[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 179 bytes --] Linking back to the front page via the main logo is pretty standard, or at least that's what I've come to expect... is there a particular reason why the unicorn graphic does not? [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 195 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 204 bytes --] _______________________________________________ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 530 bytes --] One reason is that this picture is a background. On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 9:39 AM, James Yoo <james.yoo@gmail.com> wrote: > Linking back to the front page via the main logo is pretty standard, or at > least that's what I've come to expect... is there a particular reason why > the unicorn graphic does not? > > > _______________________________________________ > Emacs-orgmode mailing list > Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. > Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode > > [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 947 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 204 bytes --] _______________________________________________ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
James Yoo <james.yoo@gmail.com> writes: > Linking back to the front page via the main logo is pretty standard, or at > least that's what I've come to expect... is there a particular reason why the > unicorn graphic does not? I agree it would be convenient. But the image logo is inserted as a background image in the .css and I don't know how to turn such an image into a clickable link. This page might help: http://webdevnews.net/2007/01/css-trick-turning-a-background-image-into-a-clickable-link/ ... but it's currently unavailable. Any idea? -- Bastien
The page seems to work for me at the moment. Would you like me to
save it and send it to you?
--
Manish
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Bastien<bastienguerry@googlemail.com> wrote:
> James Yoo <james.yoo@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Linking back to the front page via the main logo is pretty standard, or at
>> least that's what I've come to expect... is there a particular reason why the
>> unicorn graphic does not?
>
> I agree it would be convenient. But the image logo is inserted as a
> background image in the .css and I don't know how to turn such an image
> into a clickable link.
>
> This page might help:
>
> http://webdevnews.net/2007/01/css-trick-turning-a-background-image-into-a-clickable-link/
>
> ... but it's currently unavailable.
>
> Any idea?
>
> --
> Bastien
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
>
We could try to position a div element over the background-image: <a href="http://orgmode.org"><div id="clickableUnicorn"> </div></a> Sebastian Bastien <bastienguerry@googlemail.com> writes: > James Yoo <james.yoo@gmail.com> writes: > >> Linking back to the front page via the main logo is pretty standard, or at >> least that's what I've come to expect... is there a particular reason why the >> unicorn graphic does not? > > I agree it would be convenient. But the image logo is inserted as a > background image in the .css and I don't know how to turn such an image > into a clickable link. > > This page might help: > > http://webdevnews.net/2007/01/css-trick-turning-a-background-image-into-a-clickable-link/ > > ... but it's currently unavailable. > > Any idea?
Manish <mailtomanish.sharma@gmail.com> writes:
> The page seems to work for me at the moment. Would you like me to
> save it and send it to you?
Thanks - Greg gave me instructions and the logo should be clickable
now.
--
Bastien
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 977 bytes --] You're welcome.Fixed works too. Absolute can act goofy if the main body and starting div aren't set to absolute. I should have known better. Sebastion: divs work too on some browsers. Some browsers (cough) IE will sometimes collapse them if they have no content. I've always had better luck with a transparent image. Bastien. Works great for me on Safari. Cheers, *Greg Newman* http://20seven.org twitter: 20seven On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Bastien <bastienguerry@googlemail.com>wrote: > Manish <mailtomanish.sharma@gmail.com> writes: > > > The page seems to work for me at the moment. Would you like me to > > save it and send it to you? > > Thanks - Greg gave me instructions and the logo should be clickable > now. > > -- > Bastien > > > _______________________________________________ > Emacs-orgmode mailing list > Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. > Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode > [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2159 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 204 bytes --] _______________________________________________ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1793 bytes --] I almost feel guilty for bringing it up.... On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Sebastian Rose <sebastian_rose@gmx.de>wrote: > > Greg Newman <greg@20seven.org> writes: > > You're welcome.Fixed works too. Absolute can act goofy if the main body > and > > starting div aren't set to absolute. I should have known better. > [1] > > Fixed will not work in IE. It will scroll out of view if you scroll the > page. > > See the bottom of org.css on how add the `absolute' positioning for IE > only (the simple way...). [2] > > > > Sebastion: divs work too on some browsers. Some browsers (cough) IE will > > sometimes collapse them if they have no content. I've always had better > > luck with a transparent image. > > > Good, I heard that before. I guess it was IE 5 or something. Don't how > the MAC version of IE is (crap I guess). > > It looks good and works (Linux FF 3 and Opera 10). > > > Sebastian > > > > > > > > [1] Actually, the position is choosen relative (default) or absolute to > the next parent, that has a non-default `position'. This works in > all browsers. > > Example: > > <div style="position:relative;"> <!