without Javascript running on your browser.
You got to see exactly what Google would see, and now you appreciate how and why they would fail to index the content of many of those sites.
|
|
david68
Joined: May 16, 2005
# Posts: 144
|
Posted: 2007-Jun-21 13:34
Just because it's a costly professionally built website doesn't mean it's built right. Today most so-called professional websites don't work with browsers other than IE with all features enabled, not to mention they are slow - even with broadband. If the site doesn't work with firefox without JS, I usually give my business to a better designed site. You can pray your OS is secured and your anti-virus works but you'll get bit eventually. JS is slow and pretty much useless. CSS works better and is more compatible. Besides, like it was already said, spiders can't see it which makes you make a map page, more coding.
|
|
Curt
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 3736
|
Posted: 2007-Aug-08 08:39
JS is pretty much safe. The real problem was with ActiveX in MSIE. Turning off or setting ActiveX to prompt keeps security problems from happening. People kept blaming JS for installing spyware when in fact it was the ActiveX that actually did the installing of spyware. By not allowing ActiveX to run, you negate the problem of spyware.
david68, how can a bad site use JS to steal contacts out of GMail? Besides that, Gmail won't work properly without JS.
JS is too useful to disable. Besides that Adsense people won't get paid either which is another good reason to leave it enabled.
Now, with that said, there's no reason to allow JS to run inside of your email program like MS Outlook or Mozilla Thunderbird. I turn off JS for my email program as there is no reason to run JS inside of an email message.
|
|
david68
Joined: May 16, 2005
# Posts: 144
|
Posted: 2007-Aug-08 13:28
david68, how can a bad site use JS to steal contacts out of GMail? Besides that, Gmail won't work properly without JS.
Don't ask me, it's something I read. Google it. And yes, gmail works fine without JS - I do it all the time. Certain features aren't available, but it's alot faster loading without it (and I have DSL, but a mid-speed computer)
JS is too useful to disable. Besides that Adsense people won't get paid either which is another good reason to leave it enabled
LOL Like anyone cares if a website gets paid. I know it costs money to run things like this forum, but that's not a good reason to leave JS on.
JS is useful, yes, but it's also a slight security risk. Personally I leave it off because I don't care to see the ads, I don't want all the stupid things that people do with it - like mouse trails, right-click disable, tons of stuff. I'm happy without it. To each their own.
|
|
Curt
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 3736
|
Posted: 2007-Aug-09 02:44
The usefulness of JS outweighs the risks. The actual risks are so minimal it's not really worth worrying about. Some people have just amplified JS problems when the spyware thing came about. ActiveX was the real problem, not JS. Also, don't believe everything you read. Sometimes it's misleading (like the spyware thing). Also, new browser versions fix security holes. JS is sandboxed pretty well. Some people worry too much over JS.
As for JS and ads, well my content isn't for free--don't wanna see ads, then pay me for my content  pure and simple. Don't wanna pay, then leave the adsense ads up. I can't create web sites for free. Nothing in this world is free so people should just put up with the minor intrusion adsense ad (which aren't really intrusive to begin with). It's those crazy flash animations that drive me up the wall—those are intrusive and a major annoyance. I don't annoy my visitors with annoying ads.
|
|
david68
Joined: May 16, 2005
# Posts: 144
|
Posted: 2007-Aug-09 11:10
That's the problem with the internet these days - people only create their content for money instead of because they want to add to the internet pool.
|
|
Curt
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 3736
|
Posted: 2007-Aug-09 17:55
david68, I don't know about you, but I have a mortgage, car payment, etc, etc.
Plus, my server provider doesn't just give me a server. If you can convince my bank to give me cars, house, convince the government that they don't need my tax dollars, and convince my server provider to give me a free server, I'll consider adding to the internet pool for free 
I wish it weren't that way, but it seems everyone wants me to pay up too  . It's gonna take an act of God to change the common thinking. Until then, we got this sucky life going on.
|
|
david68
Joined: May 16, 2005
# Posts: 144
|
Posted: 2007-Aug-09 19:42
Well, here's my point...
Those who write for CONTENT (i.e. YOU) tend to blabber on for 4 pages to explain what someone who writes because they want to can explain in about 2 sentences. Nothing ticks me off more than to see 2 paragraphs, surrounded by ads, and say click for page 2...3...4...5... when it can all fit on one page. I don't mind ads to pay hosting fees, but when you generate content for the sole purpose of making a living... different story. I can't stand people who whine because someone doesn't see their google ads Sorry if you don't agree.
|
|
Curt
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 3736
|
Posted: 2007-Aug-10 08:30
david68 said:
Those who write for CONTENT (i.e. YOU) tend to blabber on for 4 pages to explain what someone who writes because they want to can explain in about 2 sentences.
