.

On my main-page i have a large frame
on top of that in the middle i have a few smaller frames:

HERE

The 2 image-scrollers that your see
are both in the large and lower-layered frame.

"Mangos Tv" is in it's own frame on top
of that other large frame mentioned above.

Everything works fine in IE7 & IE8
but in FF i cant control the Youtube player anymore
(the buttons on the player-bar...etc dont react anymore)
You can try now in both IE and FF and see that problem.

In a very bright moment i realised it had worked before
and that then i had not 1 large frame below...but instead
a smaller on the left,and a smaller on the right (image scrollers)
so i put it back like that (local-preview) and that solved it !

From above i should conclude that there'a problem in Firefox ?
if you put one frame on top of an other frame...at least
that does something wrong to the Youtube-player (Flash).
(the SS-made buttons on top [LATIN],[BRAZILIAN]...etc do work fine)


----------
Question 1
----------

Do you also have that in your FF ?



----------
Question 2
----------

Anyone have any idea why this is so and how to solve it ?

Yes i could assaid put back the 2 smaller frames on the sides
instead of one large frame below it...i might have to that
if i cant find an other solution (will cause other small problems again)



It never ends...


Radio

.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: radiotechscan,

I think you answered your own question with question 2

I also think this maybe causing the problems in your other thread.

I suggest that you do put both image scrollers in individual iFrames. I have that feeling that placing frames on top of frames must have adverse affects. In particular with mouse effects etc on any of the frames.

By putting the two image scrollers in separate iFrames could maybe allow you to try another idea.

Have the left scroll down, and have the right one scrolling up.

.

Yep...just curious...it worked fine in all other browsers.
i have no idea why they are so enthousiast about FF
it always causes problems with scripts slowing down
or not working at all...yeah it's free...but a slow piece of junk.

Yes i'll try them now as 2 separate frames
i had never seen any talk about one frame on top of the other anyway.

Lets see what happens then..since i then need to place your script 2 times
which might cause slowing down or resource-overloading problems again.

Yes i could also see how it looks if one goes the other way.


1) Ofcourse i would then need your mods to change direction...

2) Any idea yet for the min delay-time (<5000) ?

3) Is it working in your own frame now ?


Then i have i new idea for improvement (sorry, always trying to improve):


4)

What if instead of the scroller starting from the top each time
make it turn around (go up) at the end ?
That will remove the sudden jump which is very hard/imposible to avoid right now
since you probably already now how to reverse the direction
...it might be simple to add that ?


Radio

.

1)
The script only needs two changes as below

 <script type='text/javascript'>

timeInt = window.setInterval("scroll()",1500)

var max = 2010
var counter = 500;


function scroll()    {

if (counter == 500)
{
window.scrollTo(0,max);           //This line is extra
counter = counter + 25;
}
else if (counter < max)
{
window.scrollBy(0,-25);           //Change scroll value to negative
counter = counter + 25;
speedUp();

}
else
{
window.scrollTo(0,0);
counter = 525;
}
//Do not change anything below here
}

function slowDown()   
{
clearInterval(timeInt);
timeInt = window.setInterval("scroll()",5023)
}



function speedUp()   
{
clearInterval(timeInt);
timeInt = window.setInterval("scroll()",1500)
}
 

</script>

2)
No. I can’t seem to reproduce your problem. Hopefully once you use the two iFrame idea (without frames over another), this may improve.

3)
Haven’t had the time to test it.

4)
Not as simple as it sounds. I’ve had a couple of unsuccessful attempts, but the tme interval gets all screwed up.

I’ll have another look at that when time permits.

I never got the chance yesterday to take a look at this, but today I managed to recreate the delay problem.

It seems that it’s caused by the max value being to close to the bottom of the page. The script is still trying to scroll down before reaching the max, but it has nowhere to scroll to as the bottom of the page has already been reached.

My solution was to place a blank text object at the bottom of the page, and leave the max value as it is.

That way, the script reaches the max before the bottom of the page is reached, and the change over kicks in.

Because it kicks in before the bottom of the page is reached, the blank area at the bottom is not displayed.

