New problem with Firefox

[John G]

Even at my age and experience I still learn new things every day.
Never had occasion to look at that item before.
Now I know.
FF2 works ok at a 120 but not at 96.
I am at a loss to understand why this hasn't come up before because the "OUT
of Box" setting for XP is 96dpi.

 

[Rob Giordano \(Crash\)]

comes from wide-screen monitors.

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

 

[DavidF]

I think it has more to do with the particular monitor or screen settings
rather than XP. The laptop I bought had a 15 inch standard aspect screen,
but offered very high screen resolutions for the time...that was one of its
selling points. However, if you used one of those high resolutions
everything on the screen was so small it was hard to read and thus out of
the box, the setting was set at 120 dpi to compensate. I never did quite
understand why someone would choose to run such a high resolution and then
turn around and make everything larger. It seemed to defeat the purpose of
running the higher resolution.

One of the few things I like about getting oldererer is the fact that I
still learn something new each day...well, at least some days. Heck, that is
part of the reason I still hang out here...still learning new things about
Publisher and web design. Unfortunately this is one of those cases that I
learned and figured out the issue, but haven't learned or come up with a
good solution. I am certainly ready to learn something new if anyone out
there knows a fix, but I suspect it will take a change in the coding engine
by MSFT.

DavidF

 

[CWWJ]

I just read this brief message. What does it mean?

 

[Rob Giordano \(Crash\)]

It means that 120 dpi is commonly used on the new wide-screen monitors.

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

 

[CWWJ]

I am still using IE6, but I will download IE7 tonight and see if I find the
same problem John G. says he noticed. Gulp. I think having two versions,
one at 96 and the other at 120 makes sense. But some of my computer guys say
I should never ask a client to "do something else" -- it makes it appear we
didn't know what we were doing in the first place. (Of course we didn't).
But that certainly is an option. The "centering code" option would be
difficult, since we have a 28 page site that is updated fairly often. Did I
understand you to say that each iteration would involve redoing all pages,
not just the ones being updated?

I do understand what the different screen resolutions -- 1024 x 768 to
800x600 -- might do to an attempt to fake "centering" by simply moving the
left margin of the page over and building the page over a background color,
texture, picture or design (even a custom design). But I have done a couple
of sample pages this way and have viewed them at 800x600, and although the
page does move to the right, at that screen size it still looks much better
than it would jammed to the left with all that space, no matter what the
color or background. (Hmmm. How about creating a custom background of a
photo montage that pertains to the site -- court rooms, conference rooms,
maybe even some kind of logo watermarking used as a background)?

But even that would not eliminate the forms problem between the two
resolutions of 96 and 120! Is there any way you can think of to overcome
this really fundamental problem? The pages may look okay in both browsers,
except for the forms, which are, after all, the most important elements in
the web site. MS really needs to tackle this, because no web site created
with Publisher can guarantee that forms will ever work in both resolutions,
when viewed on FireFox. I have just been lucky because our client base is so
small, and most are apparently aol or yahoo subscribers.

 

[Rob Giordano \(Crash\)]

Your computer guy is right; never ask a viewer to do something else that you
can do to make your site work better.

My advice would be to stop trying to make Publisher do something it's really
not designed to do by using work-arounds. Publisher is a dtp program that
can do basic web sites, a feature that arguably should never have been
included in the first place. I doubt that MS will ever make Publisher a
better web designer, their focus now is on standards compliant web design
with the Expression product.

Personally, I think they should remove the web design feature of Publisher
and create a nooby product for web design based upon Expression Web...but I
doubt that will happen either.

Your form does function, just the layout is wanked...this has little to do
with 96 or 120 dpi, it has more to do with the absolute positioning and
layers that Publisher uses to try to make things simple for the user.



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

 

[DavidF]

Hiya,

I agree with your computer guys. I don't like my workaround anymore than
telling people that they have to use IE in order to view a page properly,
which you see on some web sites. I also think the issue of centering your
pages or laying your pages out so that they simulate centering is not really
that important, if your forms pages are still jumbled for some users in some
browsers.

This key issue is how the Publisher html coding engine fails to produce code
that works equally well whether it is produced or viewed on a screen or
monitor set at either 96 dpi or 120 dpi. Until now most people have been
able to live with the pages produced at 96 dpi, as most screens and monitors
came at that setting, but that is increasingly not the case these days. Also
I have no reason to doubt John G when he says that IE7 also now chokes on
the different dpi settings...IE6 rendered both fairly well. And also until
now the people that have had this problem were not using forms on their
pages, and so if the pages looked a bit different in FF, that was also
something people could live with. But now given all these things, I think
you have reached a place where you should consider moving away from
Publisher.

