Email form in 2003

D

David Balaam

I am using email form in 2003 which is OK, but I cannot get this redirect
line to work. It always worked in Pub 2000 but not now.

<form action="http://www.justmints.co.uk/cgi-bin/formmail.cgi" method="GET"
onsubmit="return FSubmitValidation(this)">
<input type="hidden" name="recipient" value="(e-mail address removed)">
<input type="hidden" name="redirect"
value="http://www.justmints.co.uk/Emailthankyou.htm">
<input type="hidden" name="subject" value="JustMints 2008 - Web Enquiry">


The email arrives OK but the user sees the error meesage 404 page not found
 
D

DavidF

It could be because Pub 2000 did not use a subfolder to organize the
supporting graphics and the other pages on your site. When you "Publish to
the Web" with Pub 2003 to generate your web files (do not do a Save As a web
page as you did in Pub 2000), you will get an index.htm file plus an
index_files folder, unless you changed the default settings. Assuming that
Emailthankyou.htm is part of your main web publication, then the link to
that page would be http://www.justmints.co.uk/index_files/Emailthankyou.htm
(note the underscore in "index_files" does not show in the link.) as it is
now in the index_files folder. If you do not use the option to organize your
files in a subfolder, then the link would be different. Go to Tools >
Options > Web tab to see the options, and while you are there, be sure to
uncheck "rely on VML..." to get better cross browser compatibility.

There are a number of substantial changes in the way Pub 2000 and Pub 2003
work. One other one easily missed is the way Publisher 2003 handles embedded
images. It no longer automatically resamples and resizes the images as it
did in Pub 2000.

Reference: Compress graphics file sizes to create smaller Publisher Web
pages (2003):
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/publisher/HA011266301033.aspx

DavidF
 
D

David Balaam

Hi David
I am getting used to 2003 (slowly) and realize it does not perform same as
2000.

I did add /index_files/ afterwards as I forgot to include it but it made no
difference. I still get error ‘message page not found’.
I have checked the Front Page is turned-on. Not sure what else to do.
Regards
David Balaam
 
D

David Balaam

Hi Rob
I cant see anyhing different in this link to the one in my first email, but
now it does work....thanks anyway.

On a different subject - can you confirm I have to uplaod ALL image files
the 2003 reproduces. It seems my jpegs are converted to gifs, png and wmz
files. Do I need to use all of these on the site?

Many thanks
David
 
D

DavidF

If you don't compress the images prior to publishing, then Pub 2003 makes
copies of all your images in various formats, size and resolution in an
effort to serve up the best image depending on the browser used to view the
page...with dubious results. Run the compress graphics tool, and you won't
get all the extra files. That may not be totally true, as Publisher converts
wordart to .wmz files. You can also eliminate some png files by disabling
that option in Tools > Options > Web tab...uncheck "Allow png...".

As per the link, I can't get it to work. Is the Emailthankyou.htm file in
the index_files folder? Are you using the subfolder option? Have you used
FTP to upload any of your files?

DavidF
 
R

Rob Giordano \(Crash\)

Dunno. Everything was working earlier, now NOTHING is working except the
black home page.



--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rob Giordano
Microsoft MVP Expression
 
D

David Balaam

Hi David,
Thanks for the tip. I did compress and the PNG was uncheched, but I still
get a load of PNG files and WMZ files. Even so, the overall saving is only
about 500k. The total finished file will be no more then 10Mb so I will have
to live with the extra files.

Thanks for the help
Regards
David Balaam
 
D

David Balaam

Sorry Guys, I uploaded the new files for a short time and the redirect seemed
to work. It does not work on my local drive.
 
D

DavidF

David,

No way can I see why you are getting total file size of 10MB...you must be
doing something wrong unless you have an awful lot of pictures. Go to Tools
Options > Web tab again, and make sure that you have the "allow png.." and
the "rely on vml..." options turned off. Then run the compress graphics tool
again, and be sure to opt for all images in your Pub file. Now Publish to
the Web (not Save as a Web page), and this time direct your output to your
desktop. Then go to those files and study them there. Do you still have a
lot of pngs and total size of 10 mb? How many pages in your site?

DavidF
 
D

David Balaam

Yes there a lot of images - it is a sales site. If I did this in PUB2000
the size would be around 6Mb, but because PUB2003 adds lots more files it
takes it up to around 10Mb.
I have made all the changes you suggested but it still saves PNG and WMZ files
regards
David Balaam
 
D

DavidF

At this point I don't know what to tell you. It is possible that the weight
is because of all the images. The code that Pub 2003 produces is also
heavier than Pub 2000. And as I said, wordart from Pub 2000 is probably
being converted into the .wmz files, but I don't know why you are still
getting .png files. I guess if I were you I would look at the index_files
folder on your desktop in thumbnail view and try to figure out what images
or graphics are being converted to .png files, and see if you have
duplicates....png files and jpg or gif files of the same image. That might
give you some insight into why you still have png files.

The current page at http://www.justmints.co.uk/ is not a Publisher generated
page, so it is kind of hard to help or troubleshoot any more than I have. If
and when you publish your Publisher pages, I will be happy to take a look at
them. Provide a link to a page that has png and wmz files.

You could also always consider going back to Pub 2000 for your web pages.
You can have both Pub 2000 and 2003 installed on the same computer. I have
97, 2000, 2003 and 2007 installed (have a copy of 2002, but hate it so much
I don't want to clutter my computer with it). Though it has limitations, I
use Pub 2000 for my webs, and most of my production work. I use 2003 and
2007 primarily to work out solutions for this newsgroup. To each there
own...

