 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussionsAccessExcelInfoPathOutlookPowerPointPublisherWordDirectoryUser Groups Related Topics Outlook ExpressInternet ExplorerWindowsMS Server ProductsMore Topics ... |
MS Office Forum / Publisher / Web Design / February 2007How can I hyperlink to an enlarged picture in Publisher 2003?
I have resized my original pic to a thumbnail and added it to my website. Now I would like it if I click on that thumbnail it would hyperlink to my original pic. What are the necessary steps. I'm running on Publisher 2003. While in Publisher, right click the thumbnail, select hyperlink and then enter /filename.jpg or if it is a gif or if it is a bmp. Upload the file picture along with the new website files.  SignatureDon Vancouver, USA > I have resized my original pic to a thumbnail and added it to my website. Now > I would like it if I click on that thumbnail it would hyperlink to my > original pic. What are the necessary steps. I'm running on Publisher 2003. I would like to link to expanded pictures as well. What ia the best resolution and photo size (3x5, 4x6 ...) to use for the expanded pictures? I resized all my product thumbnails to 100 dpi and a small size before I stuck them into my Pub 2003 site. (at least I still have the master photos at 300 dpi). How much does the "outside" photo link impact the loading time of the site page? Does the hyperlink slow down the load? > While in Publisher, right click the thumbnail, select hyperlink and then > enter [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I would like it if I click on that thumbnail it would hyperlink to my > > original pic. What are the necessary steps. I'm running on Publisher 2003. Reference: How to Thumbnail in Publisher 2003 Web Publications: http://pubs.logicalexpressions.com/Pub0009/LPMArticle.asp?ID=564 Size? Its a trade off. The bigger the picture, the larger the file, the slower it loads. Start thinking in pixels instead of inches. I generally use a 400 pixel width for most "full size" views, and occasionally 480. This gets the file sizes down to no more than 15 to 20 kb, which load pretty fast. Some people will provide two links...one for dial-up users to smaller images, and another for broadband users where file size isn't so important, and then link these to larger pictures. DavidF >I would like to link to expanded pictures as well. > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> > original pic. What are the necessary steps. I'm running on Publisher >> > 2003. Most of my "small" files are 400 dpi. I optimized the pages and did a save as (still need to add photos). I looked at the page image files (Not the ones I pasted) and the sizes were down considerably ... except for the PNGs. Does this mean I should upload the ~400 dpi original files for my expanded files. Any way to edit the PNGs to make them smaller? That's a new format to me and it crept onto the pages with some of the Office graphics files. They are real space hogs! > Reference: How to Thumbnail in Publisher 2003 Web Publications: > http://pubs.logicalexpressions.com/Pub0009/LPMArticle.asp?ID=564 [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >> > original pic. What are the necessary steps. I'm running on Publisher > >> > 2003. Pub 2003 makes copies of any inserted images in various formats including PNGs. I don't remember if you have already done this, but if not, go to Tools > Options > Web Tab and uncheck "Rely on VML..." and "Allow PNGs...". This will minimize the use of PNGs, but not eliminate their production. Just ignore them. Secondly, unless I am reading your post wrong, you do not want to do a Save As to produce your html output. Do a Publish to the Web, and you will get filtered html. 400 dpi images are for print documents. It is good that you are using the graphics compression tool in Publisher but if you want the optimal images in your pages, then you will resize and optimize the images before they are inserted into the page. And if you are going to link to "full size" images, they have to be optimized and sized in a third party program. There are lots of them out there, but a freebie that works pretty well is www.irfanview.com . Download and install it, and then open your original images and resize them to the 400 or 480 pixel width, at 72 or 96 dpi and perhaps 30% compression...play with it to see what final quality and size is acceptable to you. If you want to optimize the images that you insert, just resize the original to the custom size you created on your Publisher page, insert them, and then make sure they are at 100% scale. (Select the image > Format > Picture > Size tab). This is likely to give you the best picture when viewed. DavidF > Most of my "small" files are 400 dpi. I optimized the pages and did a save > as [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >> >> > original pic. What are the necessary steps. I'm running on Publisher >> >> > 2003. Now YOU lost ME. I just did a "save as" of the optimized file because I was unsure