But anyway, it seems to be a moot-point, because I have just discovered that in order to have a dynamic menu in IE, javascript MUST be used, which causes the 'active content warning' and that invariably leads to alienating visitors, which I do not want to do.
Also, I have been made aware that many surfers turn off javascript on their system, so my dynamic menu again would be in vain for many individuals.
I guess my only other option is to make a 'high bandwidth' version which could include all the 'bells & whistles', including javascript.
I'm thinking that high bandwidth users would expect javascript, among many other dynamic things, and therefore, the high bandwidth version is the only place for javascript.
Try the "DoD Server" button, that has a drop down menu. It uses JavaScript for IE but seems to work without any warnings appearing. (Maybe I've "allowed" it on my browser somehow though)
That site uses the famous "SuckerFish Dropdowns" method.
You can make it work by ensuring that the top level menu items are also clickable. Suppose you have a menu item called "Products" which cause a set of products to drop down, sorry, up when you hover over it. The Javascript-enabled, and users of decent browsers, will be able to jump to any of your product pages.
But if you make the "Products" bit clickable in itself, going to a page which lists (and links to) all the products pages, people will still be able to get around your site - albeit with rather less elegant navigation.
I wouldn't avoid the javascript necessary to make the Suckerfish drop-downs because some people choose to browse without it. Don't cater to people like that. In fact, anyone who browses with javascript disabled has no right to complain if a site doesn't function properly if you ask me.
The warning you're talking about does not appear unless you have manually changed the security settings for IE from the default. I've used the suckerfish drop-downs and the accompanying javascript for IE without seeing those warnings.
taylorantone- you make a good point about not catering to javascript-disabled users. I had not thought about the situation that way.
However, research indicates that about 1 in 5 surfers are js-disabled. 20%. Big number. That stat may not be accurate, but still...
I had hoped to include a "little" js in my low bandwidth version, for such things as menus and linking positions of scrollable text areas <divs> with other objects.
It now seems that the correct strategy, for me, is to 1) create a low bandwidth version that is rail-thin, HTML-CSS only, and viewable also by PDA's, mobile phones, etc..., and 2) create a high bandwidth version that is all-out, javascript, Flash, 3d, the whole nine yards. The best of both extremes.
The only common element between the two versions being my never-changing content, which is what it is really all about.
thanks again for the replies, and please expect more questions about various things.
It's off topic, but if you can communicate the information effectively with the low bandwidth version then why do you need the "bells and whistles" version?
More work for no real reason. Why not plumb for the middle ground and make 1 site that works well for everyone and looks nice/is easy to use etc?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.