I found this thread which seems to be exactly the problem I have just
encountered. I run a small website for a client. I am not a web designer,
but I do marketing and this individual wanted a simple site which I was
able to put together and maintain for her using Publisher 2003. She has
just bought a new computer with IE08 and suddenly she cannot access her
website, or rather the navigation buttons do not work! I created these
using the wizard and they still work fine in IE07 and Firefox. You say
that there is a work around for this problem - how do I find out how to fix
it? I am quite happy using Publisher - it is simple and I understand it!
Please can you help?
DavidF wrote:
It is unfortunate that so many people are so misinformed about the
26-Feb-09
It is unfortunate that so many people are so misinformed about the
capabilities of using Publisher to build web sites. You aren't alone. I
have
had this debate with many others including Ed Bennett a Publisher MVP. He
simply hates the idea of using Publisher to build webs, and I know I will
never change his mind. But after building webs with Publisher for around 9
years, being a beta tester for Pub 2007, and almost daily assisting and
providing support to hundreds and hundreds of other users building sites
in
the Publisher web group for more than 5 years, I believe that I can say
with
some authority that your analogy of using Publisher to build a web is like
eating soup with chopsticks is simply not based in reality. Nor is your
assumption that you need to understand coding, HTML, CSS or the quirks of
different browsers. Most people that use Publisher never look at the
source
code, nor need to.
I think that many of the assumptions or misinformation about using
Publisher
for webs is based on old versions of Publisher and probably Publisher
2002...or as I said, just not understanding how to correctly use the
program. When MSFT adopted Publisher 2002 into the Office XP family they
changed the coding engine, included VML, etc. and created a nightmare. I
would probably agree with you if we were talking about that version, but
since that time with each version MSFT has improved Publisher
significantly.
Over the year I and others in the group have addressed the issues of cross
browser incompatibility and most of the issues that cause problems are
usually related to print publication formatting, layout and design
elements,
that are easily resolved by tweaking the layout or design slightly. You
don't need to dig into the code. What a user needs to understand is that
Publisher cannot convert all print designs and formatting to html that is
cross browser compatible, but that is true regardless of what tool you
use.
Now that MSFT has removed much of the VML formatting, added graphic
compressing and optimization, and more changes in Pub 2007, we have found
that if you avoid a few formatting and layout pitfalls, and tweak your
pages
so that it functions correctly and looks good in IE7 and FireFox3, then it
will also work in Opera and Safari and most other browsers.
The choice of whether to use Publisher for a web really depends on what
the
user's goals are for that web. If all they want is a relatively small,
simple static, fixed width website, and if they already own and know how
to
use Publisher for print publications, then it can be a good choice to
easily
and quickly build a good looking, fully functional, relatively fast
loading
and crossbrowser compatible website. How does that compare to eating soup
with chop sticks? There is simply no basis in fact or logical argument
that
supports that suggestion. Furthermore, suggesting that a person needs to
go
with a full web editor such as Expression Web which is MSFT's standards
compliant web editor program, requires a huge learning curved, an
understanding of HTML, CSS and potentially PHP coding, and is simply
overkill and unnecessary for the targeted user group.
I am not saying that Publisher will ever be the best choice for a
professional web designer, or for those who need a lot of dynamic
functionality, or those who plan a large website. I also will concede that
right now there are some compatibility issues with IE8 RC1, that will
decrease the usefulness of the program if not corrected. But after testing
dozens of Publisher 2003 and 2007 sites that have been designed to
function
in IE7 and FF3, the only major problem I have found with IE8 is the
Publisher wizard built navbars do not render. Otherwise even the
compatibility mode is not necessary. I have found a workaround that is
less
than desirable, but I am optimistic that I, or others in the web group, or
MSFT will find a better fix for that before IE8 goes mainstream. I suspect
it will have to be within Publisher, because as you suggest, they aren't
likely to make any major changes in IE8...especially for Publisher webs.
And
for what its worth, Publisher 2000 HTML code renders perfectly in IE8.
