MS Office Forum / Publisher / Web Design / November 2007
Somethings not right.??!!
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Beyon - 06 Nov 2007 06:58 GMT I am working on a new site...http://www.colonialnursingcenter.com/... When I put icons or buttons into the site in PUB2002,SP3. They look fine, when I create the web, everything gits "blown up" or zoomed-in-on and becomes pixelated. I had created nav bar buttons with text and everything but had to take them off because of looking so bad. I also notice that the pics have become grainy. I have those pages disabled so you can't see them, but trust me, they look bad as well. Is this a web page size problem? I have "web page" size selected at 7.5x14. Is that the problem?
Thanks in advance
DavidF - 06 Nov 2007 13:50 GMT Beyon,
Without seeing the problem, it is hard to say what is causing it.
When I view http://www.colonialnursingcenter.com/ I notice that the text box that suggests the site is being updated has been converted to an image. If you try to select any of the text you are unable to which indicates it has been converted to an image. This can be caused by overlapping with other design elements. Perhaps you were doing the same thing with your navbar buttons and that text. Frequently when your overlap images and other design elements, they are converted to a combined image, that image is lower resolution and can be distorted or pixilated. Run the design checker, and that usually will find those issues.
If you had the page setup with your navbar buttons and then changed the size of the page, that can distort the content on the page. If I want to change the size of a page, I usually make a new page with a new Pub file at the new dimensions, and then open the second instance of Publisher...the original file...and copy and paste the content to the new page.
Perhaps it is your background image. Remove it and see if that makes any difference.
Did you use the Publisher navbar wizard to build the navbar, or did you build it yourself? If you built it yourself, do you have all the components grouped together? Does it look better if you ungroup all the elements of the navbar?
Did you check the aspect ratio of the images? Are they out of whack? That will certainly make images look distorted.
Do you get the same problems when you use one of the default web page widths, and then vary only the length?
Sorry, but all these things are guesses. Though they may look bad, post one of the examples of where everything is looking bad, and maybe we can give you better answers. And give us more specifics about what you changed and in what order.
DavidF
>I am working on a new site...http://www.colonialnursingcenter.com/... > When I put icons or buttons into the site in PUB2002,SP3. They look fine, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Thanks in advance Beyon - 06 Nov 2007 22:41 GMT "Without seeing the problem, it is hard to say what is causing it."
I uploaded the new site into an original site Dir to let you see what the problem is, without letting the general public see it. auglaizeacres.com/COLONIAL/index.htm
let me know if I typed that right. when I tried it, it worked fine and all the hyperlinks worked as well.
"I notice that the text box that suggests the site is being updated has been converted to an image."
It is not hyperlinked or anything, just verbage to explain why the site is gone.
"If you had the page setup with your navbar buttons and then changed the size of the page, that can distort the content on the page."
I did have to resize, but I dont remember if it was prior to seeing that things were goofed up.
"Perhaps it is your background image. Remove it and see if that makes any difference."
I will try that. Cant hurt.
"Did you use the Publisher navbar wizard to build the navbar, or did you build it yourself?
Built it myself. Nothing is grouped together that I remember doing. "Did you check the aspect ratio of the images? Are they out of whack?"
How do I do that ?
"Do you get the same problems when you use one of the default web page widths, and then vary only the length?"
I will try this as well
Thanks again
Beyon - 06 Nov 2007 22:59 GMT http://www.auglaizeacres.com/COLONIAL/index.htm
DavidF - 07 Nov 2007 01:09 GMT Now that is the kind of link I like...thanks.
One of these days I am going to have to load Pub 2002 I guess, because I am not sure how many of your problems would be the same in Pub 2003 or not. I can say that many if not most of your problems would go away if you used Pub 2000. But I will try to help based on how 2003 works.
First of all, Publisher makes copies of images that are inserted into a Publisher document when you convert to html. With the inclusion of VML and XHTML in Pub 2002+, images in general became much more difficult to manage. So first of all, go to Tools > Options > Web tab and check to see if you have the options "Rely on VML..." and "Allow PNG...". If you do, uncheck them. This change alone could fix many of the problems I will discuss below.
Before I begin, was this website originally built in Pub 2000?
As to your home page, and the buttons you are using for your navbar. It appears that you are using transparent GIF images, and in my experience when Pub 2003, and presumably 2002, makes copies of them, it messes up the transparency and the quality. This does not happen in Pub 2000. About the only away around this if you want to use these buttons, is to import them instead of embed them in the publication. I can give you instructions on how to do that if you want to stay with those buttons, and if changing the options above don't fix the problems with the quality of the button images.