what would happen if I re-optimized the files after I added new pictures. At least I can uncheck the allow PNG before any more of them breed in my program. The site uses LOTS of photos - stained glass, fused glass, jewelry,... and each piece is unique. I will have to oupdate the files frequently as new pieces are created and new jewelry styles come out. Will it be best to replace the entire page and load that up instead of trying to place each new photo into the niche of the old one? Should I presume the larger files will be the 400 pixel ones (sorry - NOT dpi, I meant pixels!). I use Photoshop for the image fixes and crops. The ones in the site now are at 100 DPI so the 400 "DPI" of which I spoke was 400 pixels across = 4" on my resize. Is this a reasonable size for the "big" shots? How do I link the little PUB thumbnails to the larger files? And WHEN? Before I save as HTML and move that to the site or after the site is up? That's where you lost me - you say "publish to the web" and I don't have a clue how to do that! I was planning to load HTML files that PUB creates each time I save. Lost in space, The Kat > Pub 2003 makes copies of any inserted images in various formats including > PNGs. I don't remember if you have already done this, but if not, go to [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > >> >> > original pic. What are the necessary steps. I'm running on Publisher > >> >> > 2003. No, your optimized images for the web should be 72 or 96 ppi regardless of what the physical dimensions may be. Photoshop has Save For Web option this may help you. Also, take a look at IrFanview (an excellent free program) that allows for quick batch processing (easier than PS) which will allow for resizing, conversion, optimizing, renaming all in one shot - this may be helpful tool for you. At 400 ppi you're just wasting electrons...and we have a shortage of them right now due to global warming/freezing ..whatever :-) | Now YOU lost ME. I just did a "save as" of the optimized file because I was | unsure what would happen if I re-optimized the files after I added new [quoted text clipped - 106 lines] | > >> >> > original pic. What are the necessary steps. I'm running on Publisher | > >> >> > 2003. " global warming" Sad but true - says she sitting in 5" of new snow (at least I'm not in NY) I never noticed the web save option - I'm too print oriented, I guess. I'll grab the other little program and see which gives the best results. I just want to be sure the jewelry will show up at 72 dpi. No sense wasting electrons with blurry garbage, either! But what about the site page updatess? Any thoughts on that? And do I load the optimized images to the site along with the site images if I want a larger image to show? (Yes, I have, but obviously need to re-read the article). With any luck I'll have the site up this weekend (HA - said that the last four weekends). Then you'll have something to look at to help debug. > No, your optimized images for the web should be 72 or 96 ppi regardless of > what the physical dimensions may be. [quoted text clipped - 155 lines] > Publisher > | > >> >> > 2003. This will take a while to answer...I'll be back. DavidF > Now YOU lost ME. I just did a "save as" of the optimized file because I > was [quoted text clipped - 137 lines] >> >> >> > Publisher >> >> >> > 2003. I'm back. answers in line > Now YOU lost ME. I just did a "save as" of the optimized file because I > was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in my program. The site uses LOTS of photos - stained glass, fused glass, > jewelry,... and each piece is unique. Sorry about that. To clarify, when I was talking about using Publish to the Web vs. Save As , I was referencing the way you produce your html files...not the way you save your Pub file. I think it is always a good idea of doing a Save As to a new name when you make any major change in a Pub file. Its nice to have that original to go back to. > I will have to oupdate the files frequently as new pieces are created and > new jewelry styles come out. Will it be best to replace the entire page > and > load that up instead of trying to place each new photo into the niche of > the > old one? One of the places where Publisher starts to feel its limits is when the website gets big, and when you have pages that need to be updated frequently. When my site grew, I decided to break it up and produce it with multiple Publisher files. I have several parts of my site that get updated at least monthly, and I produce these with seperate Publisher files. Depending on how you have things organized, you might be better off using multiple Pub files. Reference this article by David Bartosik: Building a web site with multiple Publisher web publication files: http://msmvps.com/blogs/dbartosik/archive/2006/01/16/81264.aspx I approach it a bit different than David though. I just create subfolders on my site for the different sections, and continue to use the index.htm as the default file name. Rather than mixing all those files