Anyway, my point in writing all of this and challenging your original
assertions, judgments and the tone of your posts, is not to convince you
or
anyone to use Publisher for web building. In fact, I frequently talk
people
out of using it. My goal here is to make sure that people understand that
for some users, depending on the scope of what they want in a website,
Publisher can be a good, viable choice, and that they should not make that
decision based on misinformation and incorrect assumptions.
DavidF
Previous Posts In This Thread:
Internet Explorer 8
Anyone tried looking at Publisher created web pages in Explorer 8?
It seems that without reverting to 'compatibility mode', Safari & Firefox
now do a better job... a typical MS screw up.
The recommendation now has to be to definitely not use Publisher for
making
web pages, if it wasn't before, that is!
Perhaps before making such a judgment you should wait until IE8 is out of
beta.
Perhaps before making such a judgment you should wait until IE8 is out of
beta. There are a lot of web sites that don't view correctly in IE8 RC1.
Besides, you are incorrect...you can build a Publisher web site that will
work just fine in IE8, FireFox, Safari, Opera and most other browsers...if
you actually know what your are doing.
DavidF
You don't seem to have understood what I wrote - I didn't say you
couldn't.
You don't seem to have understood what I wrote - I didn't say you
couldn't.
In a similar vein, you can eat soup with chopsticks if you wish, but most
people would save a lot of time using a more appropriate tool.
As to whether the final version of IE8 will be any more compatible with
Publisher, who knows - but 'compatibility mode' sure isn't going to go
away
and history shows that not much usually gets changed between RC1 & release
versions..
You also comprehensively miss the point of making web pages in Publisher -
it's supposed to make it easier and not demand intimate knowledge of HTML,
CSS and the quirks of different browsers. duh. If a user knew all that,
they'd be better off making their pages with notepad.
It is unfortunate that so many people are so misinformed about the
It is unfortunate that so many people are so misinformed about the
capabilities of using Publisher to build web sites. You aren't alone. I
have
had this debate with many others including Ed Bennett a Publisher MVP. He
simply hates the idea of using Publisher to build webs, and I know I will
never change his mind. But after building webs with Publisher for around 9
years, being a beta tester for Pub 2007, and almost daily assisting and
providing support to hundreds and hundreds of other users building sites
in
the Publisher web group for more than 5 years, I believe that I can say
with
some authority that your analogy of using Publisher to build a web is like
eating soup with chopsticks is simply not based in reality. Nor is your
assumption that you need to understand coding, HTML, CSS or the quirks of
different browsers. Most people that use Publisher never look at the
source
code, nor need to.
I think that many of the assumptions or misinformation about using
Publisher
for webs is based on old versions of Publisher and probably Publisher
2002...or as I said, just not understanding how to correctly use the
program. When MSFT adopted Publisher 2002 into the Office XP family they
changed the coding engine, included VML, etc. and created a nightmare. I
would probably agree with you if we were talking about that version, but
since that time with each version MSFT has improved Publisher
significantly.
Over the year I and others in the group have addressed the issues of cross
browser incompatibility and most of the issues that cause problems are
usually related to print publication formatting, layout and design
elements,
that are easily resolved by tweaking the layout or design slightly. You
don't need to dig into the code. What a user needs to understand is that
Publisher cannot convert all print designs and formatting to html that is
cross browser compatible, but that is true regardless of what tool you
use.
Now that MSFT has removed much of the VML formatting, added graphic
compressing and optimization, and more changes in Pub 2007, we have found
that if you avoid a few formatting and layout pitfalls, and tweak your
pages
so that it functions correctly and looks good in IE7 and FireFox3, then it
will also work in Opera and Safari and most other browsers.
The choice of whether to use Publisher for a web really depends on what
the
user's goals are for that web. If all they want is a relatively small,
simple static, fixed width website, and if they already own and know how
to
use Publisher for print publications, then it can be a good choice to
easily
and quickly build a good looking, fully functional, relatively fast
loading
and crossbrowser compatible website. How does that compare to eating soup
with chop sticks? There is simply no basis in fact or logical argument
that
supports that suggestion. Furthermore, suggesting that a person needs to
go
with a full web editor such as Expression Web which is MSFT's standards
compliant web editor program, requires a huge learning curved, an
understanding of HTML, CSS and potentially PHP coding, and is simply
overkill and unnecessary for the targeted user group.
