M
maurice
I'd like to see more websites done with PUB. Is there some way to identify
them online?
Thanks!
Gene.
them online?
Thanks!
Gene.
D
Don Schmidt
Gene,
This should fill your need and then some.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/dbartosik/archive/2006/01/05/80960.aspx
This should fill your need and then some.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/dbartosik/archive/2006/01/05/80960.aspx
E
Eric James
You might want to wipe that one off your list Don. The list is over three
years old and it seems that most of the sites listed which are still live
have moved on to more professional methods for compiling their pages.
years old and it seems that most of the sites listed which are still live
have moved on to more professional methods for compiling their pages.
S
Spike
The only way to know for real is to look at the source code. The first one
I opened on that list at random was NOT a publisher product.
Spike
I opened on that list at random was NOT a publisher product.
Spike
M
MAURH
Maurice,
Here are a few websites built with Publisher.
http://www.beltonstud.com/
http://www.ghostlakelodge.com/index_files/Page266.htm
http://www.devonviewcaravans.co.uk/
http://gwbertcockerspaniels.co.uk/index.htm
If you go to >View>Source, notepad will open and you should be able to
identify Publisher at the top of the page i.e. microsoft-com
fficeffice'
Maureen
Here are a few websites built with Publisher.
http://www.beltonstud.com/
http://www.ghostlakelodge.com/index_files/Page266.htm
http://www.devonviewcaravans.co.uk/
http://gwbertcockerspaniels.co.uk/index.htm
If you go to >View>Source, notepad will open and you should be able to
identify Publisher at the top of the page i.e. microsoft-com
fficeffice'Maureen
G
gene
Ok, so what exactly are you looking for in the source code? How can you tell
it's not a PUB designed site?
it's not a PUB designed site?
G
gene
Ok, thanks Maureen. This is good detail. I'll give it a try!
Gene.
Gene.
D
David Bartosik
There isn't a "100%" positive id solution via source code as the code output
varies by version and by settings used within a version.
The list created a few years ago came from community participants posting
their site urls. I would recommend that those of you now in the community
start a thread with posting your sites for the referance of the community.
"moved on to more professional methods for compiling their pages" is
there a lesson to be learned from this observation? hmmm
varies by version and by settings used within a version.
The list created a few years ago came from community participants posting
their site urls. I would recommend that those of you now in the community
start a thread with posting your sites for the referance of the community.
"moved on to more professional methods for compiling their pages" is
there a lesson to be learned from this observation? hmmm
G
gene
I think the thread idea is an excellent one. I'd use it. But who'd keep it
current? I guess if newcomers were given a way of identifying sites, they
could figure it out for themselves.
re: "more professional methods" But what else offers the same value? It's
like saying "IKEA kitchens are made of particle board - you could do better."
Of course, but to find something that offers a better VALUE is
nigh-impossible. Hopefully you see the analogy. IOW, what compares in terms
of simplicity, cost and results?
current? I guess if newcomers were given a way of identifying sites, they
could figure it out for themselves.
re: "more professional methods" But what else offers the same value? It's
like saying "IKEA kitchens are made of particle board - you could do better."
Of course, but to find something that offers a better VALUE is
nigh-impossible. Hopefully you see the analogy. IOW, what compares in terms
of simplicity, cost and results?
D
Don Schmidt
One for sure on the list that is a Publisher created website is
www.vanusa.org
www.vanusa.org
D
DavidF
G
GeoffreyChaucer
Oh what the heck. Here are a couple more. These are best viewed in any
version of IE, not Firefox. They are from my "round-corner" period.
http://www.bennettventilation.com.au/
http://www.unitedaero.com.au/
http://www.karaokeklubhouse.com.au/index.html
God knows that I have been criticised on this forum about the one at the
bottom of the list. Yet the owner of that site refuses steadfastly to go for
a more conventional presentation.
version of IE, not Firefox. They are from my "round-corner" period.
http://www.bennettventilation.com.au/
http://www.unitedaero.com.au/
http://www.karaokeklubhouse.com.au/index.html
God knows that I have been criticised on this forum about the one at the
bottom of the list. Yet the owner of that site refuses steadfastly to go for
a more conventional presentation.
E
Eric James
Well, actually it isn't like that at all. In terms of tools - you can't get
better than Notepad for cost or flexibility, and it really can produce the
best results. (Although you will need a graphics program as well). I'm sure
that wasn't quite what you meant though - and the truth is that you won't
find many tools which work in the way which Publisher does for making web
pages (and almost certainly no good ones), because it really isn't a very
good way of doing it, and it isn't even, after all, what Publisher was
principally designed for.
You could however look at Serif's PagePlus (old version available free from
www.freeserifsoftware.com) or maybe NetObjects Fusion - old versions of that
have also been given away free on magazine cd's etc.
E
Eric James
So where are all these sites which you've built then David?