in one folder, I find it easier to manage the files on my site when they are organized in separate subfolders...more like I have them organized on my computer. I also tend to just delete the entire contents of those subfolders before I upload the updated HTML. This is probably not necessary, but I like an empty folder and to avoid the possibility of orphaned image files that aren't overwritten by the new files. To each their own. Sometimes if it is only a word or two, I just change out the index.htm file. You will need to decide what makes sense for you. One caveat...you will probably need to abandon the navbar wizard and build your own navbar or menu with absolute links... > Should I presume the larger files will be the 400 pixel ones (sorry - NOT > dpi, I meant pixels!). I use Photoshop for the image fixes and crops. The [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > WHEN? > Before I save as HTML and move that to the site or after the site is up? When you resize and optimize your images, I would agree with Rob. Make the images 400 pixels (or whatever final width you want), and at 72 or 96 dpi, for your "large" version. I find that 400 pixel wide images give me enough detail, but you might need larger, and perhaps not need that large depending on the photo. Try different sizes until you find the smallest that works for you. I use 100 or 150 pixel wide images for thumbnails. 100 can be awful small... As to linking the two, you didn't take the time to read the article I referenced did you? ;-) The short of it is that you will upload your large size images to a subfolder on your site, and link to them from your thumbnails. Here is the reference again: How to Thumbnail in Publisher 2003 Web Publications: http://pubs.logicalexpressions.com/Pub0009/LPMArticle.asp?ID=564 > That's where you lost me - you say "publish to the web" and I don't have a > clue how to do that! I was planning to load HTML files that PUB creates > each > time I save. I don't know if you are still confused about this or not, but when you produce the html files from Publisher you can click on the little icon, or File > Publish to the Web. If you produce your html files this way they are "filtered" and your over all file size and loading time is minimized. What I didn't want you to do was go to File > Save As > Save as type, a web page in html format. That results in unfiltered html, that you don't want. Part of the confusion is that in Pub 2000, you do produce your html files via the Save As approach, and in Pub 2002 you do something different. Sorry if I confused you. Here is a brief outline of the whole process that might clear things up: Prepare, publish, and maintain your Publisher Web site: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/publisher/HA011053521033.aspx Now then, its all clear as mud, eh? DavidF > Lost in space, > The Kat [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] >> >> >> > Publisher >> >> >> > 2003. This will take some time to read! You've done a lot of work for me - I really do appreciate it! Right now I think the site is small enough to handle with one PUB file. I would like to have a better handle on how difficult it is to change pages and files before I start worrying about subfolders. Of course, it would help to upload the thing so I could play with it and you could see what I'm talking about. And my friends want to see my work and are after me to get the pages up as well. Guess I want it perfect the first time - probably impossible, tho. I got the link font to work (from other string) and it looks good. A tweak of that tonight should clear it for uploading. Home and other pages area ready. I have three glass pieces to describe and insert and two jewelry pieces. Think I read the wrong file on the thumbnails. What I found didn't explain the links too clearly. I'll check that out tonight, too. Think I understand what you're saying about the upload. I just hope the server will let me use Publisher; I had intended to change it to HTML & FPage format before I moved it, but that won't work! I'm glad tomorrow is Saturday. I'm sure more questions will come up after I read everything and make a few more mistakes. That site IS going up this weekend! Please stay in touch! Have you heard the description "as nervous as a long-tailed cat in a room full of rockers"? More later... The (nervous) Kat > I'm back. answers in line > [quoted text clipped - 197 lines] > >> >> >> > Publisher > >> >> >> > 2003. Ready or not, just put it up! Remember people are not sitting there waiting for you...no one will know it's even there until you tell them or it gets spidered which could take a week or so anyway. Just do it...websites are always a work in progress anyway. Oh, but WE are waiting :-))) | This will take some time to read! You've done a lot of work for me - I really | do appreciate it! [quoted text clipped - 230 lines] | > >> >> >> > Publisher | > >> >> >> > 2003. Now I'm REALLY nervous! :) > Ready or not, just put it up! Remember people are not sitting