It seems that in IE 7 the DIVs for the stars are in fact being created from the radio buttons as expected but the text-indent CSS is set to -999em.
On Apr 4, 8:34 am, AsymF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yeah, I had thought about doing that. Even overlapping them. Was just > wondering if I had somehow missed a simpler way of doing it. :) > > One other thing. I can't get this version to work at all in IE 7 when > the stars are split. The stars don't show up. Even the radio buttons > won't show up. > > On Apr 4, 4:24 am, "Diego A." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Erm...................... no. > > What you can do is have 2 controls. > > > 1. Dummy control to display value (split). > > 2. Actual control that takes an input (not split). > > > Show/hide at your disclosure and voila! > > > On Apr 3, 10:29 pm, AsymF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Sorry, nevermind about the metadata. I just noticed it is optional. > > > > New question....is it possible to display the current value with split > > > stars but only allow whole star voting? In other words, show 3 and > > > 3/4ths stars highlighted and the remainder portion grayed out but on > > > mouseover show a full star for each one? > > > > On Apr 3, 4:10 pm, AsymF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Any way to get around the need for the metadata plugin? I am trying to > > > > keep included scripts light. > > > > > On Mar 20, 3:23 pm, "Diego A." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > For reference: The issue was relative positioning in IE. > > > > > I worked around it with a negative margin. > > > > > > On Mar 20, 6:29 pm, "Diego A." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > I had tried that but it didn't work reliably in IE. It was a CSS > > > > > > issue. But hey, I think I've fixed it, in which case the only issue > > > > > > with prototype B will be resolved. > > > > > > > Check it out:http://www.fyneworks.com/jquery/star-rating/ > > > > > > > On Mar 19, 10:08 pm, AsymF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Why can't the background-color value just be set to transparent? > > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 5:28 pm, timothytoe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > B is the more interesting path for development--that's for > > > > > > > > sure. You > > > > > > > > could always do both. Do B as far as you can take it, then > > > > > > > > maybe some > > > > > > > > clever solution will occur to you to get the same functionality > > > > > > > > over > > > > > > > > any background. > > > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 11:10 am, "Diego A." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Timothy, thanks for the feedback. THAT is exactly the > > > > > > > > > issue. > > > > > > > > > > Prototype A would work on ANY background, gradient or not, > > > > > > > > > without any > > > > > > > > > further requirements - other than 2 separate images that is. > > > > > > > > > > Prototype B does not require any other images, but you must > > > > > > > > > define the > > > > > > > > > background. So, if the background was a gradient, you'd have > > > > > > > > > to define > > > > > > > > > the same background image for the rating control in order for > > > > > > > > > it to > > > > > > > > > match the background it sits on (ie.: the page background). > > > > > > > > > > What sways me toward prototype B is that it allows for future > > > > > > > > > development. Stars can be easily split into sections, > > > > > > > > > different images > > > > > > > > > used, star domensions can be re-defined. > > > > > > > > > > Prototype A is easier to use (you don't need to think about > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > background it will sit on), but it puts serious constraints > > > > > > > > > on future > > > > > > > > > development and customization. > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 6:42 pm, timothytoe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Would prototype A work on a gradient background? If so, > > > > > > > > > > that would be > > > > > > > > > > useful. If not, B makes more sense to me. > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 15, 10:11 am, "Diego A." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > To anyone else who might be interested, feel free to send > > > > > > > > > > > your > > > > > > > > > > > feedback. I'm going to go ahead with prototype B for now > > > > > > > > > > > so the plugin > > > > > > > > > > > will require a background colour. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 13, 8:45 pm, "Diego A." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Two things..... > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. v2 now available > > > > > > > > > > > > here:http://www.fyneworks.com/jquery/star-rating/ > > > > > > > > > > > > - NEW: option to disable the cancel button, > > > > > > > > > > > > - NEW: option to make the plugin readOnly > > > > > > > > > > > > - NEW: ability to accept any value (anything at all) > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. half-star prototypes now available > > > > > > > > > > > > There are 2 ways of doing it, I need your feedback. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prototype A: Using 2 new half-star images (star-left > > > > > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > > star-right)http://www.fyneworks.com/jquery/star-rating/half-star-A/ > > > > > > > > > > > > PROS: works on any background > > > > > > > > > > > > CONS: needs extra images > > > > > > > > > > > > > Prototype B: Uses CSS to slide part of the star out of > > > > > > > > > > > > view (no extra > > > > > > > > > > > > images)http://www.fyneworks.com/jquery/star-rating/half-star-B/ > > > > > > > > > > > > PROS: can be easily divided into smaller pieces with CSS > > > > > > > > > > > > CONS: needs background colour > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, which one should we use?