R
Rob Giordano [MS MVP]
because it has normal html...although that site doesn't have a valid
doctype...the html is not Publisher's.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rob Giordano
Microsoft MVP Expression
doctype...the html is not Publisher's.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rob Giordano
Microsoft MVP Expression
G
GeoffreyChaucer
"Eric James wrote: the truth is that you won't
While not entirely disagreeing with you Eric, I contend that you can still
produce a reasonably good website with Publisher.
It depends on which version you use and how you use it.
If you try to build a website entirely and exclusively with Pub 2000
functions, for instance, the result will be marginal.
However, if you use Pub 2000 to simply produce carrier documents upon which
you code your own scripts, in both HTML fragments and Notepad windows, then
the result can be at the very least acceptable.
While not entirely disagreeing with you Eric, I contend that you can still
produce a reasonably good website with Publisher.
It depends on which version you use and how you use it.
If you try to build a website entirely and exclusively with Pub 2000
functions, for instance, the result will be marginal.
However, if you use Pub 2000 to simply produce carrier documents upon which
you code your own scripts, in both HTML fragments and Notepad windows, then
the result can be at the very least acceptable.
E
Eric James
As it happens I would agree that Publisher 2000 is by far the best, maybe
even the only, version of Publisher to use for making web pages, but I guess
it depends what you mean by 'reasonably good'. You can't, for instance,
create pages composed of valid html - but you can certainly make pages which
look nice, if maybe not always quite the same in different browsers.
As for making 'carrier documents' (templates?) - it hardly seems worth it
when armed with a little html & css knowledge you can do that much more
flexibly by other means - and make your pages standards compliant and more
acceptable to other editing tools.
even the only, version of Publisher to use for making web pages, but I guess
it depends what you mean by 'reasonably good'. You can't, for instance,
create pages composed of valid html - but you can certainly make pages which
look nice, if maybe not always quite the same in different browsers.
As for making 'carrier documents' (templates?) - it hardly seems worth it
when armed with a little html & css knowledge you can do that much more
flexibly by other means - and make your pages standards compliant and more
acceptable to other editing tools.
G
GeoffreyChaucer
Agreed, you can't get valid HTML with Pub. At least, I'm not aware of any way
to do this. As to making pages look the same in all browsers, it may be
possible but would take too long and would require too many alterations.
I don't use CSS in conjunction with Publisher 2000, but nothing prevents me
from doing so. It's a personal choice.
By "carrier documents", I mean basic blank (HTML of sorts) documents upon
which I can add content by various means. Not a layout template as such. You
may ask what advantages are there doing it this way? The answer is simply
that it provides a structure for the construction of the site.
It also makes maintenance of larger sites (60 - 70+ pages) relatively easy.
It can substitute for a management system, albeit very primitive. Although I
never tried, I believe it is possible to edit pages created in Publisher 2000
with FrontPage.
to do this. As to making pages look the same in all browsers, it may be
possible but would take too long and would require too many alterations.
I don't use CSS in conjunction with Publisher 2000, but nothing prevents me
from doing so. It's a personal choice.
By "carrier documents", I mean basic blank (HTML of sorts) documents upon
which I can add content by various means. Not a layout template as such. You
may ask what advantages are there doing it this way? The answer is simply
that it provides a structure for the construction of the site.
It also makes maintenance of larger sites (60 - 70+ pages) relatively easy.
It can substitute for a management system, albeit very primitive. Although I
never tried, I believe it is possible to edit pages created in Publisher 2000
with FrontPage.
G
GeoffreyChaucer
To go back to Maurice's original question, sites created with Publisher 2000
can usually be identified by viewing the source file (for those unfamiliar
with this facility: click on "View" in the Window's top bar then click on
"Source"). You would normally find among the <head> tags one that reads:
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Publisher 2000">
Although, you can't rely entirely on this because I remember deleting this
tag from my pages in the early days out of embarrassment. Not realising then
that one could still tell by the abundant presence of <tr> and <td> tags and
other unconventional HTML coding.
As to later versions of Publisher, the source refers to Microsoft Office as
already pointed out by MAURH.
can usually be identified by viewing the source file (for those unfamiliar
with this facility: click on "View" in the Window's top bar then click on
"Source"). You would normally find among the <head> tags one that reads:
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Publisher 2000">
Although, you can't rely entirely on this because I remember deleting this
tag from my pages in the early days out of embarrassment. Not realising then
that one could still tell by the abundant presence of <tr> and <td> tags and
other unconventional HTML coding.
As to later versions of Publisher, the source refers to Microsoft Office as
already pointed out by MAURH.
D
DavidF
The karaoke house site might be a bit garish for some, but it does seems to
fit the theme.
I think that these three sites demonstrate that what is most important is
the skill of the person using the tool, rather than the tool itself. I think
you have done a good job and demonstrated exceptional skill in using
Publisher to build these sites.
Thank you for sharing them.
DavidF
fit the theme.
I think that these three sites demonstrate that what is most important is
the skill of the person using the tool, rather than the tool itself. I think
you have done a good job and demonstrated exceptional skill in using
Publisher to build these sites.
Thank you for sharing them.
DavidF