there waiting > for you...no one will know it's even there until you tell them or it gets [quoted text clipped - 264 lines] > file, > | > >> >> the You are welcome. You just gave me some extra motivation to work out some things that have been on my to do list anyway. Before I go any further, here is a better code snippet for you: </font><font face="Wingdings" color=#a50021 size=3>ñ</font><font face="Trebuchet" color=#a50021 size=3><A HREF="#TOP">Top</A> I am almost embarrassed about posting that first snippet. I am so bad at coding. Oh well, it worked, even though it had a lot of extra code that wasn't needed. I should have waited until I had time to test some more. This one is a bit cleaner...and perhaps not the last ;-) Rob and Mike, if you are reading this, you two have to jump in when I am making a fool of myself and offering such butchered code...yikes. Here is a different version on linking your thumbnails where he gives a different version with an example: http://msmvps.com/blogs/dbartosik/articles/80553.aspx And, here is a link to three articles about uploading that might help if you run into a jam: http://msmvps.com/blogs/dbartosik/archive/category/1921.aspx I realize that all of this is a lot to understand, but that's part of the fun of it all. And you are always learning new and better ways of doing things...look at me for example. Relax... You will be fine. DavidF > This will take some time to read! You've done a lot of work for me - I > really [quoted text clipped - 296 lines] >> >> >> >> > Publisher >> >> >> >> > 2003. uh...ok then...you best check your html again :-) | You are welcome. You just gave me some extra motivation to work out some | things that have been on my to do list anyway. [quoted text clipped - 325 lines] | >> >> >> >> > Publisher | >> >> >> >> > 2003. Thanks Rob. If you have something a bit more specific...like alternative code...would love to see it. In the meantime at least I know to keep looking. DavidF > uh...ok then...you best check your html again :-) > [quoted text clipped - 424 lines] > | >> >> >> >> > Publisher > | >> >> >> >> > 2003. David (and Kat), When in doubt, plagiarize. Find a web site you like, View the Source code and copy/paste it. Here are a couple of sites for good references on tags: http://www.web-source.net/html_codes_chart.htm http://www.htmlgoodies.com/ Even though this site: http://www.serif.com/forum/default.asp is about Serif (and about half-way down, WebPlus) there are usually several discussions about coding. You have to register to post (to prevent spammers) but guests can view threads. Mike > Thanks Rob. If you have something a bit more specific...like > alternative code...would love to see it. In the meantime at least I know to [quoted text clipped - 430 lines] >>| >> >> >> >> > Publisher >>| >> >> >> >> > 2003. David (and Kat), When in doubt, plagiarize. Find a web site you like, View the Source code and copy/paste it. Here are a couple of sites for good references on tags: http://www.web-source.net/html_codes_chart.htm http://www.htmlgoodies.com/ And here's one (toward the bottom) that lists the web safe colors by RGB ad hex values: http://www.web-source.net/216_color_chart.htm Even though this site: http://www.serif.com/forum/default.asp is about Serif (and about half-way down, WebPlus) there are usually several discussions about coding. You have to register to post (to prevent spammers) but guests can view threads. Mike > Thanks Rob. If you have something a bit more specific...like > alternative code...would love to see it. In the meantime at least I know to [quoted text clipped - 430 lines] >>| >> >> >> >> > Publisher >>| >> >> >> >> > 2003. Thanks Mike. DavidF > David (and Kat), > [quoted text clipped - 467 lines] >>>| >> >> >> >> > Publisher >>>| >> >> >> >> > 2003. Great leads! Thanks! Line from a Leheer song went "Plagerize. Let no one else's work evade your eyes..." Nothing like a little insight from a Harvard prof - or EX-Harvard prof. Now to assimilate all the information I've received today. The Kat > David (and Kat), > [quoted text clipped - 266 lines] > >>| >> html format. That results in unfiltered html, that you don't want. > >>Part you're starting with a closing tag </font> | Thanks Rob. If you have something a bit more specific...like | alternative code...would love to see it. In the meantime at least I know to [quoted text clipped - 430 lines] | > | >> >> >> >> > Publisher | > | >> >> >> >> > 2003. David, Since you gave me the suggestion (or at least encouraged me to do what I needed to do), I found there's a great thing and a horrible thing about using sub-folders or different files for pages: You have to write absolute links, not a relative one. Horrible, as I have to remember the exact location of the file. Great, as I don't have to redo all my links. Now, before everyone decides to use a horde of sub-folders or different files for their web site, consider how your site is structured and updated. If you are going to have several categories that will keep growing, then I would set up a file for each category. This will keep the file size down (saving time with Save, Autosave, Publish, etc.) as well as provide a measure of safety if your file becomes corrupted - and it will if you add a lot of pages week after week. OTOH, if one is going to just update a site periodically and not worry about keeping the old news, or adding a lot of pages over a period of time, there's probably not a good reason to split sites. Of course, YMMV, Take this with grain of salt, Buyer Beware, E. Pluribus Unum, NaNa-NaNa, This Cat is where it's at, etc.! Mike > I'm back. answers in line > [quoted text clipped - 199 lines] >>>>>>>>Publisher >>>>>>>>2003. This may sound witless, but can you mis the site: some pages as separate files updated often and the bulk of the site that does not change much as another file with multiple pages? This goes back a bit in the string to what I need to do on the site: "I will have to update the files frequently as new pieces are created and new jewelry styles come out." Only two pages (for now) will be updated regularly and my home page with change a bit, but not too much - after I finally get everything running! (Still have to figure out Miva Merchant). The Kat > David, > [quoted text clipped - 222 lines] > >>>>>>>>to my original pic. What are the necessary steps. I'm running on > >>>>>>>>Publisher 2003. >>This may sound witless, but can you mis the site: some pages as separate files updated often and the bulk of the site that does not change much as another file with multiple pages? << No offense, but it does sound witless. I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean can you make a site with a bulk of it in one file, and pages that get updated often in their own files - yes. But ask yourself - with the updated pages grow in size or just change? I update some pages weekly, sometime more often, and there is no reason to create a new file or folder for them. I would probably start with one file and add pages as you need to. Just don't be stupid like me - I knew in August or September my file was going to get too large in a short period of time. I waited until January to do something about it and then it was a lot more work. One thing I like about the program I use is I can create any size page I want in the same file. So say I have a piece of jewelry I want to display. I can size to the dimensions I want (say 300 x 400 pix at 96 dpi) and place it on a page that size. This would be the size a viewer would see if they click on a thumbnail. I can take the same image and place it on a page with other pieces, but make it thumbnail size. The program automatically resizes it to 96 dpi. Create a hyperlink from the thumbnail view to a full size one. The larger view can open in a variety of different windows - via an album such as JAlbum, in an i-frame that doesn't show on a page until the link is clicked or even better (if I can figure out how to do it) in a "lightbox." The latter really looks promising. Check out http://www.huddletogether.com/projects/lightbox/ to see how it works. FWIW, you aren't the first one to publish a web site for the first time! As others have said, no one will know about it until you tell them (don't worry about search engine spiders - it will be months before you rank high enough to worry about it). There's nothing to it but to do it. So publish it and give us the URL. More than likely, it will be great. If not, people will offer suggestions on how to make it better. Mike > This may sound witless, but can you mis the site: some pages as separate > files updated often and the bulk of the site that does not change much as [quoted text clipped - 235 lines] >>>>>>>>>>to my original pic. What are the necessary steps. I'm running on >>>>>>>>>>Publisher 2003. I know I'm not the only first time web spinner, but I am paranoid :) I have three glass pictures to edit and describe, one more jewelry piece to describe, and the navigation bar to set up - I'm going to do it myself because the one created by Pub looks crazy - it's way over the edge and I can't get it sized right. May as well get ready for when I DO have to add individual pages. You guys have given me so much information that I haven't absorbed it all yet. I DID find out that I have 'non-standard' colors in there. Any idea how color fades are handled on other browsers? I use one in my header. Maybe tonight... At least I've got 24/7 tech support with the host. If you want to see what's there now, look at 2-Lions.com (I'm struck by the incapability of the Create-it editor they have for quickie sites.) The Kat > >>This may sound witless, but can you mis the site: some pages as > separate files updated often and the bulk of the site that does not [quoted text clipped - 240 lines] > >>>>>>>important, > >>>>>>>and then link these to larger pictures. Kat, Okay, one thing that pops up quickly - your page width is more than 800 pix. Consider that at least 1/3 of people who use the Net are viewing at a resolution of 800x600 or less. That