I am not saying that Publisher will ever be the best choice for a
professional web designer, or for those who need a lot of dynamic
functionality, or those who plan a large website. I also will concede that
right now there are some compatibility issues with IE8 RC1, that will
decrease the usefulness of the program if not corrected. But after testing
dozens of Publisher 2003 and 2007 sites that have been designed to
function
in IE7 and FF3, the only major problem I have found with IE8 is the
Publisher wizard built navbars do not render. Otherwise even the
compatibility mode is not necessary. I have found a workaround that is
less
than desirable, but I am optimistic that I, or others in the web group, or
MSFT will find a better fix for that before IE8 goes mainstream. I suspect
it will have to be within Publisher, because as you suggest, they aren't
likely to make any major changes in IE8...especially for Publisher webs.
And
for what its worth, Publisher 2000 HTML code renders perfectly in IE8.
Anyway, my point in writing all of this and challenging your original
assertions, judgments and the tone of your posts, is not to convince you
or
anyone to use Publisher for web building. In fact, I frequently talk
people
out of using it. My goal here is to make sure that people understand that
for some users, depending on the scope of what they want in a website,
Publisher can be a good, viable choice, and that they should not make that
decision based on misinformation and incorrect assumptions.
DavidF
"after building webs with Publisher for around 9years, being a beta tester
for
"after building webs with Publisher for around 9
years, being a beta tester for Pub 2007, and almost daily assisting and
providing support to hundreds and hundreds of other users building sites
in
the Publisher web group for more than 5 years"
...well in that case I'd have thought you might just have realised that
there are easier and better ways of doing it by now, but evidently not.
Apparently you are disappointed with the results of Publisher websites.
Apparently you are disappointed with the results of Publisher websites. In
your case, the prudent choice would be not to use it.
I've got multiple sites built with Publisher 2000 that meet the needs of
their purpose including one with security features to protect proprietary
information. To maintain the sites is an easy chore for this old soul and
the visitors have remarked the ease of use.
Some folks like vanilla and some like Gold Medal Ribbon! Apply your
evaluation as you see fit.
(Of course Publisher is the Gold Medal Ribbon but it could use a bit more
caramel.)
--
Don - Vancouver, USA
"May your shadow be found in happy places." - Native North American
As it happens, I've made thousands of web pages using Publisher 2000, and
As it happens, I've made thousands of web pages using Publisher 2000, and
would say that it's ok for making web pages in certain circumstances if
due
care is taken to avoid text being rendered as bitmaps, and the
IE/Navigator
3 output option is selected for best browser compatibility. I've also
tried
out later versions and found them to be fairly useless in that they
generate
extremely inefficient and unwieldy output which often doesn't work
properly
in browsers other than Internet Explorer (and probably isn't very search
engine friendly, although I haven't tested this much). With IE8 it seems
that even that can no longer be relied upon.
It seems a real shame to me as Publisher was potentially a great product
for
the price, but Microsoft seem to have lost their way with it over the last
few releases, and the recent apparent lack of any real effort in
developing
it further or even simple bug fixing could lead one to the reasonable
conclusion that it is being quietly dropped.
Despite DavidF's obtuse rants, the general recommendation has to be to
avoid
using it for making web pages, if at all possible (& definitely not use
anything newer than 2000). In my case, I've used it to generate web
versions
of a print publication - the way forward for that now is to use pdf files,
and that is what is being done.
I do some editing on a Dreamweaver site using osEditor on a Coldfusion
server
I do some editing on a Dreamweaver site using osEditor on a Coldfusion
server which is very unpleasant. osEditor is very temperamental and fails
to update changes requiring re-input. I'll take Publisher sites any day
over
Dreamweaver/osEditor/Coldfusion monster.
--
Don
Vancouver, USA
You impress me.
