Welp, come visit us at microsoft.public.frontpage.client when you need us!
| Yeah, I got that impression. It is certainly limited in what it can do.
For
| the present it will work fine for us so there is no urgency to re-do it
| except for the cross-browser problem. And webstats says that IE still has
| 80% plus of the market and still reports that the rest are nich-y -- even
| FireFox -- and that most FF users with the exception of the MS-haters and
| evangelists still have IE close at hand. Most of our clients -- and our
site
| is aimed at an exclusive audience of lawyers -- will be very conventional
IE
| users. But meantime, I've got FrontPage and I'll start getting
comfortable
| with it so I can be up to speed when the time comes to re-do the site.
| Thanks for your input.
|
| "Rob Giordano (Crash)" wrote:
|
| > I understand.
| >
| > No you cannot effectively import Pub html into anything. You'll need to
| > start over in FP or DW or Go Live or whatever you choose to redo your
| > site...that's kinda my point...Pub is a dead end.
| >
| >
| >
| > | > | Thanks, Rob. As I said, I had nothing to do with the current site and
it
| > is
| > | being replaced by the new Publisher site. I know the person who
created
| > the
| > | site back in 1999 and has updated it marginally since then, but she no
| > longer
| > | is the webmaster and is unavailable. It is a pretty poor web site --
I
| > think
| > | the person who did it knew nothing about web design.
| > | I agree that Publisher was not the best choice; however, I have used
it
| > for
| > | professional print projects for several years with very good results,
I
| > was
| > | in a hurry to get the web site up and didn't want to go through a
learning
| > | curve with another application. And our site, although fairly large,
is
| > not
| > | at all complicated -- we have only three response forms and otherwise
it
| > is
| > | purely informational. But my question still is: can I import some of
| > these
| > | Publisher files into FrontPage (I already have the 2003 version) so I
| > don't
| > | have to start from scratch when I do re-do the site?
| > |
| > | "Rob Giordano (Crash)" wrote:
| > |
| > | > The Earthlink site was created by Go Live 4.
| > | >
| > | > Most of the image file sizes are way too big...the splash image if
450K
| > and
| > | > the business card logo is almost 100K. These can be optimized way
way
| > way
| > | > down!
| > | >
| > | > Publisher may not be your best choice...you'll end up redoing it in
| > | > Publisher and in a few months realize you've made the wrong choice
and
| > have
| > | > to redo it again. Publisher is primarily designed as a desktop
| > publishing
| > | > tool that can also create limited webs. FrontPage or Dreamweaver are
web
| > | > design tools.
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > | > | > | Thanks for taking the time to visit the current site on Earthlink.
| > The
| > | > | person who developed that site is no longer available and I was
| > unaware of
| > | > | the application used to create it -- I was recently given the
| > challenge of
| > | > | completely re-designing it. Two things: the fixes you
recommended
| > didn't
| > | > | work, but that's okay, I'm now suspecting the problem lies outside
the
| > | > | Publisher files I created, for two reasons: (1) you were able to
load
| > all
| > | > | the images when you visited the site with a dial up; (2) the same
| > images
| > | > | refused to load for me on my dial up as before, and these are
| > compressed
| > | > | images. Of the seven or eight that wouldn't load all were jpegs
at
| > 13K or
| > | > | under, while at the same time other jpegs of 15K to 19K loaded
| > perfectly
| > | > and
| > | > | very quickly. I was surprised to find that you were able to even
| > access
| > | > the
| > | > | site with FireFox. I couldn't get past the second page -- that's
why
| > I
| > | > put
| > | > | the "use IE" message on page two. I'd like to have cross-browser
| > | > capability,
| > | > | even though most of our customers are law firms that probably use
| > | > Explorer.
| > | > | If I decided to re-do the site, is there any easy way to copy
parts of
| > the
| > | > | Publisher files to FrontPage? Or would re-doing the site in
Publisher
| > | > 2000
| > | > | be an easy fix?
| > | > |
| > | > | "DavidF" wrote:
| > | > |
| > | > | > I was glad to read that this truly was a test site. I think it
is
| > | > | > disappointing when people invest a lot of time and money in
| > developing a
| > | > | > website, and then try to cut corners by using a free hosting
| > service.
| > | > Some
| > | > | > would say that those who use Publisher to produce their sites
are
| > guilty
| > | > of
| > | > | > the same thing, when there are much better tools available such
as
| > | > | > FrontPage.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Out of curiosity, I went to your EarthLink site and noticed that
the
| > | > images
| > | > | > loaded verrrry slowly on that site, so you have made great
gains. I
| > also
| > | > | > thought it curious that you, or someone, used Adobe Go Live to
| > produce
| > | > that
| > | > | > site...another good tool.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Should you switch to FrontPage...or go back to Go Live? I would
| > presume
| > | > that
| > | > | > your current site has web statistics. Mine show that about 10 -
15%
| > of
| > | > | > viewers use a browser other than IE to view my business site.
