The November issue of the JavaRanch Journal has an article by David O'Meara about Baby Steps With Scriptaculous. You can check it out here, and if you have comments or question, feel free to post them in this thread.
Did you place the .js files in the correct location? All of them?
Even though prototype.js and scriptaculous.js are the only script files explicitly referenced in the HTML file, all of the Scriptaculous script files must be present as scriptaculous.js is just a dynamic loader for the other files. [ November 08, 2007: Message edited by: Bear Bibeault ]
Originally I only copied some of the files since the article explicitly said "we just need the ones listed."
I copied the files to another system and got the same results.
Originally posted by Frank Lawlor: I notice that if I click on the example imbedded in the article, I get the same results (IE doesn't work at all) but it is better formatted as buttons.
The little "blind up" and "blind down" examples in the article don't work for you?
That means that the issue is not with your setup but rather with the browsers themselves. What could be wrong that would cause this to fail across browsers is beyond me. The in-article examples are working fine for me on Firefox and Safari. They work on Opera as well, but the animation is a bit stilted.
Do you have the opportunity to hit the article with another machine and try the in-article examples? [ November 09, 2007: Message edited by: Bear Bibeault ]
I looked into the problem and it is because the script tags have
it needs to be
posted 12 years ago
Originally posted by Eric Pascarello: it needs to be
posted 12 years ago
Yup, that did the trick. Now it functions on IE, too. Thanks.
The styling, however, looks nothing like the article and I don't see anything to make them look like buttons. The explicit 200px style is causing the first title to break to a second line on my machines.
It really is a good idea to have someone else try out your examples before you submit an article. So many mistakes in your first example can destroy your credibility and make people disinclined to read on.
Arch enemy? I mean, I don't like you, but I don't think you qualify as "arch enemy". Here, try this tiny ad: