 |
 | 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 / March 2005Creating Text boxes above text boxes
I thank the folks who offer the site, www.publishermvps.com. 'Saw how to place text boxes upon text boxes. It solved a display problem I was experiencing on my site. A valuable site that now resides in my Favorites.  SignatureDon Vancouver, USA Hey Don, Can you put a text box upon a text box without it resulting in a GIF? Which article in particular are you referencing? Thanks. DavidF > I thank the folks who offer the site, www.publishermvps.com. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Don > Vancouver, USA There is a line on our website that reads 05 1930-2005 95 The 19 is 65 font The 05 30- and 90 are 16 font The 2005 is 65 font and through the 2005 are the following three lines Cento anni di buona fortuna! Settantacinque anni di buona fortuna! Dieci anni di buona fortuna! The 05, 30 and 95 are anniversary dates. The three lines read, "100 years of good fortune.", "75 years of good fortune." and "10 years of good fortune." The 19 is one text box, the 05, 30- and 95 are another text box, the 2005 is another text box and the three lines of good fortune are another text box. I was having trouble getting the three lines of good fortune to place in the center (left/right) of the 2005. Publisher 2000 creates a gif of the entire group. You can see it at; www.vanusa.org ciao, don > Hey Don, Can you put a text box upon a text box without it resulting in a > GIF? Which article in particular are you referencing? Thanks. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Don > > Vancouver, USA One of the reasons I asked about this is because of a site that David Bartosik used as an example of a design workaround for centering a page. Apparently http://www.dogwoodindustries.com/ was built with Pub 2002, and I am wondering how the site was built with images and additional text boxes seemingly on top of the white text box frame, without converting everything within and on top of that white frame to a GIF. Do you have any idea? Was this a change with Pub 2002 from 2000? David if you read this, can you explain? DavidF > There is a line on our website that reads > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > > Don > > > Vancouver, USA Actually I built that for them. Versions 2002 and 2003 code CSS2, which provides for absolute positioning and for layering objects. So these versions can save each object independently and then tell the browser how to render them. Now in version 2000 if you set the target browser setting to it's lowest setting it codes in plain html, but if you set it to the highest setting it brings in CSS. I don't recall if it also uses some CSS2 to any extent. So if you are not using the high setting you could try it and see what you get. Just be sure to save the files in a separate location from your existing files. David Bartosik - [MSFT MVP] www.publishermvps.com www.davidbartosik.com > One of the reasons I asked about this is because of a site that David > Bartosik used as an example of a design workaround for centering a page. [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] >> > > Don >> > > Vancouver, USA Thanks. I do have one page where the design would be easier to do if I could layer an image, so I will try it. I do have everything set at the lowest setting... DavidF > Actually I built that for them. Versions 2002 and 2003 code CSS2, which > provides for absolute positioning and for layering objects. So these [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > >> > > Don > >> > > Vancouver, USA if you try the high setting look at the source code of the 2000 page for the following, position:absolute z-index the latter indicates the layering of objects and the prior indicates an x/y coordinate to render the object. David Bartosik - [MSFT MVP] www.publishermvps.com www.davidbartosik.com > Thanks. I do have one page where the design would be easier to do if I > could [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] >> >> > > Don >> >> > > Vancouver, USA David, Thanks, I think. Changing to the high setting does allow for layering an image or a text frame on top of a text frame without converting it all to a GIF. And yes, position:absolute is in the source code, but not z-index. I looked at the source code of http://www.dogwoodindustries.com/ and saw what you meant by having both. I say thanks, I think, because this seems to open up all kinds of different design options for me with Publisher 2000. I pretty much knew what I could and could not do with the low setting, but will have to experiment a lot to see what I can do at the high setting. I already realize that the high setting seems to create a lot more code. Will the page also take longer to load? While experimenting a little, I inserted some JavaScript I use, and it seems to work ok, but the code for 'Top of Page' does not on the first try, whether it is layered or not...at least not in preview. This leads to a general question. What do you suppose that I am going to have to give up, if I design in the high setting? What's the downside? I can remember in the past you recommending to folks that they change to the lowest setting to solve some problems, but I don't remember what those problems were. No rush responding as I won't have time to experiment with this until the weekend, but I do appreciate your advice. Its great to learn a new capacity for Pub 2000...I think. ;-) DavidF > if you try the high setting look at the source code of the 2000 page for the > following, [quoted text clipped - 112 lines] > >> >> > > Don > >> >> > > Vancouver, USA inline... > David, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I already realize that the high setting seems to create a lot more code. > Will the page also take longer to load? the more code the longer the load time. but, if you have a few smaller images versus one large one, the time might be a wash since a few smaller images will load faster then a larger one. a good way to check the total size of a page is to view the page in IE, go to File, Save As, select file type .mht, and save the page. Then browse to the .mht file and look at the size of it. The mht file contains all the code and the images and so should be an accurate indicator of total page size. The larger of which translates into longer download time. If you wanted to get real creative you could browse your favorite sites and save their page as mht and then compare their page file size to yours. > While experimenting a little, I inserted some JavaScript I use, and it > seems [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > past you recommending to folks that they change to the lowest setting to > solve some problems, but I don't remember what those problems were. well back in the days of 2000 lots of people still used NS 4x, and in general there were lots of complaints about browser compatibility, even in older versions of IE. And CSS wasn't as commonplace as it is today. So moving the default high setting to low provided for traditional html that was more widely supported and of course is cleaner and faster to load. But now, 2 versions later and a few years past, it's a different world. NS has pretty much vanished, IE is more dominant, and there is a new player. Now CSS is a must and CSS2 is more widely used to varying degrees. And Publisher walked away from traditional html and shrugged off browser compatibility. And also ISP connections have gotten faster and broadband has grown rapidly. So today there isn't any real reason why a 2000 customer shouldn't feel free to try out the higher settings for their web. I haven't gotten into 2000 in quite awhile but if I recall correctly the target setting would vary the amount of CSS and CSS2 used versus traditional html, so feel free to slide it somewhere in the middle range and compare. > No rush responding as I won't have time to experiment with this until the > weekend, but I do appreciate your advice. Its great to learn a new > capacity > for Pub 2000...I think. ;-) David Bartosik - [MSFT MVP] http://www.publishermvps.com http://www.davidbartosik.com Thanks David. I have most of my site broken up into multiple Pub files, so I should be able to experiment with the higher setting on a page by page basis. As I have bought into the KISS philosophy, the lower setting will probably serve me well in most cases, but its nice to know of the option of the higher setting and the design options it affords. DavidF > inline... > [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > http://www.publishermvps.com > http://www.davidbartosik.com |
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.