Topic: Scrolling message Script

[yamiacaveman]

I am looking for a script that could be added, perhaps underneath, the active watch and warning script, that I would be able to add my own scrolling message.
I did a search and didn't see anything like that, if any one has any Idea's, lease let me know.

yamiacaveman

[jmcmurry]

Do a Google search for "javascript scroller" and there's a bunch of them.

Good luck.  - Jim

[WeatherHost]

Well, there is the Marquee Tag
Some like it.  Some hate it.  I used to use it for a warning header that linked to the warning message text.

It may not work in all browsers though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquee_element

[yamiacaveman]

Thanks and so quick, I will definitely check it out!

[Jáchym]

Hi,
well you could just simply use a marquee, which is an HTML element very easy to integrate.

However, to be quite honest, I find these very outdated and not very comfortable to look at, in other words, they used to be used a lot in the past, but today there are much more sophisticated ways of displaying messages, which not only look nicer and dont disturb attention so much, but also allow many more additional features.

I recommend you have a look for example here:
http://www.jquerybyexample.net/2013/05/best-jquery-vertical-horizontal-news-ticker-plugins.html

[SteveJ]

The only HTML tag worse than the MARQUEE tag is is the BLINK tag! LOL.

+1 to the jscript/jquery approach.

[WeatherHost]

Remember that a lot of people deliberately block javascript as a security risk, so if you use that, some won 't see it.

[Jáchym]

Of course you are right, it will not work unless javascript is enabled, but... I personally think not many people block it because jQuerry is used today so frequently that disabling js alltogether will quite significantly limit everything you do on the internet in general.

[mcrossley]

Of course you are right, it will not work unless javascript is enabled, but... I personally think not many people block it because jQuerry is used today so frequently that disabling js alltogether will quite significantly limit everything you do on the internet in general.

Yep, I gave trying to cater for disabled script a long time ago, if you don't run scripts your internet experience must be very poor and frustrating. I do use a vertical scroll on one small section of my main page - my weather factiod of the day.

[Jáchym]

My webpage is entirely built on jQuery and Highcharts so disabling JS alltogether would result in a completely non-functional web. I just tried disabling it now and went to couple of webpages and either they did not display at all, or the design was completely messed up and many features didnt work (things such as posting to forums, dynamic content etc., because jQuery is more and more often also used for Ajax).

[WeatherHost]

^^  That just says your site is poorly designed.

A good site will work well for all visitors (or at least most) which is why they should be as basic as possible.  Less fluff is always best.  No Kardasibutt style sites necessary.

KISS.  Keep It Simple Stupid.  Or Keep It Stupidly Simple.

[Jáchym]

No, my site is not poorly designed, but the problem is that if you disable JS, we are not talking about design features, but for example highcharts graphs, which I am sure many of you here use as well, the things it can do just simply cannot be done with pure HTML and there is many more examples.

So yes, if you want to have a webpage that is simply a text with a few images and tables then fine, but if you want to have a nice website, with modern design features and site that takes advantage of all available scripting for example to display nice and clear graphs, statistics, load dynamic content etc., then you have to use other elements, not just HTML.

One always has to consider the pros and cons, I think that with regards to JS, the pros by far outweigh the cons, disabling it is in my opinion slightly paranoic and people who really do that should basically consider using the web at all... because even that could potentially be dangerous.

[Jáchym]

P.S.
In your opinion then, all sites such as Facebook, all Google sites (Gmail, GDrive etc.), Dropbox etc etc. are all very poorly designed...

[WeatherHost]

Pretty much why I stopped going to all non-NWS weather sites.  Whether or not they use scripting, I don't have to be concerned of what they might add or how. 

After a few bad experiences with poorly designed personal sites that didn't care how much bandwidth they cost the viewer, I just stopped using any of them.  When I tried to ask the webmaster to be more considerate, they'd just get uppity.  So I said screw'em all.

[WeatherHost]

That's also why I have signatures turned off here and kill most images.  Too many people too focused on showing off flash and fluff.

[PaulMy]

Too many people too focused on showing off flash and fluff.

But isn't that permitted with a hobby?

Enjoy,
Paul

[Jáchym]

Pretty much why I stopped going to all non-NWS weather sites.  Whether or not they use scripting, I don't have to be concerned of what they might add or how. 

After a few bad experiences with poorly designed personal sites that didn't care how much bandwidth they cost the viewer, I just stopped using any of them.  When I tried to ask the webmaster to be more considerate, they'd just get uppity.  So I said screw'em all.

OK and now tell me what you get for not being able to use at least half of the Web,  not being able to use many images,  advanced features,  not to mention the visual effects

[WeatherHost]

I have no problem accessing the web.  I have no use for 'advanced features' or 'visual effects'.

[Jáchym]

OK, I understand that, but I still think that most people are not like you and like to enjoy the advantages current internet offers in the form of nice design, graphs, using webpages such as GDrive for cloud services, Gmail for email, Facebook etc. So yes, from your perspective it is possible to disable JS, but the majority will have it enabled.

[SteveJ]

2013 data shows that 0.2% of browsers either don't support Jscript or have it disabled, while 0.9% have it enabled but don't receive it for some other reason. The grand total of web users who aren't getting Jscript adds up to 1.1%.

https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-missing-out-on-javascript-enhancement/

So I respect WeatherHost's personal choice to browse without jscript and to develop for other users like him, but 92 out of 93 web users will see Jscript, which is why I'm personally fine developing for those 92.

[WeatherHost]

I'd rather walk to the corner store in jeans, tennies and a t-shirt to get a dozen eggs.

Some would rather get into a tux and tails and have the chauffeur drive them in the stretch limo.

[cospringswx]

I'd rather walk to the corner store in jeans, tennies and a t-shirt to get a dozen eggs.

Some would rather get into a tux and tails and have the chauffeur drive them in the stretch limo.

I'd rather walk in pajama pants and slippers.

[ericfynne]

All this modern nonsense. What's wrong with going out in your loin cloth and hunting for your food?

Eric

[Jáchym]

2013 data shows that 0.2% of browsers either don't support Jscript or have it disabled, while 0.9% have it enabled but don't receive it for some other reason. The grand total of web users who aren't getting Jscript adds up to 1.1%.

https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2013/10/21/how-many-people-are-missing-out-on-javascript-enhancement/

So I respect WeatherHost's personal choice to browse without jscript and to develop for other users like him, but 92 out of 93 web users will see Jscript, which is why I'm personally fine developing for those 92.

exactly, the "dilemma" is - develop a web that will display properly to 100% of people, but be very limited - or make a web where you can take advantage of all new features such as dynamic content loading, nice graphs and animations, user interactions etc, which will be viewable to 99% of population. Its up to everyone to decide and I am not saying either option is wrong, but I personally chose the latter one and the 1% minority too bad.