MS Office Forum / Publisher / Web Design / July 2007
Clarity Help
|
|
Thread rating:  |
hendrickson@quixnet.net - 24 Jul 2007 21:06 GMT Hello, I have created a website using Publisher 2003, and it shows up alright on explorer, but if others view it, like firefox, it is grainy. The photos are still too grainy for my liking. The site is borgford.com if you need to view it and see what I mean.
I started with a publisher template, and inserted my own text and photos. The photos are resized at 96dpi, by taking the original pics in publisher, right clicking, save photo as, and resize to 96dpi. Then reinserting the downsized photo. What can I do to make them clearer? I have tried to increase dpi to 150 on the home page, but this doesn't seem to make a difference. I have run the Layout checker, and it only comes up with needing names for photos if picture doesn't come up.
Also the back groud when viewed on firefox is very grainy, yet I have used the templet from publisher. What can I do to make this clearer?
The text boxes I have had to resize because what I viewed in Publisher was different when it was published to the web, and it was cutting out some words. Is there another way I should do this?
When the web site is viewed, it only appears on the left side of the screen. It does not adjust to screan size. Is there a way to change this so it will appear full screan?
Whew! If you could help me with these four questions, it would be so wonderful. Thank you for your time. Jenna
Rob Giordano (Crash) - 24 Jul 2007 23:14 GMT The solution is to not use Publisher to create web sites if your viewers may be using ANY browser other than Internet Explorer...really that simple.
 Signature Rob Giordano Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
| Hello, I have created a website using Publisher 2003, and it shows up | alright on explorer, but if others view it, like firefox, it is [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] | wonderful. Thank you for your time. | Jenna DavidF - 25 Jul 2007 01:36 GMT Rob, you doth protest and generalize too much, I say ;-)
I too have repeated the generalization I was taught that one could not expect good cross browser behavior with a Publisher produced website. However, little by little I have found that in almost all cases, if the page options are set correctly and the page is built correctly, then Publisher pages will render well in FF. I would imagine the same is true in FP...if you don't use the tool correctly, then the pages are not going to work equally well in all browsers.
My point is that I don't think it accurate to say that the simple answer is to not use Publisher. The better answer is that you have to use Publisher correctly. And don't get me wrong, I am not asserting that Publisher will produce code that works as well as FP, but I am saying that if you use Publisher correctly, you can get decent cross browser capability.
And by the way, did you read the thread "Remove underlines in hyperlinks" by brelade? Do you perhaps have a suggestion on how to write that code snippet? Thanks.
DavidF
> The solution is to not use Publisher to create web sites if your viewers > may [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > | wonderful. Thank you for your time. > | Jenna Rob Giordano (Crash) - 25 Jul 2007 02:33 GMT Sorry not being very verbose today...too many words not enough time.
The same is true in FP if you use anything that relies on VML...textboxes, wordart..anything from the Draw toolbar you'll get downleveled gif renditions of VML generated art in other browsers (or worse; a gray box). But people continue to use it because it's easy, some even after they've looked at their web on other browsers...go figure. It wouldn't matter much if it were on an intranet and all your viewers were know to be using IE.
 Signature Rob Giordano Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
| Rob, you doth protest and generalize too much, I say ;-) | [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] | > | wonderful. Thank you for your time. | > | Jenna DavidF - 25 Jul 2007 14:11 GMT The use of VML in Publisher is also one of the primary reasons for cross browser issues and for poor image quality in FF.
DavidF
> Sorry not being very verbose today...too many words not enough time. > [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > | > | wonderful. Thank you for your time. > | > | Jenna Rob Giordano (Crash) - 25 Jul 2007 03:00 GMT css style should work as he has it written in the other thread (link without underline)
 Signature Rob Giordano Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
| Rob, you doth protest and generalize too much, I say ;-) | [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] | > | wonderful. Thank you for your time. | > | Jenna DavidF - 25 Jul 2007 14:18 GMT Thanks Rob. Yes, it works in Pub 2000, 2002 and 2003, but for some reason does not work in Pub 2007. I didn't think MSFT made any substantial changes in the coding engine for 2007, but apparently they changed something, and I haven't figured out why that code snippet no longer works. I was just hoping that you might.
If you get a chance in all your free time <g> to test it in Pub 2007 and can suggest a solution, it would be appreciated.