You impress me. Your powers of logical rational reasoning and debate are
only surpassed by your vast knowledge and understanding of when and how to
use Publisher to build websites.
You have a good day.
DavidF
Eric James,Since my words are seen as obtuse by you, but you continue to
Eric James,
Since my words are seen as obtuse by you, but you continue to dispel
misinformation about using Publisher to build websites, I will direct my
words at any user reading your post that might be contemplating building a
website with Publisher. I will assume that they will be wasted on you.
Contrary to Eric's assertion that MSFT has not improved upon Publisher
2000,
each successive version has indeed been improved in many ways, and in some
ways are more capable than Publisher 2000 when it comes to building
websites. Each version has both advantages and disadvantages, and
Publisher
2002 is probably the version that is the weakest.
There is no factual evidence that MSFT is planning on dropping Publisher
in
the future.
Contrary to Eric's assertion, the facts are you can relatively easily and
quickly build good looking, fully functional and cross browser compatible
websites with any version of Publisher, if you actually understand how to
use the program. At this point there is what is probably a temporary
compatibility problem with IE8 which is still in beta development. If a
Publisher website is designed such that it works well in IE7 and FireFox
3,
then the only compatibility issue I have found thus far is the wizard
built
navbar does not render. There are temporary workarounds for this and I am
confident that MSFT will address this issue in the future, so this limited
compatibility issue is not alone a logical or rational reason to not
choose
to use Publisher to build a website.
To repeat some words, the choice of using Publisher depends upon the scope
and goals you have for your website. If all you want is a relatively
small,
simple static, fixed width website, and you already own and know how to
use
Publisher for print publications, then it can be a good choice. If you
want
more dynamic functionality or are planning a large site, then you might
consider investing in a program such as Dreamweaver or Web Expression or
other code editor programs, or perhaps a server side solution. But you
will
have to invest a lot of hours learning coding, CSS and more to use those
programs effectively, so they may be overkill for your needs.
You need not trust my words. You can be your own judge of these facts and
whether Publisher can be a good choice for building websites. Here are
just
a few Publisher built websites from around the world:
http://www.beltonstud.com/
http://www.interalliancegroup.com/
http://www.maryannfarley.com/
http://www.conifers.ukgo.com/
http://www.gwbertcockerspaniels.co.uk/index.htm
http://www.bratislava.gr/ or perhaps the English version:
http://www.bratislava.gr/en/
http://www.bollnascamping.se/ another bilingual site
http://www.europe-hotels.gr/gr/cyprus/index_paphos.htm
http://www.professionalcounselling.co.uk/ a Pub 2000 site
If you have more questions about Publisher webs, then post in the web
group
and we will try to help you there:
news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.publisher.webdesign
or
http://www.microsoft.com/office/com...soft.public.publisher.webdesign&lang=en&cr=US
Please include the version of Publisher you are using, the URL of your
site
and as much detail as possible.
DavidF
Well phrased, David.
Well phrased, David.
--
JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]
Tech Editor for "Microsoft Publisher 2007 For Dummies"
A fairly commonplace piece of oft-quoted advice is, when you're stuck in a
A fairly commonplace piece of oft-quoted advice is, when you're stuck in a
hole, stop digging.
I only looked at three of the example sites quoted:
http://www.beltonstud.com/
http://www.interalliancegroup.com/
http://www.gwbertcockerspaniels.co.uk/index.htm
& they all exhibit typical Publisher compatibility problems in Firefox.
These include broken layouts manifested as overlapping text blocks,
non-working navigation menus, & blocks of text needlessly converted to
bitmaps. These include 'mailto:' links which consequently don't work.
Bizarrely one even displays text in Firefox which is invisible in IE -
must
admit that one is a new one on me. Of course they all display multitudes
of
validation errors if you try running them through a validator such as that
at validator.w3.org, and I'd guess all fall foul of disability access
requirements.
