View Full Version : Multi-frame slideshow

08-04-2005, 07:52 AM

The above script is great and perfect for what I want to do but I have one problem preventing me from using it. When you have a horizontal as opposed to a vertical, slideshow, you end up with a 30-40 pixel space under the slideshow which there does not seem to be any way to avoid. I need no more than a 5-10 pixel gap before the next part of my html page is displayed. I would really appreciate it if anyone knows how to overcome this as otherwise the script is great, easy to use and configure.

P.S It creates the gap when it loads if you refresh the page the gap will go away however my users aren't going to load a page and then refresh it so that the slideshow sits where it should, unfortunately :-(


08-04-2005, 07:55 AM
oh sorry btw the adress of the page I was tring to use it on is


I have had to put a static image back cos it looked terrible but you may be able to tell me if it is another aspect of the page causing the problem.


08-04-2005, 08:40 AM
Ya, I know you said you had to take it down but, put up a copy of the one with the script on it, call it test.htm or some such thing, no other page on your site need link to it, and give us the address.

08-04-2005, 10:51 AM
Hi ok I reloaded the page


I have adapted the page now to try and make the gap look better as I really want to use this script, however ideally I don't want to have to have that size gap between the 2 columns but any smaller and the gap the script is leaving looks out of whack, if that makes sense. So if there is a way to stop the gap so I don't have to have such a large margin. Also I have 15 px between each slide but ideally I would like to use bigger versions of those pictures and have the margin at 7 or 8 px?

Thanks for your help/

08-04-2005, 12:12 PM
btw - the script is on that page do you want this link as well though? if so here it is


08-04-2005, 12:18 PM
Unless you are willing to ignore all browsers other than IE, you have much more serious problems. Most of your pages look horrible in Mozilla. That includes the increasingly popular Firefox browser as well as recent Netscape versions. I have yet to get into the code to see exactly why but, I can tell it is most likely that your extensive css styling just doesn't conform to any actual standards, rather relying upon IE's quirks in order to produce the layout it does in that browser. If you do not have FF or NS available for testing (and you should get one of them - FF1.0.4; NS7.2 - or later), to get a small idea of how bad the situation is, simply put a transitional doctype on your documents and view them in IE. For example, put this at the very top of your page, before anything else:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">

NOTE: This is not a solution!

I'll see what I can do to fix things up but, this is really a job for a professional design consultant, or a standards junky with lots of time on their hands.

08-04-2005, 12:37 PM
Hi John,

THank you for looking at this - ok I'm a little confused are you talking about the script looking bad in mozilla or the whole jnphotos page looks bad in non ie browsers?

If the problem is the whole page is no good outside of ie - you are right that is not your problem and though it's kind of you I don't expect you to fix that - I really wanted to know if I could get the script to work ok in ie with everything else. I know a lot of people who work with computers don't like ie but 92% of my traffic is ie browsers I can live with the other 8% seeing a mess for now.


08-04-2005, 01:17 PM
Well then. The very first time I loaded the page it looked fine in IE. When I refreshed it the gap that you are talking about became too small in my opinion. After that, no amount of launching a new browser and putting the page in it for the first time would restore the original gap. Given that and the fact that your styling is obviously invalid. I wouldn't know if I'd 'fixed' it or not. Some things I can tell you are that:

margin:0 0 0px;

in the #header definition (the only style directly applied to the script) really doesn't mean anything, so try:


which means no margins at all. Also this (also in the #header definition):

width/* */:/**/auto;

means nothing to IE and could be confusing it so, take it out. None of that appears to make any difference though, but as I said, how could I tell?

One sure fire way to make the distance between the bottom of the script and the rest of the page smaller is to give the #content definition a negative top margin:

#content {


If you can get the page to do what you say it does consistently, or at least as needed for diagnosis, try adjusting that value until things appear as you wish. Perhaps combining that approach with adding a <br> right before the #content division might give you more consistent results, regardless of whether it is the 'first time' or not.

08-04-2005, 02:14 PM
I don't have IE, so I don't know how it's meant to look, but that page is awful.
Starting from the top: You have, full width, a box containing three changing pictures and some links at the top. Scrolling down further, there's another white box with no border hanging down on the right, and scrolling down further, there's what looks like a sidebar on the left side, below everything else.
See http://www.crystalinity.net/images/jn_org_in_fx.htm for a low-res shot of me scrolling through it. Apologies for my desktop looking like a (vibrantly green) spaceship control panel. :p

08-04-2005, 02:26 PM
hey thanks for going to that effort but that file is huge try the pages actually loaded on the site main page www.jacknicholson.org and then go into news and articles from there - does it look the same as jnphotos1 did? I would really appreciate it if you could let me know.

Cheers Twey

08-04-2005, 02:35 PM
No, it doesn't. Everything's misaligned as described above.
If you're going to be doing web design, you'll be wanting to install some other web browsers anyway. The second most popular browser at the moment (after IE) is, I believe Firefox (mozilla.org/products/firefox).

08-04-2005, 02:51 PM
Thanks Twey - appreciate the help