jquery question on slideUp fadeIn and show

Hi all,

jquery noob question here. I've got a php script that runs a few price
checker kiosks out on the sales floor at work and I've got a <p> element
that I can get to slide up when a product is scanned and slide back down
after a 5 second pause with:

$(function() {
$("p").slideUp("slow");
setTimeout(function(){ $("p").slideDown("slow"); }, 5000);
});

but when I change the slideUp and slideDown to fadeIn and fadeOut I'm not
getting the element to fade in or out. Instead the element shows up on the
screen then after 5 seconds the element appears in the position where it
ends up after a slideUp.

Similarly if I change the slideUp and slideDown to 'show' and 'hide' the
element again shows up in the spot that it starts the slideUp from then
slides up after 5 seconds.

Any thoughts on what I'm doing wrong?

Thanks in advance.

P.S. would've posted this in a jquery newgroup but couldn't find one carried
on my news server. :\

kev.

On Sep 14, 7:38*am, Kevin Lucas
<klucas_de_oh_tee-.garb...@teksavvy.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> jquery noob question here.
[...]

> P.S. would've posted this in a jquery newgroup but couldn't find one carried
> on my news server. :\

That's because the jQuery group doesn't use Usenet[1], it is a Google
Group[2], so you need access to the WWW:

<URL: http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-en?lnk= >

1. <URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet >
2. <URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_groups >


--
Rob

On Sep 13, 6:38*pm, Kevin Lucas
<klucas_de_oh_tee-.garb...@teksavvy.com> wrote:

> jquery noob question here. [...]

OMG... The anti-jQuery crusaders are bringing the axe...

RobG wrote:

> On Sep 14, 7:38*am, Kevin Lucas
> <klucas_de_oh_tee-.garb...@teksavvy.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> jquery noob question here.
> [...]
>
>> P.S. would've posted this in a jquery newgroup but couldn't find one
>> carried on my news server. :\
>
> That's because the jQuery group doesn't use Usenet[1], it is a Google
> Group[2], so you need access to the WWW:
>
> <URL: http://groups.google.com/group/jquery-en?lnk= >
>
> 1. <URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet >
> 2. <URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_groups >
>
>
> --
> Rob
Thanks Rob, I'll post there.

kev.

JR wrote:

> On Sep 13, 6:38*pm, Kevin Lucas
> <klucas_de_oh_tee-.garb...@teksavvy.com> wrote:
>
>> jquery noob question here. [...]
>
> OMG... The anti-jQuery crusaders are bringing the axe...

Gulp, oh boy. That bad huh?

kev.

Kevin Lucas wrote:
> JR wrote:
>> On Sep 13, 6:38 pm, Kevin Lucas
>> <klucas_de_oh_tee-.garb...@teksavvy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> jquery noob question here. [...]
>> OMG... The anti-jQuery crusaders are bringing the axe...
>
> Gulp, oh boy. That bad huh?

Yes, jQuery is that bad. If you take a moment to look beyond $() calls, you
might notice it.


PointedEars
--
var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
&& navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
) // Plone, register_function.js:16

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Kevin Lucas wrote:
>> JR wrote:
>>> On Sep 13, 6:38 pm, Kevin Lucas
>>> <klucas_de_oh_tee-.garb...@teksavvy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> jquery noob question here. [...]
>>> OMG... The anti-jQuery crusaders are bringing the axe...
>>
>> Gulp, oh boy. That bad huh?
>
> Yes, jQuery is that bad. If you take a moment to look beyond $() calls,
> you might notice it.
>
>
> PointedEars

Yes, the original question is a moot point as the embedded browser that the
price checkers use don't support it. Should've been suspicious when it
didn't work in Konqueror .

kev.

On Sep 14, 9:57*am, Kevin Lucas
<klucas_de_oh_tee-.garb...@teksavvy.com> wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > Kevin Lucas wrote:
> >> JR wrote:
> >>> On Sep 13, 6:38 pm, Kevin Lucas
> >>> <klucas_de_oh_tee-.garb...@teksavvy.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> jquery noob question here. [...]
> >>> OMG... The anti-jQuery crusaders are bringing the axe...
>
> >> Gulp, oh boy. *That bad huh?
>
> > Yes, jQuery is that bad. *If you take a moment to look beyond $() calls,
> > you might notice it.
>
> > PointedEars
>
> Yes, the original question is a moot point as the embedded browser that the
> price checkers use don't support it. *Should've been suspicious when it
> didn't work in Konqueror .
>

Ah, another triumph. The clock is running out on that script for
sure.

