| Home | Register | FAQ | Members List | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
27-03-2008, 05:13
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
Web Hosting Provider
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 29
|
How did they do this??!!
Hey, i was surfing through the net and came across this site : dragoninteractive.com Now, these guys claim that they have not used flash (well, they actually haven't).. What i wanted to know is, how did they get that rollover effect on their menu items? I am guessing jQuery has a role to play over here... |
|
|
|
|
03-04-2008, 00:49
|
#4 (permalink) | |
|
Web Hosting Provider
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 29
|
Quote:
I know that. But, these guys are using jquery for their design.. |
|
|
|
|
04-04-2008, 22:14
|
#7 (permalink) |
|
Refrigerated User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Central US
Posts: 161
|
GIFs
The GIF format requires indexed color; 256 colors or less, so it's limited. That little orange progbar is a GIF I noticed. They're using a JPG formatted sprite sheet for all buttons and rollovers, tweening opacity. Very cool. For that effect, I would've assumed Flash necessary. Thanks for posting that, webfunkin. |
|
|
|
08-04-2008, 07:14
|
#9 (permalink) | |
|
Information Designer
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 54
|
Quote:
That's a requirement of Web 2.0. Lot's of people think it's glossy or AJAX, no, it's the ratio of complexity to trivial irrelevancy. Maximum code. Minimum reason. My guess is you could probably get a credible GIF effect, even with the constraint of 256 colors -- although it might take a little experimentation with palettes. But that wouldn't qualify as Web 2.0 because it fails the Rube Goldberg test. The reason so many argue this or that isn't really Web 2.0, is because it's not about the web. Web 2.0 is about if you meet the geek gold standard or not. I believe the only purpose Web 2.0 has is something like the social versions of ISO quality standards for being a geek. Doing this simpler, especially with (yuck) web 1.0 techniques, disqualifies it as Web 2.0. Just as is if you were to opine about this season's fashion while committing the effrontery of wearing something from last season. Web 2.0 is the introduction of fashion to technology. It's resume driven architecture and designed to fuel consumption -- of graphic design, of code. Think "Detroit's Car Models" or "Office 2003" rather than anything tangible. And that's why it degenerates into quibbles about this or that as being or not being Web 2.0. Why make Web 2.0 so hard to get a basic "this is what it is" understanding of? Nothing else like it has ever succeeded by being so ambiguous, excepting fashion. The top 10 things that aren't Web 2.0 Here are 500 random answers to the “Yes, and here’s what Web 2.0 means to me.” emphasis on random It doesn't really matter what the super secret "special handshake" mystery definition of Web 2.0 is (or at this point "isn't"). People operate on what they think Web 2.0 is. The definition is what people agree to. And if you've got a lowest common denominator understanding out there driving action, then Web 2.0 is a snazzy button effect this week, and a diagonal line next week, and a cool AJAX gimmick last week. Even if, to the user, you produced an exact mimic of the effect using a GIF animation ...that doesn't look good on a resume, hence disqualifies as Web 2.0. But of course, users became irrelevant about five minutes after the basic reasoning of http request for web 2.0 was put forth. The ultimate of social computing, all social -- the computer is merely an accessory. It should be "accessory after the fact" when you're talking Web 2.0, but settles for fashion accessory. Last edited by D856C : 08-04-2008 at 07:59. |
|
|
|
 |
||
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (1 members and 2 guests) | |
| xENo |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
 |
