In This Site https://signwithenvoy.com under the tab when you scroll your mouse then the images are moving....can anyone told me what kind of code has been used in this ??? Thank you
it doesnt' appear to be moving to me what exactly are you talking about, maybe you should rephrase your question
Ok let me clear...when you enter the website and scroll down through the mouse; first of all the tab which are showing in the site become large in size and then when you cleck inside the tab the image of the tab will be change like as slide.I think no you get my point...so go to the website and do this and plzzz tell me what type of code has used in this ???
My question would be "Why do you want this buggy broken crap" -- because it's giving me four different appearances in four different browsers, the 'resizing' image in the corner seems to be overlapping content making it illegible, the whole layout is crapped together with the 'trifecta of fail at design', and such javascript-tardery as that stupid malfing parallax scrolling nonsense is making it one of those sites that would instantly have me bouncing off it. My advice? DON'T -- JUST... Don't... Do yourself a HUGE favor and stay the **** away from that type of script-tard asshattery.
It's not buggy. It works fine in Firefox, Chrome, IE and Opera, Safari on iPad / iOs, and the native Android browser (and Chrome) on Android. So I don't really understand where you see trouble? There's no overlap what I can see, and the site works and looks good. @deathshadow you need to realise that people don't want text-only, picture to the upper left static pages - and javascript, while sometimes completely fucked up, by all means, provide "fancy" animations and some effects that people find looks good.
So in other words it's supposed to look like this: http://www.cutcodedown.com/for_others/brokenStuff/broken1.jpg With the stupid top image crap overlapping the login and request quote thing so you can't read them? http://www.cutcodedown.com/for_others/brokenStuff/broken2.jpg Much less when you scroll down and the image enlarges, slides over to the center because of broken flex-box methodology, overlapping the content? (which it seems to do in Opera, faux-opera ne chrome, and chrome?) ... and of course that's before talking the illegible color contrasts and twelve words per page that makes the site OH so useful to visitors (not). Nothing like having to scroll through 9 full screen heights to get to 1.8k of plaintext -- this POST is going to be longer than that. It's inaccessible annoying halfwit script-tard BULLSHIT -- that I cannot fathom how/why anyone is DUMB ENOUGH to do that to a website other than trying to sweep their complete lack of meaningful content under the rug with 'gee ain't it neat' flash; as there's certainly no substance to it. All it's good for is stroking the designer's .... uhm... let's say ego. Yeah, ego, that's what I mean. (and I'm using the word "designer" VERY loosely and making air quotes with my fingers there). It's just another way for art {sexual preference slur omitted} and script-tards to piss all over the usefulness of a website! Those people need to realize this type of garbage pisses all over a sites speed, purpose, accessibility and usability... frankly if they don't see that or don't know enough about the subject to realize that, they probably have no blasted business even HAVING a website in the first place!!! Hence the 1.52 megabytes (1.78 uncomrpessed) in 47 files to deliver 1.8k of plaintext and presentational images that have NOTHING to do with the topic at hand... Well over half that not even being the idiotic halfwit images that are too large to go on the main page of a website, and instead being the 700k in 12 files of script-tardery. On those grounds ALONE it's a poster child of how not to build a website! There are days where I think developers who allow come up with crap like this and allow it to be deployed on websites need to be lined up against a wall...
You're using Opera 12. Sorry, mate, that version is a bit outdated. What I meant to say is that it looks fine in any modern browser - ie, released the last year or so While I'm all for lean and quick pages, why is it a problem that a page is 1,78 MB? It loads within a couple seconds on my connection, and within 5 secs on my cellphone connected to HDSPA. Agreed, it could probably be reduced a lot if it was coded in a simpler way, but then, that's not what they wanted, I'm guessing. They wanted the fancy look - and given what I've heard from users the last 3-4 years, fancy is often better than "fast" - as long as there are no obvious delays and/or missing content etc. Words from users are often reduced to "oh, neat" and "that looks cool" - people are stupid, and want flashy stuff - this should be rather obvious by now. The page in question looks good (most graphic designers would agree, I think), and uses the available software to make it look sleek. There's nothing wrong with that, even though a one-page (two-page, maybe) condenced text-site could probably convey the exact same information in a lot less space. If I was gonna make a note on possibility for improvement, it would be to increase the color-contrast on the first paragraph of text (on the pale background), as that one is slightly hard to read, while the rest is perfectly eligible on any screen I can pull it up on in this house. However - the real problem with the page is that it has NO fallback, at all. Turn off javascript, and the page goes blank - THAT is a big problem, which should be adressed (and which could easily be fixed).