David Mark wrote:
> On Sep 14, 9:57 am, Kevin Lucas
>
> Ah, another triumph. The clock is running out on that script for
> sure.
>

.... or, more likely, Konqueror's time is running out. Aside from JQuery
(and presumably most JS libraries) substantial Google and Yahoo
properties don't bother to support KJS -- the Gmail UI, Yahoo! Mail,
Google Calendar and Reader, etc.

On Sep 14, 7:56*pm, "S.T." <a...@anon.com> wrote:
> David Mark wrote:
> > On Sep 14, 9:57 am, Kevin Lucas
>
> > Ah, another triumph. * *The clock is running out on that script for
> > sure.
>
> ... or, more likely, Konqueror's time is running out. Aside from JQuery
> (and presumably most JS libraries) substantial Google and Yahoo
> properties don't bother to support KJS -- the Gmail UI, Yahoo! Mail,
> Google Calendar and Reader, etc.

Lets assume there is no Konquerer. That leaves n - 1 browsers to
support. Throw out whatever is embedded in his price checker and you
get n - 2. How many do jQuery (or GMail or whatever) do well? The
point is that these failings are symptoms and likely to get worse with
each browser produced. Dismissing them in turn is wishful thinking.

The current failings of other sites, whatever script(s) they may use,
don't enter into it.

On Sep 15, 9:56*am, "S.T." <a...@anon.com> wrote:
> David Mark wrote:
> > On Sep 14, 9:57 am, Kevin Lucas
>
> > Ah, another triumph. * *The clock is running out on that script for
> > sure.
>
> ... or, more likely, Konqueror's time is running out. Aside from JQuery
> (and presumably most JS libraries) substantial Google and Yahoo
> properties don't bother to support KJS


If that logic had any merit, the only browser anyone would "bother to
support" would be IE 6.


--
Rob

David Mark wrote:

> Lets assume there is no Konquerer. That leaves n - 1 browsers to
> support. Throw out whatever is embedded in his price checker and you
> get n - 2. How many do jQuery (or GMail or whatever) do well?

You seem concerned about how many browsers a site supports. That may be
a reasonable goal for a public service site to ask -- though
whitehouse.gov uses (and old version of) JQuery, so perhaps not. However
it's not the concern for most commercial entities.

Commercial sites are concerned about... well.. commercial interests.
They care about user reach, not browser reach. Yahoo probably spells it
out best:
http://www.yuiblog.com/blog/2009/07/...date-20090702/

> The
> point is that these failings are symptoms and likely to get worse with
> each browser produced. Dismissing them in turn is wishful thinking.
>
> The current failings of other sites, whatever script(s) they may use,
> don't enter into it.

Surfing traffic doesn't consider the sites as having failings. If a site
doesn't work on one browser but does on another - it's the browser's
fault. They'll switch soon enough.

The market penetration of JQuery alone is huge:
http://trends.builtwith.com/javascript/JQuery

Tie in various Google and Yahoo properties, along with all the others
that use a similar design, development and testing criteria, and a huge
chunk of the sites out there have set the standard for browsers to
follow. A new browser is welcome to join the mix but if it's user base
finds it has to use an old, awkward Yahoo Mail UI, ESPN and Amazon don't
work as expected cause of JQuery and Google Reader won't function at all
-- it's not going to have much of a user base anyways.

Like it or not, content now controls standards.

On 17/09/09 00:33, S.T. wrote:
> Yahoo probably spells it out best:
> http://www.yuiblog.com/blog/2009/07/...date-20090702/

YUI's "graded browser support" is nothing to be proud of. They're openly
admitting that they only do QA for the most common browsers, and that
they won't even accept bug reports for those who didn't make the "A"
list. That includes FF3.0 and Opera 10, by the way, among many others.

At least FF3.0 and Opera are still in what they call their "X" grade.
And then there's the "C" grade: "Approximately 3% of our audience
receives a C-grade experience" (core content and functionality, [..]
delivered via nothing more than semantic HTML). 3% would be completely
unacceptable for me. IMHO, a company the size of Yahoo could put in a
little more effort.


cheers,
stefan


PS: Apparently there's no "B" grade. The divide their clients into the
good, the bad, and the weird.