You are also using HTTP uploading protocol which is dependent upon FPSE.
MSFT has made that process difficult in IE7 and especially with Vista, and
they have stopped supporting FPSE. This means that eventually your host will
probably discontinue their support of FPSE...many already have. Your forms
are dependent upon FPSE.

Bottom line is that MSFT has to update Publisher to deal with evolving
technology or people such as yourself will have to move on to something
else. As Rob said, Web Expression which replaced FrontPage is your choice if
you want to stay with MSFT. They just released version 2, and by most
accounts it is a great program. It just will present a big learning curve
for you, and you will have to rebuild your site mostly from scratch.
Alternatively, I would suggest that you consider Serif Web Plus. It will be
less expensive and it gives you much the same ease of use as
Publisher...perhaps easier. To my knowledge it will do everything that
Publisher fails to do in your case...and rebuilding your site in it
shouldn't take that long.

I am sure this isn't what you want to hear, but given your circumstances, I
think it is time for you to abandon Publisher. Sorry, but it is failing you
on too many levels.

DavidF

 

[Rob Giordano \(Crash\)]

FPSE are still supported by MS, only not on the Linux/Unix platform...at
least for now.



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

 

[CWWJ]

David:
I tested the forms pages on FireFox last night and they both worked
perfectly -- it's just that some of the boxes and buttons were out of
alignment with the text. I think many of our clients who use the forms will
recognize what's going on and most already know what box or button goes
where. That's no solution, of course, but I don't think the sky will fall
until I have time to re-do the site in another program.

I reluctantly agree that I will have to abandon Publisher for web authoring.
I think it was a mistake for MS to offer a web design component in Publisher
if it was going to be so fraught with problems -- problems that could easily
be foreseen. It was quite unfair to users who found Publisher (as I did) to
be valuable for doing a variety of print projects, and assumed it would work
for web authoring as well. I consider it a black mark against MS,
particularly for not warning purchasers of the inherent problems with
cross-browser compatibility. Now, apparently, Publisher web sites have
problems even with the new version of IE! So, think of the large investment
in money and time so many MS customers have made to create a web site that
can actually hurt their busiiness. Sounds like a class-action product
liability lawsuit to me.

I think I'll pass on Web Expressions, and I must say it's a trust issue.
Who knows what's lurking in that code. The Serif product you mentioned is
not just cheap, it is very very cheap. Incidentally, the computer I'm using
is a Gateway E Series that's a few years old. Its out of the box dpi setting
was 120, so I'm wondering how many PCs came with that setting at that time.
Seems to me that maybe 96dpi as the default came with advent of the new
wide-screen monitors.

I want to thank all of you for the outstanding job you do in helping us
neophytes. Your patience is amazing. If you have any other ideas, I'm open.

CWWJ

 

[CWWJ]

David and John G.

One final thing. I downloaded IE7 this morning and accessed our web site.
Used the forms with no problem whatsoever, so I don't understand John's
insistence that they "fail" with both FireFox and IE7. However, I note a
peculiarity in IE7 -- when viewing a web site (this one we're on right now,
for example), only the top half of the page is visible; the bottom half is
just white space. You have to scroll down to see the rest of the page. This
is disconcerting at best. Anybody have the same experience? I am at 96dpi
and with a screen resolution of 1024x468. What gives?

 

[Rob Giordano \(Crash\)]

Expression Web is very very good and will get better, but there will be a
learning curve.

I have Serif's web designer and it's not bad (excellent for 20 bucks I paid
...but it's still not a full html editor...it's close though!

....you can also create web pages with Word, or Notepad, PowerPoint, or even
Excel...but should you?...so I doubt there'd be any basis for a class-action
suit.



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

 

[Rob Giordano \(Crash\)]

You may be on a "web page" but many of us are NOT, we are on nntp USENET
access, not the clunky web-interface. The web interface sux.
So it's hard to see what you are etalking about.




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

 

[CWWJ]

Well, pardon me, Rob, I didn't mean to offend. Many of us are on the clunky
web interface, so forgive us for our unsophisticated approach to all of this.

Whatever the initial problem with IE7 immediately after download -- it
displayed only in the top half of the screen and I guess you'll just have to
take my word for that -- it stopped doing it the next time I logged on. I am
on IE7 right now and it is a superior browser.

For John G's information, I have viewed our web site on IE7 in both 120dpi
and 96dpi and it looks better than it ever looked. Forms are flawless and
work perfectly in both resolutions. I don't know what you were seeing when
you told me that the forms failed on both FireFox and IE7 at 96dpi. While
some elements of the form did not display correctly on FireFox, the forms
were capable of being filled out (with a little guesswork) and there was no
problem in submitting the info. On IE7 both looked and worked great.

