Wednesday, November 18th, 2009
Simply Buttons
Category: JavaScript, Library
It is all the rage to build a perfect button and you can get some nice ones via SimplyButtons.init()
Related Content:
2.3 rating from 49 votes
Ajax Questions and Answers
Caching and dynamic views
My client does not want to change his cache settings on IE and I'm trying to figure out a way to dynamically update a view each time it is visited. I...
IE 8 Crashing Problem
Hello Everyone,
Here\'s the situation:
two iSeries boxes - Dev and Prod both V5R4M0
We\'re using AJAX to dynamically load content using a tabbed...
JQuery Function Not Defined?
[div]Hi there,[/div]
[div][/div]
[div]I\'m trying to set a php session variable from a radio button. The idea is that a jquery function is called...
Ajax News, Tips and Guides
Ajax Glossary
Audible Ajax
Episode 25
In Episode 25, we chat about IE 8, standards, Acid3, server side JavaScript, and more.
Podcast RSS
GET E-MAIL UPDATES
Ajaxian Jobs
Contact us
Who are the ajaxians? Find out.
Please contact us at . We would love to hear about any news that we could put up here.
We have individual blogs too:
Feeds
Too bad the script itself is rather poor (http://www.p51labs.com/projects/buttons/javascripts/SimplyButtons.js): tests for presence of class the wrong way (using boundaries), uses getAttribute/setAttribute to copy intrinsic event properties (!), wastes memory by creating unnecessary array objects in a loop (which could be created once), uses `attachEvent` after sniffing for `document.all`, etc…
Has anyone seen any usability studies about what type of cursor to use for buttons/links? By default, buttons and input=submit elements don’t use the ‘pointer’ cursor. Now that we style buttons to look like links (to facilitate POST/PUT/DELETE links, for instance) and links to look like buttons, is there a best practice for which cursor to use?
@kangax, uh-oh, I think you scared him away, the link to the JS is dead.
@RyanMorr looks like kangax’s link has a trailing ) that shouldn’t be in the link.
@blepore, my bad I didn’t notice that. Maybe it’s for the best, I almost threw up in my mouth when I saw the code kangax was eluding to.
They are pretty, though. :-)
Only on Ajaxian ;). Articles about hardcore JavaScript optimization one day, and then an article about a crappy “button library” the next.
Well, one good thing came out of this. There is no reason for javascript to be involved in buttons. Fortunately, the nice gentleman who stole the button design posted a link to a page where that design is implemented with just images and CSS: http://www.oscaralexander.com/tutorials/how-to-make-sexy-buttons-with-css.html
Those are some nice Web 2.0 buttons. However, I’m currently on Web 3.1., so they are too dated looking for me to use.
Hi-
Thanks for everyones feedback, that’s what I am always looking for. I would like to address a few things though.
@kangax and the likes: Thank you for being so childish, next time please offer up some suggestions for improvement. This JS is not necessary and is the first version without a framework.
@MaratDenenberg: I did not steal the design, in fact I link to oscar. More over the buttons are generic and are to show off the technique, its not like I stole the youtube buttons as well.
Once again thanks for the feedback guys, this is how we get new generations of code out there that work better than the last.
Kevin
@p51labs Childish, huh :) Didn’t I list few things that were out of place? Is that not a suggestion?
@p51labs – good sportsmanship is completely ignoring all criticism. good coding is accepting informed criticism with grace… :P
My bad guys and my apologies to kangax, I read all the comments at once and clumped kangax with RyanMorr and some others.
@kangax: Thanks for the pointers, I already have a list of todo’s for the JS end and it will only get better from here :)
@sixtyseconds: I love that quote, who is it from? I agree, constructive comments are always the best, that’s how things get better ;)
Kevin
it’s from me :D
@MaratDenenberg: You do realize that the page you linked to also requires JS to be cross-browser, right?
@zulugrid: HAHA :) Just goes to show ya that there are people that prefer to knock something before they actually read…
Quite nice. But fixed height, not scalable. What if someone wants paw-sized buttons for a touchscreen app?