 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> The BBC main page
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/
> is quite cool where you can drag around the different sections.
Yes. That's exactly what I mean. :-) One of these days, I'll have to see if
I can figure out which bit of javascript is doing that.
On facebook, the bits slide around smoothly and give you partial
transparency of the thing you're dragging about, so it looks really awesome,
but it's the same basic principle, methinks.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>> It's not as complicated as you're saying. But you should know you're
>> way through 3D navigation well
>
> I always thought it would be way better to have a 3D input tool, like
> Spex gloves or something (or like the bits in the Minority Report movie).
Sure, a tablet or something like that sure would give artists far more
freedom for stroking shapes away. Not so much for precise technical
drawing or modelling though, where imprecise hand movements would do
much worse than accurately shaping things away by inputing float numbers
for 3D transforms and axis locking.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Not so much for precise technical drawing or modelling though,
I saw a video of one that people were designing (for example) airplanes on.
Particular strokes would let you set up connection points with particular
properties, locking bits to certain planes, angles, proportions, etc. So
you'd draw a 3D object on the 3D projection of the object on the tablet, and
it would be precise and easy. A shame I've never figured out how to
organize such links so I could find them later. :-)
But I was thinking more real live 3D, not stereoscopic or perspective. Top
of the line, of course, would be something like in Iron Man.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Ouch ouch ouch!"
"What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
"No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote in message
news:497a17b9$1@news.povray.org...
> scott wrote:
>> The BBC main page
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/
>> is quite cool where you can drag around the different sections.
>
> Yes. That's exactly what I mean. :-) One of these days, I'll have to see
> if I can figure out which bit of javascript is doing that.
>
> On facebook, the bits slide around smoothly and give you partial
> transparency of the thing you're dragging about, so it looks really
> awesome, but it's the same basic principle, methinks.
Same here: http://www.mycrysis.com/portal.php
Do a find in the source for 'draggablebox' - that might be it.
~Steve~
>
> --
> Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
> "Ouch ouch ouch!"
> "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
> "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > Learn about the div tag and how to set the location, size, colour,
> > borders, margins etc for it.
>
> Or, perhaps more usefully, figure out how this is useful for something?
In case you can read German or French - this one is quite good to learn about
HTML, CSS (= the secrets behind the div tag) and even some JavaScript-based
Dynamic HTML:
http://www.selfhtml.org/
Unfortunately I know of nothing in English language that compares. (Doesn't mean
there wouldn't be anything out there - I just didn't need to search ;) BTW,
there must have been an English version somewhere back in time, so maybe it's
still possible to dig that up on the never-forgetting net)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> Or if you're
> hardcore just read the HTML 4 reference and work everything out :-)
Better go straight for XHTML - HTML 4 is a bit outdated...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Bah. I've already read the HTML 4 spec. A long time ago. XHTML is the
> current technology, yes? I've also read the various CSS specs. [And then
> been sorely dissapointed that most of it isn't supported by any known
> browser yet...]
Must have been quite some time ago, right?
(You'll still be sorely disappointed if you hope that modern browsers support
all of the *newest* CSS spec, and I guess that will always be the case, but if
you're just looking for the stuff you missed, say, 5 years ago, it's probably
worth another try now.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Now click on the various "stylesheet" buttons, and watch the entire site
> instantly transform.
>
> Sure, CSS allows you to change colours and add image backgrounds. But
> this stuff is seriously crazy. I can't even begin to imagine how this is
> remotely possible...
If you can't imagine, then you've never *really* toyed around with CSS yet -
only with the CSS equivalent of the classic HTML attributes like "color",
"bgcolor" etc...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Random question: Given that CSS is supposed to allow you to position
> things relative to the viewport, why do so many websites use JavaScript
> to make things move back into view when you try to scroll the page?
Because IE6 failed at that feature of CSS.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > WTF? Damn, I had to look up what half the syntax means... (Don't people
> > usually use classes rather than IDs to assign styles?)
>
> yes, the page author clearly is missing the point of CSS.
No, he's just demonstrating... as the elements are all different anyway, there's
no point in using classes in this case, is there?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
