Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: EleanorFox Jun 14 2023, 12:14 PM

Hello. So I have this website https://jsfiddle.net/EleanorFoxQueen/sqLd1wxf/2/ and the cursor when moved outside of the body it will be back to the default cursor. Any idea how to fix this? Thankyou so much

Well nothing I tried works so I'll let you know if I have tried your answer or not

Posted by: pandy Jun 14 2023, 01:06 PM

How do you mean? It doesn't show for body either. You've specified a custom cursor for certain elements. It will show when those elements are hovered, not for other elements. If you want it for the whole page, use cursor with body.

Posted by: EleanorFox Jun 14 2023, 01:17 PM

Well the cursor is in the body tag and I set the body width to 100% but it doesn't work. Like just hover it away from the content and the default one will be back. And also how are you not seing my custom cursor? It's a public google drive link 🤔

Posted by: EleanorFox Jun 14 2023, 01:18 PM

maybe you can use this actually website to see the error then https://eleanor-bit.neocities.org/

Posted by: coothead Jun 14 2023, 01:35 PM

Hi there EleanorFox,

the body will only be visible at a width greater than 965px.

On my screen 1366x768, I was only able get the JSfiddle
display to expand to 941px.

Try testing your code in an actual browsr, instead.

coothead

Posted by: EleanorFox Jun 14 2023, 02:11 PM

Hello coothhead, here's my website uploaded https://eleanor-bit.neocities.org
Hope this will make you figure out the problem

Posted by: EleanorFox Jun 14 2023, 02:17 PM

For people who can't see the problem, here's a video of it
https://www.facebook.com/100087079961096/videos/649462200374270

Posted by: Christian J Jun 14 2023, 04:39 PM

No, it's for the DIV #parent, which is only 965px wide. The CSS below is from https://eleanor-bit.neocities.org/



BTW you shouldn't use DIV elements for everything, they lack any semantic meaning.

Posted by: pandy Jun 14 2023, 04:42 PM

Exactly. And it is in your CSS, not in any tag, BODY or other.

Posted by: coothead Jun 14 2023, 04:56 PM

QUOTE(EleanorFox @ Jun 14 2023, 08:17 PM)

. For people who can't see the problem, here's a video of it
. https://www.facebook.com/100087079961096/videos/649462200374270

In that case you will need another custom cursor for the body.
Here is one that I have just made...

 my_mouse_pointer_white.zip ( 664bytes ) Number of downloads: 156


Open the zip file and upload the cur file to your images folder.

This would then be your amended CSS...

CODE

body{
  width: 100%;
  height: 100%;
  background: black;
  background-size: 100% 100%;
  background-repeat: repeat;
  background-attachment: fixed;
  margin: 0 auto;
  padding: 0;
  cursor: url("images/my-mouse-pointer-white.cur"), default;
}

I trust that this will help.

coothead

Posted by: EleanorFox Jun 15 2023, 12:15 AM

Oh okay. Thankyou so much for y'all help. I'm so dumb -_-

Posted by: Christian J Jun 15 2023, 11:43 AM

That sounds like pretty severe limitation in JSFiddle, especially in this age of media queries.

Posted by: Christian J Jun 15 2023, 11:43 AM

You're welcome. We all are.

Posted by: Jason Knight Jun 15 2023, 06:13 PM

Warning, I don't mean this to be mean. But I'm not going to sugar coat this either.

Looking at this you've got way bigger problems than custom cursor issues. Such as:

Why are you declaring a fixed width layout?

Why are you slopping style into the markup where it has no business being?

What's with the non-semantic DIV soup?

Why are you telling large swaths of users to go plow themselves by declaring everything in PX?

And I suspect you're also using images for things that shouldn't even be images. Type of thing that happens when a Photoshop jockey thinks they know what design is. Most don't!

I'd have to see the actual images, but on the whole I'd take some time to actually learn HTML, then throw this entire wreck out and start over. This is a laundry list of how NOT to use HTML.