I see similar issues in all the other browsers are too; FF, Chrome, IE11 -- ALL have problems... I suspect that's related to the fact I don't run the default font sizes, another example of it being broken from an accessibility standpoint! Oh, and what am I supposed to use for a browser when Opera 15+ (aka chrome with the Opera logo slapped on it by halfwits who didn't grasp what made Opera worth choosing over browsers) is pathetic crippleware just like chrome... I mean I use rocker navigation, portrait mode tabs (put that extra widescreen space to use), in-built mail client (and no I do NOT want to run a separate one), favicon launchers, custom task buttons, notes... All things missing from the uselessly backwards trip in the wayback machine to IE 3 Macintosh that most "modern" browsers are from a usability standpoint? What am I going to do, load up Firefuxxors with 200 megs of extensions so it's the unstable train wreck it always is when you try to make it useful? You must be right on top of their server or something, (which your defending this broken illegible useless ineptly coded page guaranteed to have massive bounce makes me start to wonder...) as I now have a 50mbps down cable connect, and I'm seeing ~600ms ping time to them... remember real world a handshake is 3x your ping, and ping typically ranges from 30ms to a full on second; thanks to that it's taking >30 seconds to download here just because of the ridiculous number of separate files. Same problem I actually have with these forums, which is why I have to disable scripting, disable a lot of the static content, and bend it over to make it my ***** with custom JS and CSS just to use it. (Which is probably part of why good users like @drhowarddrfine and @StommePoes seem to have vanished as they stopped trying to jump through the hoops) As to 1.78 megabytes, that's a CTDR (content to delivery ratio) of 1000:1, you don't see a problem with that? Tell someone on a metered connection (Coos County NH just 50 miles north of me, Utah, Colorado, the Dakota's... a lot of our friends in Canada and Australia, most mobile plan users) that 1.78 megs isn't a problem, and they'll spit in your face! Not everyone lives in a metro area with ungodly fast broadband with low latency, or can afford that five hundred buck a month data plan. When your typical Verizon or AT&T data plan is $100/mo for the first 500 megs/mo and $5 every 10 megs over that (what they charge in my area, double or more what they claim in their advertising...) a 1.78 megabyte website is some serious "Foxtrot Yankee" Of course, the type of dumbasses who actually deploy sites like this ALWAYS seem to try and then make the site faster by throwing more code and idiocy like CDN's at it, instead of realizing "hey, maybe we're doing this ALL WRONG". I don't know what users you've been talking to, sounds more like you're talking to people owning sites that have this crap or buying sites with this crap as opposed to end users. Counterintuitive navigation, difficult to even FIND content, and slow loading are the chief complaints I'm used to addressing for site owners -- which crap like this repeatedly put me in the boat of telling them "You have to throw it out and start over, there's nothing worth even trying to salvage from this mess." Say it with me people -- users don't visit websites for the goofy graphics or "gee ain't it neat" scripttard bull you hang around the content, they visit FOR the content; anything that gets in the way of that (like the stupid 12 words that don't actually say anything per page, lack of graceful degradation, illegible color contrasts, painful and agonizingly slow pageloads) is not going to result in a successful website! Flash or substance... that is indeed the question; I lean towards the latter, most of the people I know lean towards the latter, so we all sit around wondering what the **** is in the Kool-aid of Ikea, Apple and Volvo owners. You used two words there that as a conventional artist, 3d model artist, sculptor, and someone with a comprehension of emissive colourspace (as opposed to the subtractive colourspace most 'designers' learned in art college that has nothing to do with screen display) "good" and "sleek" are the LAST words that would come to mind. Complete waste of space and uselessly illegible more fits the bill. I don't know if it's the mis-rendering in EVERY browser here, but not one page on that site comes even CLOSE to meeting the MINIMUMS as outlined by the WCAG, EGA/CGA specifications, or emissive colourspace rules. Not even the same BALLPARK. That's ignoring the "unwritten rule" of JavaScript in action... "IF you can't make a website function without JavaScript FIRST, you have no business adding JavaScript to it." Though in my mind for a great number of things if you can make it work without it FIRST, why add it at all? I've NEVER seen a parallax type website that wasn't a buggy unstable mess, and WORSE didn't spread out the actual content so much I didn't instantly bounce for not being able to bother to try and find any actual content. (of which there usually isn't any)... Though admittedly I have the opposite problem of most of the illiterate halfwits that seem to be flooding in these days, as quite often I end up going TSDR. Too short, didn't read. Also admittedly, I say the same thing about jQuery, LESS, SASS, OOCSS, Blueprint, YUI, Prototype -- they're all just ways for sleazeball ignorant dipshits to crap out useless buggy broken train wrecks of ineptitude. As I often say I cannot fathom how anyone is DUMB ENOUGH to use ANY of it by choice!