means they will get a scroll bar at the bottom. You are barely over that width, so it should not be a major task to change it. My own preference - I would probably try to add some background color or borders to the pages. It looks sort of "sterile" now. Not sure why you have a "To the Top" link on each page - most of them don't need it. They are normally reserved for very long pages with links at the top that a user wants (needs) to get back to. Personally, I would skip any fancy Nav bar. The one you have now works great, looks fine, will be easily picked up by a search bot, and doesn't take any time to load. Why spoil it just to show you know some fancy coding? :-) To think, you were paranoid about what kind of job you might do. I would say you passed with flying colors. Mike > I know I'm not the only first time web spinner, but I am paranoid :) I have > three glass pictures to edit and describe, one more jewelry piece to [quoted text clipped - 257 lines] >>>>>>>>>important, >>>>>>>>>and then link these to larger pictures. The Back to top links are needed on the FAQ, Adornments, and Glass art pages. Those are long. As for the size, that was just the default that their stock site creator used. I'm pretty sure the PUB files are not that wide. The nav bars on the new sit gor across the top and the bottom. I lost too much space by having that left column on the products pages. Is there some way to convince Pub that it should size the boxes for the contents? If not, I'll just use a text only bar in both places. Thanks for the kind words, though. The site on my computer has a lot more to it (but the cat is still there!) :) The Kat > Kat, > [quoted text clipped - 235 lines] > >>>>>>>them to the 400 or 480 pixel width, at 72 or 96 dpi and perhaps 30% > >>>>>>>compression...play with it to see what final quality and size is Mike, I can use all the suggestions and feedback I can get...thanks. The bigger the site, the harder it is to organize it and the navigation system...and the more important it is to organize it well. Otherwise as you suggested with your experience, you end up down the road at a dead end, or at least a cul-de-sac.;-) If you have only 5 or 10 pages...maybe even 15 to 20 pages, then producing the whole site in one Publisher file, and using the navigation wizard to produce your navbar/menu with relative links, is probably the best way to go. Add a page...delete a page, and the wizard automagically redoes the menu so everything is linked together. And as I understand it, this is the way it also works in Serif WebPlus. The problems start when your site grows to 50 to 100+ pages. This is when many people move to different dynamic web applications to produce their sites. I, perhaps foolishly, chose to stay with Publisher and found that it was easier to manage the site by breaking it up into sections and subfolders. When I did this, I was also forced to give up on using the navigation wizard that wrote relative links and start using absolute links. In fact, Publisher 2000's menu wizard would only produce 10 pages. Kat is using Pub 2003 which allows pretty much as many pages as you want, and the navigation wizard will add them to the menu. The only reason I suggested that he consider breaking up the site was his comments about some pages needing to be updated frequently. I guess I felt it might be a good idea to produce these variable pages with one or more separate Publisher files, and then linking them together with absolute links. I just thought it might be easier to manage that way. Just as an example, say he sold a selection of rings, watches, and necklaces. I would consider creating a separate Publisher file for each category, and create a new Publisher file if I added another category. He could use the Pub navigation wizard to create a menu if he needed multiple pages within a category, and then if he sold out of a particular ring, or added two models of rings, he would only have to edit the Ring Publisher file. I guess the bottom line is that I have no idea of what he is wanting to do, and your point is well taken. For most people using Publisher, they should not worry about breaking the site up into subfolders...nor do they need to. It will be a lot easier letting Publisher's navigation wizard manage the links....and as you said, you won't have to remember where the files are :-). DavidF > David, > [quoted text clipped - 232 lines] >>>>>>>>>Publisher >>>>>>>>>2003. David, Kat is a she! I think the message both of us are trying to send is the same - one that most designers would never think about when they start designing a site. Look to the future. Draw a graph of what your site will look like in three months, six months, a year. Think about the size of the native file - not just the number of pages. In Kat's case, if she is going to add several pieces of jewelry each month, with a link to a hi-res image of each piece, it won't take long until the Pub file is huge. I simply don't trust files over 25 megs! BTW, I met with the guy who owns