You could start by learning that there are more tags that go into your markup than DIV, That and 100% of the time you see <style> and 95% of the time you see style="" you're looking at utter and total rubbish practices. A middle finger to sane and rational web development.

Also the marquee tag is inaccessible garbage that was stricken from HTML 25 years ago.

Posted by: pandy Jun 16 2023, 04:04 PM

Interesting. So what spec was marquee actually in?

Posted by: coothead Jun 16 2023, 04:36 PM

QUOTE(pandy @ Jun 16 2023, 10:04 PM)

. So what spec was marquee actually in?

I believe that the marquee element was introduced in HTML 3.2
and was present in HTML 4.01, but was then deprecated and is
not included in the HTML5 specification.

I am sure that Jason Knight will correct me if my memory is
mistaken and provide you with more detailed information.

coothead

Posted by: Christian J Jun 16 2023, 05:41 PM

You may have more success converting the OP to good design practices if you also elaborate on why the above issues are problematic...

Posted by: pandy Jun 17 2023, 02:33 AM

I doubt that. Marquee has been nonstandard all along. It was never in any spec.

Posted by: Christian J Jun 17 2023, 04:28 PM

It almost made into CSS3 though, as late as 2008 when you'd think W3C would have known better - or maybe they were just joking? https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/CR-css3-marquee-20081205/

"Blink" was more successful: https://www.w3.org/TR/css-text-decor-3/#propdef-text-decoration-line

Posted by: Jason Knight Jun 17 2023, 06:18 PM

You caught me! Technically it was never ACTUALLY part of HTML. It was vendor specific, though it was mentioned by name as rejected in one of the HTML 4 drafts alongside EMBED. (or at least the W3C's discussions of such)

After all the whole point of 4 Strict was to simplify the language and reduce the number of tags.

Which is why it's so aggravatingly stupid the WhatWG put EMBED back in. But then I disagree with a lot of what they did with HTML 5.

Posted by: pandy Jun 18 2023, 02:21 AM

Thank you so much for telling us all that.



They didn't. They put it in, but not back in. It never was in spec before.

So why is EMBED so evil, so evil you compare it to MARQUEE? Is it really that different from other ways to embed content?

Posted by: Jason Knight Jun 23 2023, 01:03 AM

It's a pointless redundancy. One of the entire concepts of 4 Strict was to remove redundancies, and in the next version of HTML that the W3C was working on -- before they pitched it in the trash for WhatWG's rubbish -- was going to remove a few more tags. Like IMG. Why? Redundant to OBJECT and didn't provide a mechanism for browser extensions to add functionality.

It's why I'm not particularly enamored of AUDIO and VIDEO, as they too are redundant to OBJECT. IF it's a non-text media item do we really need five separate tags for them? Same can be said of IFRAME really.

But because M$ dragged its heels, added their own BS, and in general made OBJECT a wreck, OBJECT because reviled.

It's like a lot of the other idiocy they added like HGROUP which didn't survive W3C adoption, https://medium.com/codex/so-hgroup-is-back-in-html-5-and-dumb-as-ever-c81e00f6320d (and is redundant to <header>).

It's what I keep saying, around half the HTML 5 spec is proof that the folks at the WhatWG didn't know enough about HTML to make 4 Strict's successor. That they based it on what people were doing in the ****-show of incompetence that was 3.2 / 4 Tranny certainly didn't help matters.

Which is probably why today halfwits, quacks, morons, and fools build monuments to HTML 3.2 practices in the form of "frameworks"

Posted by: Christian J Jun 25 2023, 08:17 AM

I don't see any similarities between EMBED and MARQUEE, not even among the reasons for not liking the former. As for the MARQUEE element and the other layout issues I don't think they're a big deal in this case, since the page seems to be mostly made for fun and not meant to be taken Very Seriously.