That didn't read very well, but after reading it a few times I think I understand. First and foremost, I hate writing blabber filler material and I hate reading info sites that say the same thing 10 different ways. I attempt to NOT do that.
There's nothing wrong about generating good quality content for the sole purpose of making money. If I provide helpful content for someone and it makes their life easier or provides some sort of solution, then they at least can let my non-intrusive ads show. THAT IS NOT too much to ask.
When I find helpful info on another site and they run sensible ads, I'm not bothered. I recognize that the site owner has to cover his costs and make a living. I can appreciate that and can't figure out why other people can't understand that basic law of life.
People that think they should get a free ride, they can get off my sites . I don't ask for anything in return except the courtesy of allowing a couple harmless non-intrusive ads to display.
|
|
david68
Joined: May 16, 2005
# Posts: 144
|
Posted: 2007-Aug-10 16:06
Ok, but please don't use Linux or PHP or Perl or any other free software that you don't pay for to run your server, ok? Do we have a deal? Get it? If you don't then I really have nothing else to say. You and this other guy on here want to argue with me and I'm sick of debating the facts.
FACT: MANY security flaws in JAVASCRIPT - even without Java, ActiveX, Flash. Many flaws in every browser period, but JS can be used for annoying things.
Just because you need it to display your ads isn't reason enough for people to use it
|
|
Curt
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 3736
|
Posted: 2007-Aug-10 19:12
david68 said:
Ok, but please don't use Linux or PHP or Perl or any other free software that you don't pay for to run your server, ok? Do we have a deal? Get it?
Actually you don't get it. That is not related to what we are talking about. Those organizations willingly volunteer and they have funding to back them up. I do not have someone funding me. You clearly do not understand how things work.
david68 said:
but JS can be used for annoying things.
And regular HTML can be used to annoy people too (in a different way). With that said, it can be used in helpful ways too.
You clearly have something against JavaScript without much good reason—listening to too many “conspiracy stories” and “myths” passed on as facts about JS. Just turn off ActiveX (if using MSIE) and you generally won't have problems (if you are taking care of other issues like virus/spyware protection, etc.). ActiveX is the culprit, not JS.
I've been on the net since 1994 and been a Webmaster since 1996 and in all those years I've never had nor seen the problems with JS that these conspiracist claim and I've looked into many of these so called claims. Vast majority of the claims are either misleading, outright untrue, or the security holes have been fixed long ago. I'm not saying that JS is 100% safe but it's not much more dangerous than regular HTML and CSS tags. As long as you are not using a 6+ year old browser that hasn't been updated since never, you should be just fine.
Far more dangerous is surfing the web without a firewall, without AV software, without anti-spyware software, allowing activeX to run freely without restrictions, visiting porn sites, opening file attachments in email, and not updating your applications and OS (especially browser and email apps) like you should.
If you are that worried about JS, then you better turn off all images or use a text-only browser. Images can be just as dangerous as JS (if you consider JS dangerous).
|
|
david68
Joined: May 16, 2005
# Posts: 144
|
Posted: 2007-Aug-10 21:48
RE: open source
Good answer. Other people pay them so it's okay you use it for free and profit from it. On that note, people like me need not feel guilty as other people see your ads so you get paid that way. Same thing, don't debate it because it's true. If you donated to any big open source project they'd gladly take your money.
RE: JS
Plenty of fact about JS problems, I won't debate that any further.
Turning off JS prevents websites, like google, from tracking people. I know, you don't care if they track you. Some people prefer not to be tracked.
Also turn off images not originating from the site you are on - prevents tracking beacons.
Use JS, I don't care. I honestly don't care about your opinion. The only reason you have the hots for JS is because of the ads it supplies.
I think it's funny how you attacked me on this issue. I said JS is useless and you have a strong debate about how great and glorious it is. Whatever works for you.
I'll visit your site without JS just to waste your bandwidth (I said this just to get you cranked up )
Oh yeah, I haven't even used IE in years and never EVER allowed ActiveX and know all about firewalls and such. I'm no noob. One of the more recent JS expliots was if you were logged into gmail and visited a bad site they could steal your contacts and spam the hell out of all your friends. I know, you don't care because spammers need to make a living too.
[ Message was edited by: david68 08/10/2007 03:29 pm ]
|
|
Curt
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 3736
|
Posted: 2007-Aug-11 12:48
david68 said:
...On that note, people like me need not feel guilty as other people see your ads so you get paid that way. Same thing, don't debate it because it's true....
Nope, not the same thing. The open source people agree to provide their products/services free of charge. I however have not agreed to allow you to see my site free of ads. That's the difference. My intent is not the same as these free open sourced folks. My sites don't work like them.
