bigcoxjsa
09-03-2003, 03:48 PM
I really need help finding a code that i can create a link from my site to mp3 files saved on the server. I really suck at html, so if you can help me, i'd appreciate it.
ryan cox
ryan cox
Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : HTML file link code
bigcoxjsa
09-03-2003, 03:51 PM
P.S.
If anyone also has a code for inserting pictures (with position coding) i would appreciate that too!
ryan
If anyone also has a code for inserting pictures (with position coding) i would appreciate that too!
ryan
David Harrison
09-03-2003, 04:08 PM
If you want to link to an mp3 then do this:
<a href="abc.mp3">abc.,mp3</a>
Alternatively you can link to a page with an mp3 embedded in it. To embed something do this:
<embed src="abc.mp3" width="x" height="y" autostart="false">
It is not neccesary to include the width, height or autostart attributes but I did include them just so you know about them.
To put an image on page and position it you can do this:
<img src="def.gif" style="position:fixed;top:100px;left:50%;">
You can use px or % for units. px means pixels and % refers to the percentage width/height of the page. You can also replace top with bottom, and left with right.
You can also replace fixed with absolute to position it relative to it's parent element.
<a href="abc.mp3">abc.,mp3</a>
Alternatively you can link to a page with an mp3 embedded in it. To embed something do this:
<embed src="abc.mp3" width="x" height="y" autostart="false">
It is not neccesary to include the width, height or autostart attributes but I did include them just so you know about them.
To put an image on page and position it you can do this:
<img src="def.gif" style="position:fixed;top:100px;left:50%;">
You can use px or % for units. px means pixels and % refers to the percentage width/height of the page. You can also replace top with bottom, and left with right.
You can also replace fixed with absolute to position it relative to it's parent element.
bigcoxjsa
09-04-2003, 10:45 AM
Thanks partner.. i really appreciate your help.
THIS IS THE BEST SITE EVER! you guys rock
ryan
THIS IS THE BEST SITE EVER! you guys rock
ryan
spufi
09-04-2003, 11:13 AM
Also note the image tag should also include the width and height of the image so as it loads the page is already spaced out properly instead of it shiftting around as an image loads. Plus, adding in the "alt" attribute is good incase the image doesn't show up.
David Harrison
09-04-2003, 02:29 PM
I also use the title attribute in all of my links and images when I use them.
Hey spufi, what happened to your post count? It's dropped down into the 300's.
Hey spufi, what happened to your post count? It's dropped down into the 300's.
spufi
09-04-2003, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by lavalamp
I also use the title attribute in all of my links and images when I use them.
Hey spufi, what happened to your post count? It's dropped down into the 300's.
It's been down in the 300 range for a while and I can't really call if it was higher, so I don't know.
I also use the title attribute in all of my links and images when I use them.
Hey spufi, what happened to your post count? It's dropped down into the 300's.
It's been down in the 300 range for a while and I can't really call if it was higher, so I don't know.
pyro
09-04-2003, 07:33 PM
Two things to point out... Adding the alt attribute is not only good and the right thing to do, as spufi said, but it is also required. It is not an optional attribute.
And number 2, the title attribute is not the alt attribute, so just because you include title is no excuse to leave out alt.
And number 2, the title attribute is not the alt attribute, so just because you include title is no excuse to leave out alt.
David Harrison
09-05-2003, 08:50 AM
also useas in, along with, in conjuction with etc. I don't leave alt out.
pyro
09-05-2003, 10:19 AM
Missed those two words... ;)
David Harrison
09-05-2003, 04:32 PM
That's OK. Sometimes I miss out whole posts. :o
pyro
09-05-2003, 04:38 PM
lol... :D Yep, been there, done that...
GavinPearce
09-07-2003, 07:09 AM
Alt tag is one of the few W3 rules I agree with.
However some are stupid, and I've decided if Macromedia don't want to follow it, and neither do many of the main companies, I don't really care to follow it either.
However some are stupid, and I've decided if Macromedia don't want to follow it, and neither do many of the main companies, I don't really care to follow it either.
pyro
09-07-2003, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by gavinnet
However some are stupid, and I've decided if Macromedia don't want to follow it, and neither do many of the main companies, I don't really care to follow it either. Sucks to be a disabled viewer of your site... :(
However some are stupid, and I've decided if Macromedia don't want to follow it, and neither do many of the main companies, I don't really care to follow it either. Sucks to be a disabled viewer of your site... :(
GavinPearce
09-07-2003, 09:52 AM
On some of my sites I guess it would be, but I follow Macromedia standards, after being at the BETT show I have piles and piles of white paper on Accesiblilty in HTML, in Flash, in images etc..
Though when I was speaking with Mark Green (education manager) he reckoned some people were taking it to far by trying to make sites that worked fine for fully blind people for example.
I really don't mean any offence when I say this, but you dont get many blind people surfing the net, and in the business world people tend to aim at the majority rather than the miniroty because thats where the money is.
On this site idea http://forums.webdeveloper.com/showthread.php?threadid=16897 it is something we will work on i guess though.
Though when I was speaking with Mark Green (education manager) he reckoned some people were taking it to far by trying to make sites that worked fine for fully blind people for example.
I really don't mean any offence when I say this, but you dont get many blind people surfing the net, and in the business world people tend to aim at the majority rather than the miniroty because thats where the money is.
On this site idea http://forums.webdeveloper.com/showthread.php?threadid=16897 it is something we will work on i guess though.
pyro
09-07-2003, 12:54 PM
Also, accessablility isn't the only reason to use valid markup. Try forward compatability, or page weight (saves bandwidth). How about cleaner markup/readablility. Or, say you have to modify an existing site, would you rather have it use valid code, or have <font> and other depreciated tags nested to unacceptable levels? Try sorting out what the end results of 12 <font> tags in a row would be, or...
GavinPearce
09-07-2003, 02:31 PM
I agree, I just dont think everything they suggest is needed at this time.
webdeveloper.com
Copyright Internet.com Inc., All Rights Reserved.
Copyright Internet.com Inc., All Rights Reserved.