One thing you can check is the aspect ratio and scale of the button images. Assuming it is the same in Pub 2002, right click one of the button images > format picture (or go to the top menu for format if right click doesn't work). Then go to the Size tab. Under Scale confirm that the Height and Width are at 100%, and the Lock aspect ratio box is selected. Also select the Relative to original picture size. Ok. Does this change the pictures on your page? Try a web page preview and see if the button pictures look any better. If you are not inserting the buttons as full size and 100% scale with the aspect ratio locked, then that is probably why your images look so poor. If you are inserting them appropriately, then it is the way 2002 messes up the images when they are copied during the html conversion process.
You should NOT try to display the buttons larger than the original. That will always result in a pixilated image. And if you want to display the buttons at smaller than the original, you should probably resample and resize them in a third party image editor to exactly the correct size before you insert them. www.irfanview.com is a good freebie if you don't have one. This step could mean that you won't have to import the images.
As to the camera button shifting down the page, I suspect this is because of an "overlap" issue. In Pub 2003, under Arrange you will find the Snap To feature...make sure that is enabled, where ever it is in 2002. This will help prevent overlapping design elements. Study the placement of your logo and all the navbar images, and make sure that none of them are overlapping. In fact, use the nudge tool to give them a little separation. And if the text below the buttons is in a text box, make sure that those boxes don't overlap the images. Are your text descriptions in individual text boxes?
I would seriously reconsider your background image. Here is a link to it: http://www.auglaizeacres.com/COLONIAL/index_image001.jpg It is 1024 X 122 and viewed on a monitor wider than that, it looks really strange, and the "torn edge" and the white space before the edge, repeats itself, so you have the torn edge twice. I am viewing at 1152. With this said, I don't think it has anything to do with the rest of your problems, but it sure doesn't look good on larger monitors or monitors set to over 1024 wide.
http://auglaizeacres.com/COLONIAL/index_page0001.htm your pictures page: Here is a good example of how overlapping images can result in one big ugly image: http://www.auglaizeacres.com/COLONIAL/index_image016.gif You can't overlap the images in a web page like you can in a print document... Also, you can't use shadowing like you did in the Pictures title, or it also is converted to a bad image. There are simply some things you can do in print that will not translate to html...gotta use regular text, and should use a web friendly font.
http://www.auglaizeacres.com/COLONIAL/index_page0002.htm your information page: Almost everything on this page is converted to an image: http://www.auglaizeacres.com/COLONIAL/index_image018.gif I already mentioned the shaded, maybe wordart that you are using for the titles. Also bulleted columns are converted to images...sorry another example of a no-no in html. Try two text boxes with a dot symbol inserted in front of the text instead of bullet formatted columns.
http://www.auglaizeacres.com/COLONIAL/index_page0003.htm Email Center: Once again you end up with most of the page as an image: http://www.auglaizeacres.com/COLONIAL/index_image020.gif
I think I will stop at this point, but the design mistakes made are basically the same throughout the site, and the fixes are basically the same. As I said above, change the VML and PNG options, and that alone might fix a lot. If it doesn't then start changing the spacing and fixing the overlapping elements. And if the menu buttons continue to look bad, post back and I will give you instructions on how to import them. Oh and by the way, I assume you are not using a master page? I think that option came with Pub 2003, but if it is in 2002, don't use it.
Now aren't you glad you asked me what was wrong? ;-) Sorry, but at least you now have an idea of how to resolve the issues. And one more time...seriously consider going back to Pub 2000 for your web work. It is way better than 2002 and given that you are going to have to probably rearrange your layouts on almost every page anyway, it would be a fairly simple process of opening an instance of Pub 2000 along with your current file in Pub 2002, and copy and pasting the content to Pub 2000.
DavidF
> http://www.auglaizeacres.com/COLONIAL/index.htm Beyon - 07 Nov 2007 19:26 GMT David
"Now that is the kind of link I like" Thanks, Im learning
"check to see if you have the options "Rely on VML..." and "Allow PNG...". " These have never been checked. So ...not the problem
"Before I begin, was this website originally built in Pub 2000?" Nope, always been a 2002 file. Read on though and I will explain a rookie mistake I did make in the construction, that answers another question. "I can give you instructions on how to do that if you want to stay with those buttons" Ive decided to use colored rectangles. I want to put a "mouse over" tag in to make them change when pointed at. Should be fun. "check is the aspect ratio and scale of the button images." I will do this as well.
"www.irfanview.com is a good freebie if you don't have one." I use photo impact 10. "Study the placement of your logo and all the navbar images, and make sure that none of them are overlapping." I will do that "Are your text descriptions in individual text boxes?" I did them as a table, does that work ok?