On Sep 16, 6:33*pm, "S.T." <a...@anon.com> wrote:
> David Mark wrote:
> > Lets assume there is no Konquerer. *That leaves n - 1 browsers to
> > support. *Throw out whatever is embedded in his price checker and you
> > get n - 2. *How many do jQuery (or GMail or whatever) do well?
>
> You seem concerned about how many browsers a site supports.

A valid concern.

> That may be
> a reasonable goal for a public service site to ask -- though
> whitehouse.gov uses (and old version of) JQuery, so perhaps not.

So what does that prove?

> However
> it's not the concern for most commercial entities.

Their concern is typically collecting money from as many people as
possible.

>
> Commercial sites are concerned about... well.. commercial interests.

Unsurprisingly.

> They care about user reach, not browser reach.

Your momentum just gave out. What do users use?

> Yahoo probably spells it
> out best:http://www.yuiblog.com/blog/2009/07/...date-20090702/

I doubt it.

>
> *> The
>
> > point is that these failings are symptoms and likely to get worse with
> > each browser produced. *Dismissing them in turn is wishful thinking.
>
> > The current failings of other sites, whatever script(s) they may use,
> > don't enter into it.
>
> Surfing traffic doesn't consider the sites as having failings.

Failings are what they are. As for traffic, everything's relative.
Just because a popular site makes mistakes doesn't mean you should try
to replicate them.

> If a site
> doesn't work on one browser but does on another - it's the browser's
> fault. They'll switch soon enough.

Who will switch what?

>
> The market penetration of JQuery alone is huge:http://trends.builtwith.com/javascript/JQuery

So what?

>
> Tie in various Google and Yahoo properties, along with all the others
> that use a similar design, development and testing criteria, and a huge
> chunk of the sites out there have set the standard for browsers to
> follow.

I have no idea what you are talking about (and assume you are
similarly affected).

> A new browser is welcome to join the mix but if it's user base
> finds it has to use an old, awkward Yahoo Mail UI, ESPN and Amazon don't
> work as expected cause of JQuery and Google Reader won't function at all
> -- it's not going to have much of a user base anyways.
>
> Like it or not, content now controls standards.

But that's not how things work. Browser developers don't bend for
dubious blobs of Javascript (they usually break them on purpose). And
what standards are you talking about, anyway?

On Sep 17, 8:33*am, "S.T." <a...@anon.com> wrote:
> David Mark wrote:
[...]
> Commercial sites are concerned about... well.. commercial interests.
> They care about user reach, not browser reach. Yahoo probably spells it
> out best:http://www.yuiblog.com/blog/2009/07/...date-20090702/

Yahoo! is not a paragon of browser development. Last I saw, their
marketshare was slipping so badly they had to do a deal with MS to
survive. Whatever they are doing now, it's not working for them as
well as what they were doing before.

Maybe if they'd switched to jQuery they'd be back on top of Google.


> *> The
>
> > point is that these failings are symptoms and likely to get worse with
> > each browser produced. *Dismissing them in turn is wishful thinking.
>
> > The current failings of other sites, whatever script(s) they may use,
> > don't enter into it.
>
> Surfing traffic doesn't consider the sites as having failings. If a site
> doesn't work on one browser but does on another - it's the browser's
> fault. They'll switch soon enough.

Yes, they'll switch sites very quickly and if it works better for
them, that's where they'll stay.


> The market penetration of JQuery alone is huge:http://trends.builtwith.com/javascript/JQuery

Read the history of the rise and fall if IE 6. Maybe all browsers
should just have emulated it and forgotten about innovation. Maybe all
those Linux and Apple freaks should just ditch their niche machines
and the whole world should run Windows. While we're at it, lets kill
anything other than Vista or Win7, who cares about anyone who can't
afford the latest and greatest PC and OS?

What was the WWW all about anyway? Glad we got rid of those bleeding
heart lefties...

[...]
> Like it or not, content now controls standards.

If content is king, development tools should aim to maximise access.
Selecting tools that deliberately marginalise a measurable number of
potential consumers is inconsistent with that logic.


--
Rob