Update: adding overflow:hidden to my "trigger" DIVs and tossing in a load of non-breaking spaces seems to do the trick tolerably, but this feels like a cludgy solution.
On Mar 5, 10:01 pm, hedgomatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm working on getting what should be a simple rollover effect done in > jquery, and it works like a charm in firefox and safari, but IE is not > having any of it. > > the page in question is here:http://www.awayfromkeyboard.com/nymphomania/ > > here's the relevant code: > > jQuery: > $(document).ready(function(){ > $("#trigger_news").mouseover( function () { $ > ("#news").addClass("news_on"); }); > $("#trigger_news").mouseout( function () { $ > ("#news").removeClass("news_on"); > $("#news").addClass("news"); }); > > }); > > CSS: > #trigger_news { position:absolute; top:133px; left:237px; z-index:3; > width:138px; height:33px; } > > .news { position: absolute; top:103px; left:237px; width:323px; height: > 132px; z-index:2; display: none; } > > .news_on { position: absolute; top:103px; left:237px; width:323px; > height:132px; z-index:2; display: block; background-image:url('event- > states/news.jpg'); } > > HTML: > <DIV ID="trigger_news"></DIV> > <DIV ID="news" CLASS="news"></DIV> > > the problem seems to be that the layered divs I'm using to capture the > user's mouseover event are empty, and IE is very unhappy about it. Put > some text in there, and IE will accept that if you're hovering over > the text specifically, but nowhere else. Put a giant border on the > DIV, IE will respond when you hover over the border. Putting an image > in there gets it to behave appropriately, but transparent pngs or gifs > won't work, since IE5.5/6 doesn't support image transparency on any z- > index other than 0 (at least to my knowledge). > > I could make images of the four navigation items as well as hover > states for each, but it's already a pretty heavy site in terms of > filesize and that generally strikes me as a bit sloppy. > > I've also tried capturing the events with image maps, and IE likes > this a little bit better in that it will sometimes display the image I > want, but overall the results from that approach were unreliable and > flaky. > > any ideas/suggestions on another solution, or something I'm missing in > regards to this one?