-- nothing special, but rules --> > <div style="position:absolute; top:-10px; right:-10px"> > <!-- close link and icon here --> > </div> > </div> > > It's important, to add _no_ padding and _no_ margin to the elements > meant for positioning. Paddings and margins are handled > differently. IE does it all wrong then. > > > [2] This here might work (not sure if this works, if we position the img > though. Maybe we'll have to position the link and use > display:block;): > > * html a.logo-link { > position: absolute; > top: 0px; > left: 0px; > width: 190px; > height: 190px; > } > [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2468 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 204 bytes --] _______________________________________________ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
Greg Newman <greg@20seven.org> writes: > You're welcome.Fixed works too. Absolute can act goofy if the main body and > starting div aren't set to absolute. I should have known better. [1] Fixed will not work in IE. It will scroll out of view if you scroll the page. See the bottom of org.css on how add the `absolute' positioning for IE only (the simple way...). [2] > Sebastion: divs work too on some browsers. Some browsers (cough) IE will > sometimes collapse them if they have no content. I've always had better > luck with a transparent image. Good, I heard that before. I guess it was IE 5 or something. Don't how the MAC version of IE is (crap I guess). It looks good and works (Linux FF 3 and Opera 10). Sebastian [1] Actually, the position is choosen relative (default) or absolute to the next parent, that has a non-default `position'. This works in all browsers. Example: <div style="position:relative;"> <!-- nothing special, but rules --> <div style="position:absolute; top:-10px; right:-10px"> <!-- close link and icon here --> </div> </div> It's important, to add _no_ padding and _no_ margin to the elements meant for positioning. Paddings and margins are handled differently. IE does it all wrong then. [2] This here might work (not sure if this works, if we position the img though. Maybe we'll have to position the link and use display:block;): * html a.logo-link { position: absolute; top: 0px; left: 0px; width: 190px; height: 190px; }
Sebastian Rose <sebastian_rose@gmx.de> writes:
> Greg Newman <greg@20seven.org> writes:
>> You're welcome.Fixed works too. Absolute can act goofy if the main body and
>> starting div aren't set to absolute. I should have known better.
> [1]
>
> Fixed will not work in IE. It will scroll out of view if you scroll the
> page.
>
> See the bottom of org.css on how add the `absolute' positioning for IE
> only (the simple way...). [2]
You guys are experts in this field - Sebastian, would you take a chance
and try to fix the logo-link class? Only if you think it's worth the
trouble... for now we have a link for most browsers, and this is *not*
a core feature...
@James: yes, you can feel guilty :)
--
Bastien
On Jun 24, 2009, at 9:28 PM, Bastien wrote: > Sebastian Rose <sebastian_rose@gmx.de> writes: > >> Greg Newman <greg@20seven.org> writes: >>> You're welcome.Fixed works too. Absolute can act goofy if the >>> main body and >>> starting div aren't set to absolute. I should have known better. >> [1] >> >> Fixed will not work in IE. It will scroll out of view if you scroll >> the >> page. >> >> See the bottom of org.css on how add the `absolute' positioning for >> IE >> only (the simple way...). [2] > > You guys are experts in this field - Sebastian, would you take a > chance > and try to fix the logo-link class? Only if you think it's worth the > trouble... for now we have a link for most browsers, and this is > *not* > a core feature... > > @James: yes, you can feel guilty :) What would be wrong with pulling the image out of the background and making it directly clickable? - Carsten > > -- > Bastien > > > _______________________________________________ > Emacs-orgmode mailing list > Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. > Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes:
> What would be wrong with pulling the image out of the
> background and making it directly clickable?
None, I've done this.
--
Bastien
On Jun 25, 2009, at 4:28 PM, Sebastian Rose wrote: > Bastien <bastienguerry@googlemail.com> writes: >> Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> What would be wrong with pulling the image out of the >>> background and making it directly clickable? >> >> None, I've done this. Great. I am also more comfortable with this because invisible clicking areas are notoriously used by fishing sites to make users believe they click one thing, and in fact they click another. At least this is how I interpret what I hear. Lets try to keep things transparent..... - Carsten > > :-D > > good idea.. :) > > I'll re-check the IE stuff tonight. > > > > Sebastian >
Bastien <bastienguerry@googlemail.com> writes:
> Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> What would be wrong with pulling the image out of the
>> background and making it directly clickable?
>
> None, I've done this.
:-D
good idea.. :)
I'll re-check the IE stuff tonight.
