Image maps with Ultimate Fade-in slideshow (v1.51)

[alFrame]

1) Script Title:
Ultimate Fade-in slideshow (v1.51)

2) Script URL (on DD):
http://www.dynamicdrive.com/dynamici...nslideshow.htm

3) Describe problem:

First and foremost: Thanks for all the work you guys put into all these scripts.

I was wondering if there would be a way to include image maps with the Ultimate Fade-in (v1.51) script. I have a a few slide shows on my site which contain the actual content but also the clients and affiliates logos which I would like to make clickable (linking to the respective company).

I have tried to add following to the code where the slideshow is placed in the body area. To no avail...

<map name="Map">
<area shape="rect" coords="105,170,228,249" href="link" title="title" alt="alt">
</map>

Here's the link to the page: http://fullframestudios.ch/2007/page...alisation.html

NOTE: this is not officially up there yet. It's my working copy. But I need to put it online by the middle of this week since I will be exhibiting at Siggraph next week...

As you can see I am an 3D animator and I have to admit that I have close to no clue about programming

Thanks in advance

al

[jscheuer1]

See:

http://home.comcast.net/~jscheuer1/s...ufade_imap.htm

First introduced here:

http://www.dynamicdrive.com/forums/s...6&postcount=10

This modification was made for v 1.5 of this script, but a v 1.5 version of this script that I had already updated to use what has since been adopted in v 1.51.

[alFrame]

Thanks John,

Will I have to use the 1.5 code from your examples, or should this work with the 1.5.1 code as well?

[jscheuer1]

What I was trying to say is, I wrote the 1.51 update and had been using it in my examples at the time I made the image map modification. So, my example is essentially the 1.51 code updated to use image maps. It just doesn't have that 1.51 number in its comment header, DD designated that 1.51 number when they finally accepted my basic update that I had been using and trying to get adopted in their library for years (seems like years, could have been months).