using style='cursor:hand;' for several <td>'s, no good in netscape!

[spewn]

i have this in several places, such as:

<tr style='cursor:hand;' valign=middle>

this works in IE, but it just it regular cursor in netscape, it doesn't change to hand. i simulate it so the user will associate the change of the cursor as a indicator of a link.

i don't think that its because it's in a <tr> tag, because the same happens for <img> tags and <span> instances.

any ideas?

- g

 

[Vragabond]

<tr style="cursor: pointer;" valign="middle">

That hand pointer is actually pointer. That is how it is described in W3 standards. Hand is a proprietary value that only IE understands.

 

[spewn]

thanks!!

- g

 

[tsdragon]

Asmuch as I usually like to put down MS going it's own way, in this case I have to give them credit. Considering that the normal mouse pointer is an arrow, it is entirely counter-intuitive to use "cursor: pointer" and expect to get the hand. I'd always assumed that "pointer" meant just that: the cursor you normally use to point at things. "cursor: hand" does exactly what it says. I'd give MS a point on this one.


Tracy Dryden

Meddle not in the affairs of dragons,
For you are crunchy, and good with mustard.

 

[BillyRayPreachersSon]

Remember that web browsers aren't just for Windows, and other operating systems may not use a hand for a cursor that indicates something is clickable.

While "pointer" may not make total sense for Windows users, it is a lot more generic than "hand" which may make less sense under other OSes.

Dan


[tt]D'ya think I got where I am today because I dress like Peter Pan here?[/tt]

 

[tsdragon]

There are other OSes?






JUST KIDDING!


Tracy Dryden

Meddle not in the affairs of dragons,
For you are crunchy, and good with mustard.

 

[Vragabond]

Interesting, to me personally [tt]pointer[/tt] makes much more sense, since link is pointing somewhere and cursor that appears over something that is pointing is to me a pointer. Hand however is very proprietary to Windows default settings, eventhough anyone can easily change those settings and have a unicorn instead of hand. I think it goes to the function of cursor (which is smart) as opposed to visual appearance of cursor. Much in the same manner as you would name your navigation box #navigation as opposed to #left because it currently is on the left side of the screen. If you need, you can move it to bottom/top/right later and having a name navigation will still make sense while left will just sound silly. In much the same way, pointer will always point to the link, even if it does not look like a hand.

 

[spewn]

you all bring up great points of view...here's mine.

there should be one constant, one standard. i'm sure when you make a television program, you don't have to account for a Sony TV or a JVC TV...but yet there still is competition among television set makers. this is because of preference and/or features offered. but essentially, it displays the same signal consistently.

the fact that there is a new type of browser, firefox, seems to me that now there is a new set of rules and instructions that i have to accomodate for. i hope it goes the way of opera browser, where it's not that much of a consideration as to the people that use it.

the only reason i decided to design for netscape is because 1) it's browser for aol and 2) it usually follows the standards that are in IE...and it's nice to see what javascript errors i have...and in my mind, it's the #2 browser, even if it only captures 2% of internet users.

as far as 'pointer' being the correct term or not, well, once again i'm going off IE and netscape that each use a hand to discern between links and normal text.

my 2 cents.

- g

 

[Vragabond]

Here are some corrections, since you have a wrong idea.

1. There are standards, one constant. It is the W3 Consortium and everyone follows their standards and recommendations. Well, everyone but Microsoft and their IE. There's no browser that fully supports all the standards but most of the current ones at least follow them, if they do not support some of the advanced features. IE is a subtle exception there.

2. FF is not a new browser, it is simply stripped down Mozilla, which is the open source engine for NN ever since version 6. Reading up on the history won't hurt but in a nutshell: NN4 was old and could not compete with IE4, MS released IE5 and shattered NN5, which was consequently never released, Netscape only worked on fixing version 4. Some Netscape programers fled and created Mozilla, a light (around 120k program file initially), fast, standards-compliant browser. Mozilla grew and became a giant suite and guys decided to offer a stripped down version called FireFox. Netscape7, Mozilla and FF all share the same rendering engine.

3. Once again, most of todays browsers (Mozilla, FF, NN7, Opera7, Safari, Konqueror) follow W3 standards, which are widely accepted as web standards. IE follows MS standards first and then W3 standards. With a correct doctype, IE gets a little closer to the rest of the browsers, just enough to provide support for simple css driven websites.

 

[spewn]

so, by your explanation, if a website operates 100% functional as it was designed, the output will be the same over NN7 and firefox?

- g

 

[Vragabond]

Every website, no matter how it is coded, will appear the same in FF and NN7. Maybe not exactly the same in the latest versions, because FF is frequently updated, but if it is not part of a glitch in rendering engine, it will appear exactly the same in the mentioned browsers, because they are run by the same engine.

 

[spewn]

fair enough. i didn't know much about firefox, but i knew the mozilla/netscape connection. but i thought the opera situation was similar and yet opera output behaved so much differently, or 'uniquely'.

thanks for the update.

- g