DavidF
 
D

David Balaam

Thanks David
I am happy to continue with Pub2003 and see how it looks when I upload it.
I hope to do this by the weekend so take a look then and see what you think.
One point, when I 'publish to the web' in the save box it only has one
option, to save as a 'web page, filtered'. I assume this is correct.


The 'holding' page from the old site WAS made in Pub200.

Regards
David Balaam
 
D

DavidF

Yes, you want filtered html. If you do a Save As in Pub 2003 you get the
unfiltered html that is very bloated with lots of Office tags. That option
has been removed in 2007.

Holding page in 2000...hummm...the code sure doesn't look like it, but that
is unimportant at this point.

Good luck.

DavidF
 
D

David Balaam

Hi David
I have used Pub 2007 to see if any different, but still geting lots of PNG
and wmz files.

However, I have uploaded it to the site for testing www.justmints.co.uk
The email is not working yet. (nothing to do with PUB)

Some of the images do take a while to load (as other people have said).
I think I will redesign the menu as it is not very stable using hyperlinks.

Is there an Auto Refresh script I can use so a page refershes just once
when they enter any page.

Kind regards
David Balaam
 
D

DavidF

Hiya,

I would suggest a couple things.

First of all before you go much further, I strongly recommend that you
download and install FireFox if you don't already have it installed. Your
pages have some issues in FF, and you should tweak your design so that the
pages look good in both IE and FF. Do that, and your pages will look good in
almost every browser.

FireFox (5.7 MB): http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/
When you install it just make sure to opt out of making it your default
browser, and you should have no problems. Then to test your site, when you
Publish to the Web, direct your web files to a folder on your hard drive
where you can easily find them...I typically use the Desktop. Then go to the
index.htm file that you produced and right click, open with, FF to see how
the page will look in FF. You can also just open FF and go to File > open
and browse to the index.htm file. Also open the index_files folder you
created and test the other .htm files...the other pages in your site.

When you do that you will notice that you have a few issues. For one, it
appears that you have put much of your heading on a Master Page, as you can
not see it in FF. Unfortunately you cannot use the Master Page in Pub 2003
with a web page. Move all that content onto your main pages.

Pictures. The pictures in FF are not as good as the ones in IE. I think that
part of the reason you are still getting PNG files after disabling that
option is that you appear to be using a lot of transparent GIF files. I have
found that some of the transparent GIFs that look fine in Pub 2000 do not
work well in Pub 2003 and 2007. So, if you are using transparent gifs, I
would actually suggest that you enable the png option. The transparent GIFs
will be converted to transparent PNGs, and you should get better pictures in
FF.

I could be wrong about that because it also looks like you may have grouped
all the images on the home page together, because in FF, they have been
combined into one big image:
http://www.justmints.co.uk/index_files/image1786.gif
You might try ungrouping those images first, Publish to the web and looking
at the page in FF and see if that helped.

As per your navbar, yes it needs some work. It appears from looking at the
home page that you created individual text boxes for each link? If true, I
would suggest that you go with one text box instead. There are some other
options that I can describe, but before I do, please describe exactly how
you are making the navbar.

And speaking of navbars, I see that on some of your pages you have moved the
navbar to the right side of the page, and in other cases you actually have
it on both sides. Keep the navbar at the same place on each page...leave it
on the left. You don't want people to have to figure out where it is on each
page...be consistent.

I also notice that on
http://www.justmints.co.uk/index_files/ClicClacMints.htm you have "price
includes" underlined. That is not a good practice. The underline tells
people that it is a hyperlink...and it isn't. This is one of those print
format practices that should probably not be used in a web.

One final comment at this point, it seems that you are putting the bottom
navbar at exactly the same place on each page regardless of how much content
is on that page. I would suggest moving it up to just below the last design
elements on any particular page. When you Publish to the Web, Publisher will
truncate the page right after the last element on the page. Having the
bottom navbar near the last of your content would make it easier for a
person to click to another page without having to scroll down or back up to
access the navbar.

A general comment: You have a lot going on with your website. I can see why
the files are large. Over all I think you are doing a pretty good job and
should be proud of your work. If you put some energy into building a better
navbar and tweaking the design so it works in both IE and FF, I think you
will be happy with the results.

DavidF
 
D

David Balaam

Hi David
Thank you for your most detailed report - it is very appricated, and I will
take on board all you have suggested.
Regarding Firefox, only 2% of visitors use this but I will check it out as
I am sure this will become more popualr over the years.

I hope to make changes over the wekend so please check again to see

Kind regards
David Balaam
 
D

DavidF

David,

You are welcome, and I hope I didn't over do it.

As per installing FF to test your pages, it isn't necessarily important how
many of your visitors are using FF. The reason to test and tweak so your
pages work in FF is so they will also work in what ever browser your visitor
uses. The goal is to optimize cross browser compatibility. It takes some
work, and you certainly don't have to do it...your pages do view in FF...but
it seems to me that if you are going to invest this much time and effort in
creating a business website, that you might as well take it a step or two
further to make sure every potential customer will be able to view and use
your site, and that their experience is the best it can be. As you indicated
that you were going to be rebuilding the navbar and tweaking the site
anyway, I thought it an opportune time to make this suggestion...better now
than when you were finished. And as I said, you have a pretty good site in
the making, so don't let my comments overshadow that. Good luck.

DavidF
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top