Your plenty of facts about JS are more like conspiracy and misleading so-called facts. For your information, sites can track your movements VIA IP address and you can't really do anything about that except visit all your sites through a proxy server which is a pain. The proxy servers at times run their own embedded ads within web pages that they rewrite and serve back up to your browser.
Besides that, sites can't actually track you as a person. Sites can only track your computer and doesn't really know who you as a person are. So all this tracking crap you speak of simply isn't a problem. They do not actually know who you are when you visit a site. Another myth perpetuated by mislead people. Another unfounded JS fear.
david68 said:
The only reason you have the hots for JS is because of the ads it supplies.
Ha! I've been using JS long before Google Adsense. I knew someone would use it in the way Google has long before google started using it that way. Like I said, there are plenty of useful reasons to use JS and it also helps sites be more useful to end users. You just have an unfounded vendetta against JS.
BTW, The Gmail problem you talked about has been fixed (back in 2005!). It was a weakness within Gmail for using JS in a particular manner. That was a google programming fault, not a JS fault. It's been fixed, but yet you spread it around as still being a JS problem—see how misleading things can get?
It's kinda like, for example, using a web traffic analyser where you visit a site from your referrers page. You click the link to visit the page that sent the referrer. But the only problem now is the site you visit has your user name and password because your referring URL contains the user name and password within referring URL of your interface and it shows up in the referrers of that person's logs. That would be a weakness within your web traffic interface if it were made that way. I've gotten web admin interface passwords that way just from referrer URLs. But that doesn't make all web analysers bad just because one programmer made a stupid programming method weakness--same with JS. <sarcasm>Now ALL referrer URLs are bad because they can allow someone to log into your interfaces</sarcasm >.
Should we quit using computers because they can be hacked into? Should we quit using apps because they use C++ code that can be exploited? People get all worked up over small things. JS is much less threatening than exploits that can be found right on your computer. You are worried about that little ant (JS) when a rhino is heading your way.
|
|
david68
Joined: May 16, 2005
# Posts: 144
|
Posted: 2007-Aug-11 13:40
A) Then use document.write for all your content and stop whining when people turn off JS. I'm sick of your debate on this issue. MANY people turn it off - who cares what YOU think about it.
B) Who cares if the gmail exploit has been fixed - THE POINT IS that it WAS a problem and some other exploit can do simular and more. It doesn't matter if HTML or Images or whatever can be a hazzard. I can do without JS, I can't surf properly without the other two.
C) Google "javascript exploit" and you'll find TONS and it's not a conspiracy it's FACT. Most people don't upgrade their software daily. Maybe you do but who cares what you do.
D) Using beacons and/or JS a REMOTE website can track your movements. If I visit this website it knows my IP address, but if I had JS on Google would know I'm here too. Do you get it yet? It has nothing to do with paranoia or privacy - it has to do with I just don't need JS so why use it? Disabling the ads is enough for me to turn it off. I also block remote images.
Why the hell are you debating this issue? I don't care what you think. I think, as many others do, that JS is useless - PERIOD. If you like it, enjoy it.
This matter is closed. Debate all you want but you'll be doing it alone as I'm tired of talking to you.
|
|
Curt
Joined: Eons Ago
# Posts: 3736
|
Posted: 2007-Aug-11 14:26
The point with the Gmail thing was that it was a Gmail fault, not a JS fault. You totally missed the point on that one.
Who cares what you think TOO! Just another conspiracy person that believes all the misleading or outdated JS info out there.
I would use document.write if it were search engine friendly. Unfortunately SE's still don't work with it well.
You are so afraid of stuff not worth being afraid of (watching out for the ant while ignoring the rhino). <sarcasm>Why don't you go back to using typewriters and paper instead of using computers—they're all dangerous. Guess you better block all images because perhaps a virus can be inbedded within any image you visit (which BTW, current browsers have fixed the problem--don't wanna contribute to the conspiracy).</sarcasm>
For a person who doesn't care what I think, you sure are getting defensive about it. You must care because you keep posting. I care because I don't like people spreading around conspiracy and half truths trying to scare off people needlessly. JS is safe “AND USEFUL”  and Adsense ads do NOT hurt you.
|
|
You are not permitted to post messages in this forum or topic, because of one or more of the following reasons:
- You have not yet logged in, or registered properly as a member
- You are a member, but no longer have posting rights.
- This is a private forum, for which you do not have permissions.
If you are a recent member, it's possible that you simply have not yet confirmed your account. Please
check your email for a message entitled 'JimWorld Forums: Confirm Your Account' and follow the instructions
contained within.
If you cannot find this message, click here to Re-Send it.
|
If you are still experiencing problem, please read the
Login Assistance
Article for some advice on what may be causing your login not to work properly.
|
Switch to Advanced Editor and ...
Create a New Topic
or Reply to this Thread
|
|
Inbox