DavidF
> css style should work as he has it written in the other thread (link > without [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > | > | wonderful. Thank you for your time. > | > | Jenna Rob Giordano (Crash) - 25 Jul 2007 19:52 GMT I would, but I don't have Pub 2007 installed yet...waiting to build a new box. I can't imagine any change they made effecting how CSS works though.
 Signature Rob Giordano Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
| Thanks Rob. Yes, it works in Pub 2000, 2002 and 2003, but for some reason | does not work in Pub 2007. I didn't think MSFT made any substantial changes [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] | > | > | wonderful. Thank you for your time. | > | > | Jenna DavidF - 26 Jul 2007 01:00 GMT Don't worry about it. I am sure you are more busy than normal having just got the MVP.
I don't know the why for either, but I will play with it and see if can figure something out.
Thanks.
DavidF
>I would, but I don't have Pub 2007 installed yet...waiting to build a new > box. [quoted text clipped - 116 lines] > | > | > | wonderful. Thank you for your time. > | > | > | Jenna Kalask - 25 Jul 2007 00:18 GMT Jenna Within the Format Menu on the top is "Web Options" which opens up on the left side and at the bottom of that pane is "More Web Options". Click that and under the "Web" tab, put a check mark on "Allow PNG as a graphics format to improve graphics quality"
You will then have to go back to the jpeg or gif version of your photos and/or gradient and save them as a .png. You can do this by right-clicking on the graphic/photo and choosing "Save as Picture". Them navigate to where you want to save it, name it, and in the "Save as type" drop-down box, select .png.
Carefully replace all the pictures/graphics with the .png version and you should be seeing more clearly!
DavidF - 25 Jul 2007 14:36 GMT Thanks for your suggestion. I will have to test this.
My experience has been that if you leave the option checked and Publish to Web...producing the html output...that Publisher will make PNG copies of some JPG and other graphics, and that those PNG images tend to be very large, slow loading and of lesser quality. Converting all the images to PNG format and taking the extra step of resizing and optimizing the PNG before inserting it back into the Publisher might change my mind about unchecking "Allow PNG...".
However, I suspect that GIF format will still be the best format in terms of quality and file size for wordart, simple graphics, gradients, and other images with few colors....at least in Publisher. Personally I have also found it easier to work with transparencies with GIF, but that might just be inexperience.
Also, it has been my understanding that PNGs are not supported in all browsers...is this false?
DavidF
> Jenna > Within the Format Menu on the top is "Web Options" which opens up on the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Carefully replace all the pictures/graphics with the .png version and you > should be seeing more clearly! DavidF - 25 Jul 2007 01:30 GMT Jenna,
Somehow, you managed to convert the whole page to one 761 X 2398 pixel gif file when you open your site in FireFox: http://www.borgford.com/index_files/image574.gif and that is why the whole page is so grainy. I haven't seen this before.
I have never tried your way of resizing images using Publisher, and will have to do some more testing to see how that affects the quality. In general I have always advised people to resize the images in a third party image editing program and then insert them at 100% scaling to get the best images in both IE and FF. Then when you Publish to the Web, the Publisher coding engine would make just one copy of the correctly sized image. If you just insert your original image and resize it only by changing the size of the image box, and thus the scale of the image, then when you Publish to the Web, Publisher will actually make multiple copies of the image, and typically try to load the original large image in IE, and the smaller, low resolution copy in FF. At this point I can't tell if your method of resizing your images is the main problem or not. One question, after right clicking the image and then when you save it as a 96 dpi image, are you saving JPGs as JPGs, or in other words in the same image format?
Given that you end up with one large image for the whole page when you load your site in FF, I would suggest that we take this in steps.
I assume that you are using Pub 2003, so the first step is to go to Tools > Options > Web tab and uncheck "Rely on VML..." and "Allow PNG...". This change alone will change the way the page looks in FF. It also appears that you did a "Save As a web page" to produce your html files. Yes? This produces a bloated unfiltered code. When you are ready to produce your site from your Publisher document, use "Publish to the Web" instead. Try uploading this new html output to your site and see if the images look better, and especially in FF. Let me know when you get the new code uploaded so we can compare the quality of the images. If the quality of the images are still not satisfactory, we can take additional steps at that time.
