|
From: Gina J. <gj...@lo...> - 2007-11-08 20:39:26
|
Hi Brad, We are not finding any problems accessing collections using Wayback 1.0. = David Brooks and I did a final quality review on our Supreme Court = collection using Wayback 1.0. No odd or unexpected behaviours. =20 I like the timeline/archival mode, and plan to ask Ignacio to configure = the layout differently when we implement it here, most specifically to = change the Timestamp, the layout, and content. =20 However, there are numerous layout issues caused by the timeline in = Wayback 1.0 which need to be fixed before we migrate our collections to = it. I have done screenshots of where I have seen problems. I can put = those up if you like or send urls. Ignacio, am going to repeat your evaluation of what you think the problem = may be: <snip> >From Ignacio I looked a little bit at the code in the file and for what I've seen, = the=20 problem may be in two places. 1. The page being displayed uses absolue position to display its top=20 elements, which will end up covered by the timeline box, since it is=20 position at the top by the javascript. 2. The page has some coding problems and the Parent of the timeline=20 element is not the BODY tag, but some other tag, which will not move = the=20 box to the top of the page. The way the script works, it grabs the actual code for the timeline box=20 and also records the PARENT of the element. Then it removes the box (from the botton of the page) and places it at = the=20 beginning of the PARENT element (in front of the first child) This works if the PARENT of the box is the BODY tag. </snip> Gina |