For
| > this
| > | > | > reason and others, I have continued to use Pub 2000 to produce
my
| > site,
| > | > | > which does have good cross browser support. It has a different
| > coding
| > | > | > engine. For what its worth, with a few exceptions which probably
| > could
| > | > be
| > | > | > fixed, your site does seem to look pretty good in FireFox, the
next
| > most
| > | > | > popular browser. Check your stats and decide if the advantages
of
| > using
| > | > | > Publisher outweigh the disadvantages, but yes, you would add
| > | > functionality
| > | > | > to your site with FrontPage. I also think that is what MS
| > | > intended...when
| > | > | > you outgrow Publisher, then switch. Personally I hope the next
| > version,
| > | > | > which is scheduled to be released in late 2006, will have better
| > cross
| > | > | > browser support.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Here is a pretty good reference article to consider:
| > | > | > Are You Cross Browser Compatible? by Matt Benya
| > | > | >
http://msmvps.com/blogs/dbartosik/articles/80825.aspx
| > | > | >
| > | > | > DavidF
| > | > | >
| > | > | > | > | > | > > Thanks, David, you are always helpful. I just got your
message
| > and
| > | > will
| > | > | > try
| > | > | > > your fixes. As to hosting, I am using netfirms simply to test
the
| > | > site --
| > | > | > > our permanent host is and has been Earthlink where the current
| > version
| > | > of
| > | > | > our
| > | > | > > site can be found. The MS tech I worked on the site with
| > suggested
| > | > using
| > | > | > > netfirms as a test and I am leaving it there until I work out
the
| > | > bugs.
| > | > | > Our
| > | > | > > regular customers are still using the Earthlink URL until I
get
| > the
| > | > | > > replacement up and running. I suspected that the free
netfirms
| > site
| > | > might
| > | > | > be
| > | > | > > part of the problem as well. Thanks again. One more thing.
Do
| > you
| > | > | > recommend
| > | > | > > re-creating this site in FrontPage for improved functionality?
Or
| > do
| > | > you
| > | > | > > think we can leave it in Publisher and just ignore the
| > cross-browser
| > | > | > problem?
| > | > | > >
| > | > | > > "DavidF" wrote:
| > | > | > >
| > | > | > > > CWhit,
| > | > | > > >
| > | > | > > > It sounds like you did the right thing by optimizing your
images
| > for
| > | > the
| > | > | > > > web, but perhaps take it one more step, or two. Under Tools| > | > Options >
| > | > | > Web
| > | > | > > > tab untick 'Rely on VML...', and 'Allow PNG...'. Then use
the
| > | > compress
| > | > | > > > images feature in Publisher:
| > | > | > > >
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/assistance/HA011266301033.aspx
| > | > | > > > Then empty your temp internet cache before you try to view
the
| > newly
| > | > | > > > produced pages.
| > | > | > > >
| > | > | > > > Yesterday your site would not load at all for me. Then this
| > morning
| > | > I
| > | > | > was
| > | > | > > > able to get it to load with a dial-up connection and all
images
| > | > | > > > loaded...some more slowly than others, but overall it didn't
| > take
| > | > too
| > | > | > long.
| > | > | > > > You might find that it loads more quickly after taking the
steps
| > | > | > suggested
| > | > | > > > above, and if you didn't use a free hosting service. FWIW
and no
| > | > offense
| > | > | > > > meant, but you would certainly improve the "professional
image"
| > you
| > | > | > project.
| > | > | > > > I agree that you have built a good looking site and hope you
| > plan on
| > | > | > moving
| > | > | > > > the site, because personally I would never use the services
of a
| > | > company
| > | > | > > > that is too cheap and unprofessional to pay for web hosting.
| > There
| > | > are
| > | > | > even
| > | > | > > > banner advertisements on each page referring me to other
| > mediation
| > | > | > > > services...
| > | > | > > >
| > | > | > > > DavidF
| > | > | > > >
| > | > | > > > | > | > | > > > > I sent this message about 30 min. ago but it hasn't
appeared,
| > so I
| > | > | > though
| > | > | > > > > maybe I had failed to enter a community or a subject: My
| > | > Publisher
| > | > | > 2003
| > | > | > > > web
| > | > | > > > > site I created for my company is being tested on Netfirms:
| > | > | > > > >
http://www.burdin-adr.netfirms.com and it works perfectly
with
| > my
| > | > DSL
| > | > | > > > > connection. However, when I try to access it on my old
dial
| > up
| > | > | > connection
| > | > | > > > I
| > | > | > > > > get broken link messages on several photos and images. I
| > | > compressed
| > | > | > all
| > | > | > > > of
| > | > | > > > > my images with Photoshop to 20K or less; most of them less
| > than 10
| > | > or
| > | > | > 15K,
| > | > | > > > > but my dial up connections behaves like they're too large
to
| > load.
| > | > I
| > | > | > have
| > | > | > > > a
| > | > | > > > > welcome screen with a single image that is 18K and it will
not
| > | > load.
| > | > | > But
| > | > | > > > I
| > | > | > > > > have a page with multiple photographs -- about 12 to 15
images
| > in
| > | > | > all --
| > | > | > > > that
| > | > | > > > > loads quickly at 56K. Any ideas?
| > | > | > > >
| > | > | > > >
| > | > | > > >
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| >
| >
| >