Actually to use your analogy I see myself standing on very firm ground,
andyou
Actually to use your analogy I see myself standing on very firm ground,
and
you being the one digging yourself out of a hole you dug for yourself. I
can
prove every one of my assertions, but I see you grasping at straws and
making spurious arguments out of ignorance of how to use Publisher
correctly, and jumping to illogical conclusions without being able to
prove
them. The fact that you found a few FF compatibility issues in 3 of the
10 sites I listed does not prove your assertion that one should not use
Publisher to build a web site. You are just desperately trying to make a
mountain out of a molehill, because you have presented an untenable
position about the capabilities of Publisher.
I would remind you of what I have said in relation to cross browser issues
in Publisher webs. That "most of the issues that cause problems are
usually
related to print publication formatting, layout and design that are easily
resolved by tweaking the layout or design slightly". I didn't choose the
sample sites as examples of perfectly cross browser compatible sites.
Perhaps I should have and perhaps I could have saved the time it will take
to write this response. I chose them to illustrate just some of what one
can
do with Publisher with a little work and understanding of how the
program works. But now that you are again trying to make irrational and
incorrect generalized conclusions based on the fact that you found a few
compatibility errors, I will take the time to try to educate you as to how
easily such things are fixed.
So let's start with
http://www.beltonstud.com/ . I chose this one because
I
liked the simplicity, the aesthetics and the simple and clean
layout...plus
I like horses. It is site that most anyone could quickly and easily build.
I
did not test the site in FF, but I now see an example of the text being
converted to an image and in the process killing the email hyperlink in
the
text box with the contact information at the bottom right of the home
page.
This is usually caused by the text box being grouped with another design
element on the page, and is easily fixed by ungrouping the text box after
you get the page layout done. Note that on the 'About us' page:
http://www.beltonstud.com/index_files/aboutus.htm the contact information
and the link are fine, but broken on the other pages. Had this user tested
her site with FF she would have noticed the problem and it would have been
easily fixed. The only other cross browser issue that I can find is the
oblong autoshape with text, below the title on each page is converted to
an
image. This is because of the VML coding in Publisher and how it handles
autoshapes and clipart. It will render them ok in IE, but not in FF and
other browsers. MSFT is phasing out most of the VML coding across the
board
as I understand it, because it was IE specific. Most of it has been
removed
from Pub 2007. Anyway, the fix is to use a standard text box instead of an
autoshape...or live with it. In some cases such as this and logos etc, the
limited text being converted to an image is not that big of deal. Note
also
that this autoshape image overlaps the other picture in the heading of the
silhouette of the rider on the horse, without combining into one image
like
it would in Publisher 2000. This is just one example of how newer versions
of Publisher have been improved, contrary to one of your earlier erroneous
assertions. You can now layer images and design elements. So the two FF
compatibility issues are easily fixed, and otherwise the site is fully
crossbrowser compatible...unless I missed something. And by the way, this
woman's husband uses DreamWeaver for developing professional sites as I
remember, but she didn't want to take the time to learn DreamWeaver and
felt
it was overkill for what she wanted to do with her site, in spite of her
husband's urgings. I would agree.
Now as to
http://www.interalliancegroup.com/ I chose this one to
illustrate
a more complex layout and an example of how you can use the Insert HTML
code
fragment feature to add some dynamic functionality not built in to
Publisher, and in this case in the form of a moving marquee (personally I
am
not a fan of marquees). It should also be noted that this is far from your
typical hobbyist site, as this is a fairly substantial, serious business
which could afford to hire someone to build a site for them, and yet even
they decided they could build a site worthy of their company with
Publisher.
I think they did a pretty good job. I don't immediately see any cross
browser issues on the home page and didn't test each page, but if there
are
I am sure I could tell you how to fix them.
I noticed you skipped over
http://www.maryannfarley.com/ . Is that because
it is fully IE and FF compatible? I chose this one because I felt this
person used Publisher as an extension of her exceptional creativity. One
of
the advantages of using Publisher is how you can customize a site to fit
your
personality, and you aren't locked into using DWTs, Master pages or cookie
cutter templates. Note also on
http://www.maryannfarley.com/index_files/buy.htm that she has incorporated
some music players by once again using free script found on the web and
inserting it via the html code fragment feature.