As to the text box issues could you give us a specific example to view on your site? Sometimes if you are using print formatting techniques such as word wrap around an image, master pages, etc, you will find that Publisher cannot convert that to html. So describe what type of formatting you are doing in the text box, and which font when you have the problem.
As per wanting the page to load in the center of the page, that's not going to happen. Publisher produces a left justified page. You can sometimes simulate a centered page, and you can read about that here if you want, but for now I would concentrate on the rest of your issues.: Understanding background padding in a Publisher web (aka white space) : http://msmvps.com/blogs/dbartosik/archive/2006/01/07/80563.aspx
DavidF
> Hello, I have created a website using Publisher 2003, and it shows up > alright on explorer, but if others view it, like firefox, it is [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > wonderful. Thank you for your time. > Jenna DavidF - 25 Jul 2007 02:42 GMT By the way, are you using a master page?
DavidF
> Jenna, > [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] >> wonderful. Thank you for your time. >> Jenna hendrickson@quixnet.net - 25 Jul 2007 02:48 GMT > By the way, are you using a master page? > [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > >> wonderful. Thank you for your time. > >> Jenna Ok..silly question...How could I tell if I'm using a master page?? I started using one of the predesiged templets in publisher then added photo detail pages. Where could I check if I used a Master page (what is a master page?) ? What should I use instead?
Jenna
DavidF - 25 Jul 2007 14:11 GMT If you have to ask, then you aren't using a master page. A master page works well in a print document, but not so well in a Publisher web document. In a web document you can use "background" instead. Sorry to confuse you, but some of the most frequent problems people have is the use of master pages, so I just wanted to rule that out.
DavidF
>> By the way, are you using a master page? >> >> DavidF <snip>
> Ok..silly question...How could I tell if I'm using a master page?? I > started using one of the predesiged templets in publisher then added > photo detail pages. Where could I check if I used a Master page (what > is a master page?) ? What should I use instead? > > Jenna DavidF - 25 Jul 2007 15:00 GMT By the way, I forgot to say something last night when I was telling you to Publish to the Web instead of Save As to produce your html. Be sure to delete all the old Publisher generated html files off your server before uploading your new. When you do a Save As to produce your html, some additional files are produced that won't be overwritten when you upload the new, and might still affect the way the page loads.
DavidF
> If you have to ask, then you aren't using a master page. A master page > works well in a print document, but not so well in a Publisher web [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> >> Jenna hendrickson@quixnet.net - 25 Jul 2007 16:47 GMT > By the way, I forgot to say something last night when I was telling you to > Publish to the Web instead of Save As to produce your html. Be sure to [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > - Show quoted text - David, Yes I saved the original jpg picts as reduced jpg. I will start changing all of them over to the png like you suggested - this may take a while.
I have had to group link all items on each page together so they won't rearrange on me... would this be the cause of FF thinking it is one big picture? When I don't group the items together, pictures and text boxes move order from front to back and dissappear. And the tool bar buttons resize to completly off the web site. Is there another way to stop this from happening than using group lock?
The background of the website was a template, but I notice that it is a series of square shapes with fill in color - not a "background"...would this be causing discontent in the web world?
Thanks for all your info! I have been completely erasing what I load on the web site each time I change it - though I would like to say it was my vast knowledge of web sites that I knew erasing it was the thing to do... ha! let's get real!
Jenna
DavidF - 25 Jul 2007 22:32 GMT I was not the one that suggested changing everything to PNG, and in fact would recommend that at this point you do not do that. Leave your images as is for now.
I realize that my response was lengthy and a bit disjointed, but here is what you should do first:
"I assume that you are using Pub 2003, so the first step is to go to Tools > Options > Web tab and uncheck "Rely on VML..." and "Allow PNG...". This change alone will change the way the page looks in FF. It also appears that you did a "Save As a web page" to produce your html files. Yes? This produces a bloated unfiltered code. When you are ready to produce your site from your Publisher document, use "Publish to the Web" instead. Try uploading this new html output to your site and see if the images look better, and especially in FF. Let me know when you get the new code uploaded so we can compare the quality of the images. If the quality of the images are still not satisfactory, we can take additional steps at that time."
Do the above before you do anything else, and post back when you have uploaded the new code.
DavidF
>> By the way, I forgot to say something last night when I was telling you >> to [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > Jenna
|
|
|