So now, the only problem I have is the FireFox browser at 96dpi, and with a
new version coming out soon, maybe even that problem will soon be corrected.
In any case, it's a much smaller problem even now than I had anticipated --
if I'd had a problem with IE7 I would have really been concerned.

Thanks again for your help, and John G., I'd appreciate it if you'd tell me
what you saw on IE7.

 

[John G]

Well I just looked again (9:00AM Australian eastern time Friday) and
the evaluation form still has the buttons all in the wrong places wiith IE7
and FF2
and the Submit and Revise buttons are still over the line starting "Would
you like to reveal"
(I did refresh and try on 2 machines at 1024 X 768 and 96dpi)

How did you set your screen resolution to 1024 X FOUR68 or was that a
typo??

 

[DavidF]

Well, I bow to your expertise, but that isn't what I have been reading. I
stand corrected.

DavidF

 

[DavidF]

CWWJ,

I have to chuckle about your class action lawsuit. There is another guy out
there named Syd that has talked about that for years. He is used Pub 2000 to
build a large site and had an awful experience trying to update to 2002, and
then discovered that there was no easy way to import the site into FrontPage
or any other editor...that he would have to rebuild it. His argument was the
same...MSFT had misrepresented the product and now he was stuck.

There has been many "debates" about the suitability of using Publisher to
produce a website. Rob and I respectfully disagree...and also agree to a
point. Publisher is a DTP and is intended to provide an easy means for a
person to take their brand, created in their print docs and create a web
presence. It is suitable for simple, static, small sites, but with
convenience does come limitations, and no expert or professional web
designer would ever suggest using Publisher. Even two of the Publisher MVPs
hate this component of Publisher.

You have come up against one of the limitations that has crept up on MSFT
with the change from shipping monitors and screens at a default 96 dpi
setting to the new wide aspect and larger monitors with increasingly higher
resolution and 120 dpi settings. Also there have been issues with cross
browser compatibility, but you have to remember that MSFT designed and
optimized Publisher to work with IE...not their competitors browsers. We
have managed to work around and solve most of the cross browser issues, and
even managed to get the VML option removed from Pub 2007, but... MSFT is
putting most of their energy into developing Web Expression which produces
much more standard code than FrontPage did, and is intended to work equally
well in all browsers...FrontPage didn't unless you were careful...from what
I understand.

Publisher was adopted into the Office family of products in version 2002 and
it has been treated as a neglected adoptee ever since. During the beta for
Office 2007 it was obvious that most of their energy was going to the rest
of Office, and that 2007 was not going to be improved that much....and the
truth is, while they did improve a few things, they messed up a bunch of
things that worked perfectly in 2003. I am not sure I would ever recommend
that someone "upgrade"....and in fact, that is why I still use Pub 2000. The
html coding engine produces much simpler, cleaner code, and I never have
problems with cross browser issues. I have the other versions installed so I
can help out here, but I don't use them for my production work. Anyway my
point is that though we have tried, we just haven't been able to get MSFT to
devote much attention to Publisher, and I don't know when that is going to
change. But if they don't do something soon, they are going to alienate and
loose the target user they intended. As you see, I am not above recommending
a person move on to something else if their goals and ambitions for their
websites is beyond the scope of Publisher.

Nuff said...but if you want to try Web Expression there is a free trial. And
yes, it isn't perfect either, but then there is no such thing.

DavidF

 

[DavidF]

CWWJ,

Don't worry, you didn't offend him. There is a movement afoot to do away
with NNTP newsgroups in favor of web based forums, and those of us that use
NNTP are fighting and screaming trying to save them. They are so much more
efficient, faster and easier to use than the doggy forums. I know that I
will be gone if they ever do away with NNTP for this group. That was what
you picked up I think...

Try this if you want to know what I am talking about:
news://msnews.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.publisher.webdesign
It will open the newsgroup in Outlook Express or some other newsreader.

DavidF

 

[CWWJ]

Thanks, I'll do that. If you have IE7 would you mind looking at my site in
both 96 and 120? I have gotten perfect results -- nothing out of place
whatsoever -- in both resolutions, so I'm puzzled as to why John G. still
sees this problem. Another cybermystery and I'm plenty sick of them.

 

[DavidF]

Cybermystery...chuckle...welcome to world of web design.

I don't have IE7 installed right now...uninstalled it after trying it out. I
don't know if I will get to it this weekend or not, but I will install it on
my test partition and check it out.

DavidF