the restaurant (Red2724) that I asked your opinion about. He wants a site updated for a different restaurant. He gave me the URL but it doesn't exist. I even tried every variation of it I could think of, did a Google and Yahoo search, checked every link to it I could find. Nothing. I got to figure out how to tell a guy that he is just plain wrong yet make him feel good about it. I need to get an easy job - something like a real estate agent! Mike > Mike, > [quoted text clipped - 279 lines] >>>>>>>>>>Publisher >>>>>>>>>>2003. "that he consider " Trust me - I've been called worse. :) Not onlly will I be adding pieces, other items will be removed when they sell At the beginning, though, I'll leave everything up so people can see what I can do. The glass pages may get unwieldy, but I should be able to program my way out of a wet paper bag by then. With the photos I have now, I may be pushing the 25 meg limit. Hope that compression tool is effecient. The Kat > David, > [quoted text clipped - 246 lines] > >>>>>>Any way to edit the PNGs to make them smaller? That's a new format to > >>>>>>me David, The good news is that I got the links working in IE browser on my own computer. They should work once I load the files onto the server. Glass Art handed me 3 more photos yesterday that need to go up with the first try. I've got one of them done, but one needs serious editing. I'm trying to get that one taken with a digital camera so it will be easier to work on, but he "hates to bug the client.'' Mike suggested I resize the pages, so I've been squeezing thing together. Big question: what size font should I use? Most of the site is in 10 pt Trebuchet with a few larget accents in Comic sans. I prefer the san serif fonts (and Pub want to create the entire site with Georgia, despite all my format modifications). Suggestions welcome. I need to calculate just how large this site is. The way Pub stores the HTML in different folders makes this difficult. I do know I've got a bunch of photos in it. Also, where is the index page? I can't find one anywhere - never could. NOW what have I done? To edit the site I open a file called "pdesgal" that Pub created; it is linked to all the pages. As Dvorak always said: "Real Soon Now." That's when I'll get the site up. At least thanks to you all I can see the light and the end of the tunnel and feel fairly sure it's not a fast freight. > Mike, > [quoted text clipped - 250 lines] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>What ia the best resolution and photo size (3x5, 4x6 ...) to use for Kat, To find out the size of the published site - publish it to an empty folder on your hard drive. In Windows Explorer (not IE!), right click on that folder and click properties. You can also check file sizes of images to see if any of them seem large. If so, I would try to make them smaller. Mike > David, > [quoted text clipped - 277 lines] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>What ia the best resolution and photo size (3x5, 4x6 ...) to use for I've been watching the jpg file sizes - and have done a batch of resizing. I'm getting even the logo stuff into 100 ppi format; Pub compresses them to 96 or 72 - whichever it wants, but 100 is easy for me to work with (ie: calculate!). Very slick site offering similar items: guild.com. Any idea if Pub will handle a background wash like this? I have it as a background on several pages. Alas, I can't get the textured background used in one of the Pub schemes to tile for a background - just one in the middle is ... less than satisfactory. I'm getting nervous again. Just looking at a site like Guild can do that. They have pages set wider than 800, too. See what you think. Back to glass photos The Kat > Kat, > [quoted text clipped - 244 lines] > >>>>>> > >>>>>>DavidF Kat, Why not create your own textured background? Word Art or similar ought to work. Save it as a jpg file and then use it. I don't think Pub or any WYSIWYG web design program will easily allow you to replicate something like the guild site. It uses a lot of Javascript and other goodies. But you could add a search engine once you accumulate enough pieces. You would have to provide a description of each page but then a search would turn up the piece(s) the visitor is looking for. Yes, that page is also over 800 pix wide and visitors using a smaller screen will get scroll bars. Every survey I have seen show that at least 1/3 of all visitors use a smaller screen (800x600 or less). Mike > I've been watching the jpg file sizes - and have done a batch of resizing. > I'm getting even the logo stuff into 100 ppi format; Pub compresses them to [quoted text clipped - 263 lines] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>DavidF One more glass photo pixel and I'll scream! My brain is fried! How do you get Pub to tile the image for a web background (just what I need - more graphics!) I know I can't get that fancy with Pub, but I am wondering about a search capabillity. Something for the NEXT update. > Kat, > [quoted text clipped - 237 lines] > >>>>>> > >>>>>>DavidF Kat, >> How do you get Pub to tile the image for a web background (just what I need - more graphics! << C'mon. I had never tried doing a web site in Pub in my life. I read the Help file, followed the instructions, picked an image and it automatically did I wanted. If I can do this, anyone can! >> I know I can't get that fancy with Pub, but I am wondering about a search capability. Something for the NEXT update. << I am a HUGE fan of WrenSoft (http://www.wrensoft.com/). There is a free version (comes with an ad), basic version ($49, will search 100 pages and something like 100,000 unique words) and the advanced one ($99 - I don't know the limits but they are high!). You can customize the pages and it will pick up links on your site, so it will scan all the pages. It can even scan pdf files and Word docs. Mike > One more glass photo pixel and I'll scream! My brain is fried! > [quoted text clipped - 245 lines] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>DavidF Kat, It sounds like you and Mike have pretty much hashed out your questions, but to add to the discussion. Font size? It seems that most designers use 10, but I decided to go with 12 for text boxes so that older eyes would find it easier to read. I use 10 on occasion when it is a menu item, a phrase, or there is no problem reading it. The problem with using 12 is that of course you can't get as many characters per line as you can a font size of 10. This means longer pages and potentially more scrolling. I don't think there is a definitive answer. If you can read it ok, then go for it. I looked at the guild but couldn't decide what background you were hoping for. If you are talking about the "beige" background that "pads" the site, then that is easy enough in Publisher. I don't know what problem you were having but in Pub 2003, go to Format > Background. You will get a lot of choices including More colors near the top, where you can choose a beige or any color you want. If you want more choices, then click on More Backgrounds. This brings up a Fill Effects dialog where you can choose Gradient, Texture, Pattern, etc. Note on the bottom of the Texture tab, you have the choice of other texture. Click that, and browse to your texture image on your computer, and select it. As Mike suggested, you can make your own. I once scanned a crumpled up brown paper bag and made a 100 X 100 pixel GIF out of it, and used that...made for an interesting effect. But if you can't find what you want in Publisher, and there sure are a lot, then here is a link to a collection of background images: http://bignosebird.com/gallery.shtml Go crazy if you want. At the same time, might I suggest that you be careful to not distract from the jewelry. There is a quote on this site that I liked: "Assembled here is a large collection of graphics to suit almost any taste- even bad ones!" Hopefully that answered the unanswered questions that you and Mike didn't address... DavidF > One more glass photo pixel and I'll scream! My brain is fried! > [quoted text clipped - 357 lines] >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>DavidF "I looked at the guild but couldn't decide what background you were hoping for. " It is the orange fade panel - not that I'm after orange, but some of my colors are "non standard" and I am concerned about what will happen to it. I've standardized a few colors, but I can't keep the look without a bit of tweaking. It will probably be okay. The Kat > Kat, > [quoted text clipped - 264 lines] > >> >>>>>>>them > >> >>>>>>>breed You can get different fade effects the same way that you would in the background, except click in the text box, click on the chevron beside the Fill Color icon and choose Fill Effects. DavidF > "I looked at the guild but couldn't decide what background you were hoping > for. " It is the orange fade panel - not that I'm after orange, but some [quoted text clipped - 326 lines] >> >> >>>>>>>them >> >> >>>>>>>breed I backed up to give us more room for more replies... Discovered one reason I could not set up the background I wanted: Publisher is looking only in its PUB60COR files for graphics for the website. Why it does that is beyond me. It's the only MSOffice program to do that. Yes, I've got the file locations set. (Tell that to Publisher.) I have a query on the "general" page, so don't drive yourselves nuts trying to figure it out - that's my job. :) Guess I haven't had enough fun with this site yet. The frummoxed Kat David, > Since you gave me the suggestion (or at least encouraged me to do what I > needed to do), I found there's a great thing and a horrible thing about [quoted text clipped - 225 lines] > >>>>>>>>Publisher > >>>>>>>>2003. Kat, All Windows programs seem to have a default directory set to open/save, etc. I'm waiting to see your updated site! Mike > I backed up to give us more room for more replies... > [quoted text clipped - 240 lines] >>>>>>>>>>Publisher >>>>>>>>>>2003. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.