I average 23ms ping on the server in question, and as stated before, I have no problems getting the content down (non-cached, empty browser cache) within a couple seconds. Nor have I any problems with these forums, they also loads within a couple seconds. Doesn't really matter what your Internet-speed is unless the provider you're using has proper uplinks to the rest of the web - which, to me, it doesn't really sound like you do. And, yes, people in rural areas probably suffer a bit when it comes to large page-sizes, but again, depends a bit who you're marketing for - if you don't care about the US-users / -market, say you cater for the European market, this becomes a bit of a moot point. However, I can't really think of any pages anywhere where I get more than maybe 70-80ms ping - perhaps a few Asian sites. $500 a month data plan... that's insane. I pay about a total for my broadband and mobile phone plan of about $120 - that gives me a VDSL-broadband connection of about 30Mbps down / 10 Mbps up, and free data-traffic on the the cellphone (separate providers). I pay about $50 for my cellphone plan, and that's free calls, free texts and 6 GB of data traffic included (above that, the speed is cut, but I can pay a few bucks to up the amount (less than $10)). Basically, your plans/providers suck, mate
Sprint has a new family plan that goes down to $25/month. The website loaded pretty fast for me and it looks kinda slick. It uses bootsrap as far as I can tell.
I said $100, not $500 -- though it can get up that high really fast if you go over the meter. Laugh is they advertise $45/mo and $5 for each 100 megs over, then tell you at the door "Oh I'm sorry, that's not available in your area." -- Buddy of mine in Canada just got a $240 bill for his $40/mo plan thanks to his kids going over the limit by watching netflix for ~20 or so hours that month. Plans and providers all over the world suck from region to region -- just because you happen to live in one of the magic fantasy-lands for connection speed doesn't mean the rest of us do... I get suck ass speeds to mainland Europe east of France, or anything south of the Commiewealth of Taxachusetts; I get blazingly fast speeds to the west coast and china (of all places) from an East Coast location. Throughput is brilliant to just about everywhere; handshaking... not so much... and I'm on what in the US could be considered a really GOOD connection. My neighbors $20/mo 768/384 DSL (about what 2/3rds of my neighbors have) isn't going to be happy with multi-megabyte websites. Minimum ping to most of mainland Europe from here is ~300ms... Ping time to Hong Kong? 30ms. It all hinges on what side of the pipe you're sitting on. (The US actually sits on a 'pipe divide' split north and south at mass/upstate NY) Of course, I can probably kiss even my current $70/mo home plan goodbye since Time Warner is selling this area to Comcast; last three times I went through a comcast buyout in other towns they doubled the costs and halved the throughput... Loved it in Manchester NH when we went from $30/mo for 3/3mbps symmetric to $60/mo for 1.5mbps/256kbps just because it went from AT&T to Comcast. Designing a website means crossing borders; the only thing you can be certain about who will visit, from where and on what is that you cannot be certain who will visit, from where or on what! -- this is why Google is penalizing slow loading sites, so much effort goes into techniques like image recombination/CSS sprites and minimalism, and why tools like ySlow and Google pageSpeed have caught on, even if their recommendations are a bit nonsensical and reek slightly of trying to bilk people into buying into their CDN's... Oh, sorry Y! and Google, did I say that out loud? Just because it's fast for you doesn't mean it's fast for everybody -- there are numbers and values you can plug in to say if a website is going to be uselessly slow crap or not for users; ~200k in 20 files being about the acceptable upper limit, I personally use 144k in 16 files as my upper allowable limit for a normal page with 72k in 12 files as my ideal target for a content-less template page. Anything more than that whoever is doing it needs to do the world a favor, back the devil away from the keyboard, and take up something less detail oriented like macramé. Hell, most sites like that would bury the servers they are on if they had legitimate traffic numbers. Don't forget the more bloated a wreck you build, the bigger the impact when you start seeing... well, for example forum traffic of ~20K posts a day. That's why I laugh/cry at pathetically bloated markup 'for nothing' since all that does is drag the server-side performance down; a likely contributor to why in terms of throughput most websites with real traffic choke to death multi-gigabyte of RAM quad Xeon servers to do what I was delivering 20 years ago over a LAN from Netware 3.12 on a 486/50 with 16 megs of RAM. (not counting the ~100 or so users booting from the server with no local drives) All of that is why wasting megabytes of JavaScript and presentational goofiness on delivering less than 2k of actual content is idiotic halfwit ineptitude of the greatest magnitude; you mix in the complete and miserable inaccessible train wrecks usually associated with the "semantics, what's that?" markup, "accessibility, what's that?" design and "graceful degradation? Never heard of it!" scripttardery, and the end result is useless garbage like the site in question... a site I'm shocked anyone can find anything resembling merit in the mere existence of, as YES, it's that bad! This attitude of "there's nothing wrong with a 2 megabyte website with four to eight dozen separate files" is so outright ignorant of what the Internet is, I fail to grasp how anyone DUMB ENOUGH to say it has a job, much less manages to keep it. Though admittedly the flashtards somehow managed it across the entire previous decade; the new scripttardery not realizing the problem was NOT that it was plugin based, but that it crapped all over a sites usability, functionality and accessibility JUST like their current practices are doing. It's the same garbage as the idiotic "target is deprecated so let's use javascript to act like target" -- COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT!!!