One option would be to animate the opacity either to 1 or to 0 instead of using fadeIn and fadeOut:
$("#"+idnum+"").animate( { opacity:1 }, 800 );
and
$("#"+idnum+"").animate( { opacity:0 }, 500 );
Here's a working fiddle to demonstrate this approach.
A few other notes about the code...
First, your hover-in and hover-out functions are nearly identical. Any time you have that much code that is so similar, it's a very good idea to combine it into a single function.
Where you have this code:
var id = new Array;
id = $(this).attr('class').split(' ');
it's unnecessary to have the new Array
, since you are just replacing the value in the next line. Also, I recommend using a plural name for an array instead of a singular name:
var ids = $(this).attr('class').split(' ');
The next line is:
for (var i in id) {
Never use a 'for..in' loop on an array. It will bite you if anyone ever augments Array.prototype
with new methods or properties. Instead, use a numeric for loop or an iterator such as jQuery's $.each()
.
Next is this code:
if(ids[i].match('box-interactive.+')){
var idnum = 'bandeau'+id[i].substring(15);
...
When you use .match
to test a string like this, you can also use it to extract the part of the string you want, without resorting to a brittle-to-maintain .substring(15)
call:
var match = ids[i].match( /box-interactive(.+)/ );
if( match ) {
var idnum = 'bandeau' + match[1];
...
Now having said all this, why not simplify things much further and let jQuery do all the work for you? There's no need for any of this fancy array looping and checking of classnames. You can replace the entire JavaScript code with this:
$(function(){
$("div[class^='box-interactive']").hover(
function(){
$(this).find('.bandeau').animate( { opacity:1 }, 800 );
},
function(){
$(this).find('.bandeau').animate( { opacity:0 }, 500 );
}
);
});
Updated fiddle
(You may note that I've contradicted my first piece of advice here and didn't combine the bit of duplicate code in the hover-in and hover-out functions. But there's now so little code that that the duplication isn't worth worrying about.)