Sebastian
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Sebastian Rose wrote: > Bastien <bastienguerry@googlemail.com> writes: >> Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> What would be wrong with pulling the image out of the >>> background and making it directly clickable? >> >> None, I've done this. > > :-D > > good idea.. :) > > I'll re-check the IE stuff tonight. You may check the latest screenshots of Org home page at http://www.vyom.org/screenshots -- Manish
Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes:
> On Jun 25, 2009, at 4:28 PM, Sebastian Rose wrote:
>
>> Bastien <bastienguerry@googlemail.com> writes:
>>> Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> What would be wrong with pulling the image out of the
>>>> background and making it directly clickable?
>>>
>>> None, I've done this.
>
> Great. I am also more comfortable with this because invisible
> clicking areas are notoriously used by fishing sites to make users
> believe they click one thing, and in fact they click another.
>
> At least this is how I interpret what I hear. Lets try to keep
> things transparent.....
^^^^^^^^^^
you mean opaque ;)
It's the invisible clicky things that are the problem :)
-Bernt
On Jun 25, 2009, at 5:02 PM, Bernt Hansen wrote: > Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Jun 25, 2009, at 4:28 PM, Sebastian Rose wrote: >> >>> Bastien <bastienguerry@googlemail.com> writes: >>>> Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> What would be wrong with pulling the image out of the >>>>> background and making it directly clickable? >>>> >>>> None, I've done this. >> >> Great. I am also more comfortable with this because invisible >> clicking areas are notoriously used by fishing sites to make users >> believe they click one thing, and in fact they click another. >> >> At least this is how I interpret what I hear. Lets try to keep >> things transparent..... > ^^^^^^^^^^ > you mean opaque ;) Great catch! - Carsten > > It's the invisible clicky things that are the problem :) > > -Bernt >
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1481 bytes --] Glad to hear you guys worked this out. I agree with Carsten that the image itself is/was the preferred method.I don't agree that transparent images are a problem but that's for a different topic/thread. It looks great on my end guys! On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com > wrote: > > On Jun 25, 2009, at 5:02 PM, Bernt Hansen wrote: > > Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes: >> >> On Jun 25, 2009, at 4:28 PM, Sebastian Rose wrote: >>> >>> Bastien <bastienguerry@googlemail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>> What would be wrong with pulling the image out of the >>>>>> background and making it directly clickable? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> None, I've done this. >>>>> >>>> >>> Great. I am also more comfortable with this because invisible >>> clicking areas are notoriously used by fishing sites to make users >>> believe they click one thing, and in fact they click another. >>> >>> At least this is how I interpret what I hear. Lets try to keep >>> things transparent..... >>> >> ^^^^^^^^^^ >> you mean opaque ;) >> > > Great catch! > > - Carsten > > > >> It's the invisible clicky things that are the problem :) >> >> -Bernt >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Emacs-orgmode mailing list > Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. > Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode > [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2982 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 204 bytes --] _______________________________________________ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
Manish <mailtomanish.sharma@gmail.com> writes:
> > I'll re-check the IE stuff tonight.
>
> You may check the latest screenshots of Org home page at
> http://www.vyom.org/screenshots
Uh - that's bad in IE.
Sebastian can you update this .css class to make it work ok
in IE?
,----
| .logo-link {
| position: fixed;
| top: 10px;
| left: 30px;
| }
`----
Thanks!
--
Bastien
Bastien <bastienguerry@googlemail.com> writes:
> Manish <mailtomanish.sharma@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> > I'll re-check the IE stuff tonight.
>>
>> You may check the latest screenshots of Org home page at
>> http://www.vyom.org/screenshots
>
> Uh - that's bad in IE.
>
> Sebastian can you update this .css class to make it work ok
> in IE?
>
> ,----
> | .logo-link {
> | position: fixed;
> | top: 10px;
> | left: 30px;
> | }
> `----
Add this at the end of the style sheet:
* html .logo-link
{
position: absolute;
top: 10px;
left: 30px;
}
This works in IE 6 on XP. It's the same make up as for the other style
classes that have a fixed position.
(If we do more of those, maybe a second stylesheet is even better. There
are simple tags that only IE reads in the <head> section and thus can
include an additional stylesheet. That stylesheet could be even more
specific then.)
Best wishes
Sebastian
Sebastian Rose <sebastian_rose@gmx.de> writes:
> Add this at the end of the style sheet:
>
>
> * html .logo-link
> {
> position: absolute;
> top: 10px;
> left: 30px;
> }
I've done this - thanks!
--
Bastien