I will now have a look at the best way to reverse the script. I have a couple of ideas.

Finally got the repeating scroll down, scroll up, and scroll down again working.

It was fairly simple to get it to scroll down then back up, but for some reason, I couldn’t get it to scroll back down again.

During one test, I was scratching my head staring at the monitor, trying to work out what I had done wrong, when all of a sudden, it started scrolling down again.

It was then I realized that I had the maximum Up value at exactly twice the Down, not allowing for the initial 500 setting for the counter, so the script was still trying to scroll up another 21 times before reversing. With a time interval of 1.5 seconds, that was over 30 seconds.

Once I adjusted that, it worked perfectly.

I made a test page to exactly the same size as per your script settings, and kept the script below to suit that page.

At the maximum down setting of 2010, the bottom of the last object is at 2140 pixels.

Below that, I placed a blank text object, the bottom of which is 50 pixels below the bottom of the last object, i.e., 2190

Here is the script. Of course, you can put the onLoad action into a separate code object if you wish.

<body onLoad="scroll()">

<script type='text/javascript'>

timeInt = window.setInterval("scroll()",1500)

var maxDown = 2010
var maxUp = (maxDown * 2) - 525;
var counter = 500;


function scroll()    {

if (counter == 500)
{
counter = counter + 25;
}

else if (counter < maxDown)
{
window.scrollBy(0,25);
counter = counter + 25;
speedUp();
}

else if (counter < maxUp)
{
window.scrollBy(0,-25);
counter = counter +25;
speedUp();
}

else
{
window.scrollTo(0,0);
counter = 525;
}
}

function slowDown()   
{
clearInterval(timeInt);
timeInt = window.setInterval("scroll()",5023)
}

function speedUp()   
{
clearInterval(timeInt);
timeInt = window.setInterval("scroll()",1500)
}

</script>

I have uploaded the test page, which can be seen

HERE

If you are patient enough to see it go through the whole sequence, you will note that there is no delay at the bottom nor the top.

If you move the mouse over any of the objects, you will note that I still have the onMouseMove action applied to slow down the timer.

.

Thank you Terry,

Í'll have an extensive look at it tonight
let you know my findings.

cu later

Radio

.

.

Terry,

Ok i made 2 changes again:

1)

Instead of both rows of images in 1 page-wide
scrolling frame below the Youtube-player
(wich caused problems in FF)

I now have it back to 2 separate scrollers
each inside its own frame ..so not below
but on the left and right side of the Youtube-player
that solved the problem in FF.


2)
I inplemented your last script where the scrolling
reverts its direction when it has reched either the
top or lower end...and that seems to work fine
and solves the sudden jump at the ends.

I left in the pause on mouseOver...seems to work fine.

Now it's just a question of taste which to use
I'll leave it like that for a while and see what is best.


Check it out:

HERE



Q1
--

What do think which is best (from visitor's view
who may not like to much dynamic/chaotics)

1 direction (with a little jump at ends)

or

bi-directional (no jump at ends)

you notice after some time left and right
get out of sync...same when you touch/pause them


?



Q1
--

In case of bi-directional
i cant make up my mind if when i would
have all unique/single images if they would all
get the same on-stage time (in view)
no matter where the visitor would be on my page.

?



Radio

.

I’m glad that you are finally happy with my script changes.

As to your first Q1, I work 12-14 hours a day with hydraulics, pneumatics and bearings, as such, I’m not a bloody computer user annalist . . . lol

I checked your page, and for an old codger’s eyes like mine, it does become a bit over dynamic in it’s present format.

To solve the pausing on mouse over interrupting the sequence, your best choice is to have them in the one frame. But then you have the FireFox issue.

My only suggestion would be to have the left side start from the top, and the right side start from the bottom. Also, remove the mouse over pause. I think each image (link) is still on the screen long enough for the visitor to read or click on there choice.

That way, it would not be as painful on the eyes, and the difference in sync would not be as noticeable. It would also give them equal view time.

All in all, the choice is really yours. It is impossible to satisfy all visitors.

Terry