"I would seriously reconsider your background image." I thought about that. I just used the one from the orig site that was created 2 years ago. I was asked to create a "new" site. I did 20 in PUB02. presented them and they voted that they kind of liked the way the old site looked in comparison and could I just re-do what was ther and update it. What a good day that was. :-)
"Almost everything on this page is converted to an image:" This is funny. I had the 9 pages done, right, well I decided to add the "application page" by cutting and pasteing. Well I had the default page size set for the thing and when I opened the application page and looked it was 8.5x72. So me being a bonehead, reset the 10th page to 8.5x72 so I could cut and paste it in...well I wasnt even thinking, as Im sure you have guessed by the grin on your face...it canged ALL the pages to this size and moved all of the orig info to right down the page in the middle. I had to group everything together on each page, move it off the page area, resize and drag each page back onto the working area. Thats why everything is an image...I forgot to break all the groups back up. Geeeeez. "by the way, I assume you are not using a master page?" Im guessing not since I dont know what that is. "Now aren't you glad you asked me what was wrong? ;-) " I need to see if we live close to one another, so I can buy you a coke, coffee, or "beverage" of your choosing...LOL
"seriously consider going back to Pub 2000 for your web work." Would going up to 2003 help at all? I think I have access tho the disk. If not, I may still do that.
Thanks again
BTW..did you see my pic on the http://auglaizeacres.com/index_image036 ??
Talk to ya soon, Im sure.
DavidF - 08 Nov 2007 01:36 GMT reply in-line
<snip>
> "I can give you instructions on how to do that if you want to stay with > those buttons" > Ive decided to use colored rectangles. I want to put a "mouse over" tag in > to make them change when pointed at. Should be fun. If you are going to do this, then you will be importing those images vs. embedding them, so the quality issue will go away. Just a caveat...be careful about adding too many bells and whistles. There is nothing wrong with a simple textual menu, and KISS. And you can add some mouseover effects to the text...
<snip>
> "Are your text descriptions in individual text boxes?" > I did them as a table, does that work ok? It might be ok, but sometimes tables are converted to images which will leave the text a bit blurry and webbots will not be able to read and index. In general, you should avoid design techinques that convert text to images for that reason. That is why I would change your titles on each page. They may look good with fancy fonts and formatting, but the webbots won't be able to read them.
I also think that these textual descriptions of your current buttons ties in with the overall question of how to build your navigation system. If you plan on using a textual menu, then I don't think a table is going to work. As you think through this go to this site: http://www.breladecockerspaniels.co.uk/index.htm and look at how he has built his navbars. He originally was using a javascript menu with mouseover effects, but went to this cleaner look in the most recent version. Look at the bottom navbar for an example of what you could do on your site if you want a horizontal navbar, and mouseover those links. He accomplished that with a simple CSS code snippet that was inserted via the html code fragment feature. Those links work in all browsers, and the webbots can follow those links to index his site. Many if not most of the javascript menus can not be followed by the webbots, and more people are electing to disable javascript on their computers because of security reasons. So even if you do use your "rectangles" with mouseover effects, and javascript to do that, you might also want to provide the textual menu at the bottom of each page.
> "I would seriously reconsider your background image." > I thought about that. I just used the one from the orig site that was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > What > a good day that was. :-) Ok...sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do. You might consider editing that background image and lengthening it to accomodate bigger screens. But not sure how that would come out...just have to experiment with your image editor.
> "Almost everything on this page is converted to an image:" > This is funny. I had the 9 pages done, right, well I decided to add the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > back onto the working area. Thats why everything is an image...I forgot to > break all the groups back up. Geeeeez. Been there done that. Resizing a page can move your content around in haphazrd way. I got to the point that I just create the new sized pages in a second instance of Publisher, and then copy and paste from the old version. Sounds like you have come to the same place.
I am hoping that much of your problem with images looking bad will be because of not ungrouping the design elements. That would be explain why some of the elements had been converted to images, while they didn't seem to be overlapping other elements.
<snip>
> "Now aren't you glad you asked me what was wrong? ;-) " > I need to see if we live close to one another, so I can buy you a coke, > coffee, or "beverage" of your choosing...LOL That is a whole lot better than the offer I got to have my baby. Aieeeeee! No problem...glad to help.
> "seriously consider going back to Pub 2000 for your web work." > Would going up to 2003 help at all? I think I have access tho the disk. If > not, I may still do that. Yes, moving to Pub 2003 would be much better than staying with 2002. MSFT fixed a lot of stuff that they messed up in 2002. I still prefer 2000, but would much prefer 2003 to 2002. Read: Publisher 2003 - What's new in web design for this version : http://msmvps.com/blogs/dbartosik/pages/80555.aspx and if you didn't before: Web Publication Changes Made in Version 2002 of Publisher : http://msmvps.com/blogs/dbartosik/pages/81262.aspx
> BTW..did you see my pic on the http://auglaizeacres.com/index_image036 ?? The link doesn't work for me.
> Talk to ya soon, Im sure. Yep...I am sure too, but it sounds like you have a pretty good handle on things. I would suggest that if you haven't done it already, download and install a copy of FireFox and check your sites for compatibility. If you can get your sites to work in both IE and FF, then you have most users covered. It is a small download, and you might actually find that you like it better than IE. And be careful about "upgrading" to IE7. There has been a lot of problems associated with IE7...
Good luck.
DavidF
|
|
|