Humm...you also skipped over
http://www.conifers.ukgo.com/ which also
appears to be fully cross browser compatible. I chose this one again for
its
simplicity and clean layout, but also to show how you could include a
slide
show and a auto updating time and date.
http://www.gwbertcockerspaniels.co.uk/index.htm is a site built by a guy
that is typical of the person who builds a website with Publisher and
discovers the insert html code fragment tool and goes a bit overboard. He
posted many times to the web group and his early versions of his site were
filled with every bell and whistle possible. We all learned a lot during
the
process of debugging the different scripts he found on the internet and
tried to incorporate into his site. It was a good example of the fact that
just because you can do something with a website, doesn't mean you
should...that sometimes the KISS philosophy is best. It is obvious that
his
site is still evolving, and he still has a few layout issues, but he has
also kept a lot of useful functionality and dropped most of the fluff. If
you mouseover his links you will notice that they change color. This is
accomplished by inserting a small three line code snippet of CSS into the
page. If you click on one of the pictures at the bottom of the page, you
will get a new window popup with the full sized image. While his code
should
probably be tweaked a bit to open in a larger window, it shows just one
more
thing you can do in a Publisher web with a some of the free javascript
code
available. I do notice one cross browser problem on the home page and that
is the bottom navbar. It has been converted to an image and thus killed
the
links. This is a common compatibility issue that is easily fixed by
ungrouping that navbar from the Publisher navbar wizard. Otherwise the
site
appears to be cross browser compatible, but I didn't test every page.
I didn't spot the overlapping text boxes you referenced on the three
sites,
but that is usually a simply fix by nudging the text boxes away from each
other in the layout. It isn't a cross browser issue that I know of. I also
couldn't find the disappearing text, but I am confident that it too would
require a simple fix.
The next four sites appear to be fully compatible with FF and IE though I
did not test every page. They are built by people who have really
stretched
the envelope of what can be done with Publisher, and that is why I
included
them. These sites are complex in layout, functionality and features...and
they work. For example I am pretty sure that most of if not all of
http://www.europe-hotels.gr/gr/cyprus/index_paphos.htm is fully cross
browser compatible, in both English and Greek. The guy who built it comes
back to the web group often with a new design challenge that he has come
up
with, and we have thus far been able to help him fix it, or come up with
an
alternative way of accomplishing his goal. His site illustrates how one
can
build a pretty sophisticated and complicated site with Publisher if you
are
willing to learn how the program works, invest some time and test as you
go.
And finally, I threw in the last site
http://www.professionalcounselling.co.uk/ as an example of how good of
site
you can build with Publisher 2000. It demonstrates and supports the fact
that you can build a good, fully functional and cross browser compatible
site with any version of Publisher and how that site can serve you well
indefinitely.
I didn't waste my time testing each and every page of every site I listed,
and you might find more than the three or four cross browser issues with
these Publisher webs. However these few easily fixed issues do not support
your position that one should not use Publisher to build a website. Quite
the opposite...it shows just how untenable and irrational your position
is.
It proves what I have been saying all along. That as long as you avoid a
few
formatting and layout issues and do a little testing and tweaking, you can
indeed create some very nice looking, fully functional cross browser
compatible sites. These sites also demonstrate how you can build some
fairly
sophisticated complex sites if you are willing to learn how to use the
program and are willing to put some work into it.
I would also suggest that having a 100% fully cross browser compatible
site
is a goal that is rarely achieved even by the most expert designers and
coders, as this goal is a moving target with browsers constantly changing
and evolving...such as the IE8 beta which is incompatible with many sites
built by many different programs. Any site can break under some
circumstances regardless of the tool used to build it
...Publisher included. However, there is almost always a fix, a workaround
or a design change that will work, and at this point I haven't found any
cross browser issue with Publisher webs that can't be fixed.
Now as to your new argument about Publisher sites not validating at w3.org
as being a reason to not use Publisher, I would first respond by pointing
out that I have never said that Publisher produces standards compliant
code...it doesn't. And certainly it will have a multitude of validation
errors and it also produces fairly bloated code but so what? Why does it
matter? It seems to me that the only people that care about those things
are
expert web designers and coding or software purists. Certainly the average
person who views the website doesn't care about what tool is used
or whether the code is bloated or standards compliant as long as the site
is
easy to navigate, loads quickly, and renders correctly in the browser of
their choice. If you can achieve those goals without standards compliant
code, then why is it important and how does it support your position that
you should not use Publisher? Even Web Expression will throw validation
errors and have cross browser issues if it isn't used correctly and it is
designed to be standards compliant. Just read through the web expression
newsgroup and see the number of posts about validation errors, cross
browser
issues and coding problems. FrontPage was notorious for producing
nonstandard code, but it could be tweaked for cross browser compatibility
if
you knew what you were doing. Every tool used to build a web site requires
a
bit of work and knowledge to get it to work correctly. Unlike Web
Expression, FrontPage and other code editors, the coding happens behind
the
scenes in Publisher, and you can fix the cross browser issues by tweaking
the layout, design and formatting, and you do not need to know anything
about coding. That in my mind is one of the biggest benefits of using
Publisher for people who have neither the time, aptitude or desire to
learn
HML coding, CSS etc. Why should they or anyone care that Publisher does
not
produce standards compliant code when you can produce a cross browser
compatible site? The fact that Publisher does not produce standards
compliant code seems irrelevant to me.
And finally, another new argument. Disability access requirements. This is
a subject that I only know a bit about, but it certainly is a worthwhile
goal when building a site. Publisher websites probably do fail on some
counts, but the text is readable by text readers, there are alt tags for
pictures, and the sites can generally be zoomed and scaled up to make it
easier to read, so all in all, it doesn't do too bad of job at even this
requirement. Once again, not being perfect in this area is not a reason to
not use it in my mind. Many sites built by many different tools don't meet
disability requirements and I see this as one of those straws that you are
grasping at to support your view.
Once again you have failed to provide any relevant facts or logical,
rational arguments to support your position that Publisher should not be
used to build webs, because the fact of the matter is your generalized
position is untenable. Publisher webs are not perfect and certainly have
their limitations, but there is no tool that doesn't have some limitations
and few to none that would meet every one of your criteria for acceptable
use. Even if you never accept reality the facts are you can relatively
easily and quickly build good looking, fully functional and cross browser
compatible websites with any version of Publisher, if you understand how
to
use the program. Furthermore, if all a user wants is a relatively small,
simple static, fixed width website, and they already own and know how to
use
Publisher for print publications, then it can be a good viable choice
depending upon the scope and goals they have for your website.
Now though I have somewhat enjoyed this exchange, I would prefer to go
back
to helping people who choose to use Publisher to build a website. I
believe
I have accomplished my original goal of correcting your misinformation and
refuting your spurious arguments so I am done with this thread. I will
leave
it up to the user as to whether they want to build a site with Publisher.
If
they so choose and want some help, then I would suggest that they post in
the web group and I and others will be happy to help you. That even goes
for
you Eric...
You have a good day.
DavidF
Thanks. You surprised me.
Thanks. You surprised me. I appreciate your new flexibility in the idea of
using Publisher for webs given our history.
DavidF
Re: Internet Explorer 8
You've an awful lot more patience than I, David. I would've reached for
the plonk button long ago.
Perhaps Eric will learn from that extremely elucidating article and STFU
and leave us all in peace.
--
Wisdom and experience come with age, they say, but I wish I could
remember the darn question
You did an excellent job of explaining when using Publisher could work.
You did an excellent job of explaining when using Publisher could work.
No,
we don't see eye to eye on that aspect of Publisher's use but that
certainly
doesn't stop me from acknowledging an informative post.
--
JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]
Tech Editor for "Microsoft Publisher 2007 For Dummies"
Submitted via EggHeadCafe - Software Developer Portal of Choice
Programming ASP.NET
http://www.eggheadcafe.com/tutorial...2d6-9333-86aa25b1a9e5/programming-aspnet.aspx
