C
Confused B
My 2000 version creates a web site file size of 1.94MB but the same site
created in Publisher 2003 is 12MB, WHY?
created in Publisher 2003 is 12MB, WHY?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Publisher 2000 web site is 1.94mb, 2003 is 12mb, same site,why?
D
DavidF
They use different html coding engines. Go back to Pub 2000 if possible. It
is the better tool for web building.
If not, then at least go to tools > options > web tab and uncheck "rely on
vml..." and "allow png...", and be sure to Publish to the Web, not Save as a
Web Page. Also, compress your images:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/publisher/HA011266301033.aspx
DavidF
is the better tool for web building.
If not, then at least go to tools > options > web tab and uncheck "rely on
vml..." and "allow png...", and be sure to Publish to the Web, not Save as a
Web Page. Also, compress your images:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/publisher/HA011266301033.aspx
DavidF
K
Keppy
Because 2003 doesn't compress and/or convert your graphic files and uses
high quality and huge png files, even when you turn png files off in the
options. Stick with 2000, it's a MUCH better web creation tool.
high quality and huge png files, even when you turn png files off in the
options. Stick with 2000, it's a MUCH better web creation tool.
A
analog
I have asked this many times...what happens to us poor schmucks stuck in
Publisher 2000 eventually? There is no easy way to get out of Publisher 2000
and into Front Page, for instance. And it does not look like M$ intends to do
anything to help us.
You guys using Publisher 2000, are you still sizing for 800x600 screens? If you
have finally moved to a different setting, what custom width setting do you now
use?
(e-mail address removed)
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 13:26:02 -0800, Confused B <Confused
Publisher 2000 eventually? There is no easy way to get out of Publisher 2000
and into Front Page, for instance. And it does not look like M$ intends to do
anything to help us.
You guys using Publisher 2000, are you still sizing for 800x600 screens? If you
have finally moved to a different setting, what custom width setting do you now
use?
(e-mail address removed)
On Wed, 1 Nov 2006 13:26:02 -0800, Confused B <Confused
D
DavidF
Hi Syd,
Its been a long time. Nothing has changed. Publisher uses its own form of
HTML which cannot be easily and cleanly imported into FrontPage or other
programs. The code is just too different, and trying to import it would
defeat probably the primary reason to switch...using different code. Like
you when or if I ever decide to move to a different program to produce my
site, I will reproduce one section at a time in the new program. I will copy
and paste the text, graphics, etc from Publisher into the new program and
upload and link those sections to my old, and thereby phase in the new with
the old. I accept that this will take some time and work, especially since
like you I chose to build a fairly large site with multiple Publisher files.
It will be no different than the last time I decided to change the format
and design of my website. It took quite a while to switch out the navigation
system, change the colors, the logo, the banners, etc...it took quite a
while to make the decision to do all the work. I expect it will be no
different than if I designed my site in FrontPage, and chose to move to
DreamWeaver or some other program that used different code. I accept that
there simply is a price to pay when I choose to switch programs for any
computer work I do, whether it be DTP, word processing, accounting, or web
building. All require some work.
Unlike you I am not worried or concerned about the future. Frontpage is
being replaced by Microsoft with two programs, neither of which seems to
offer me a compelling reason to switch. Pub 2007 uses basically the same
coding engine as Pub 2003 with a few tweaks, so I won't be moving into it.
Pub 2007 is better than Pub 2003, and does have some features and advantages
to Pub 2000, but from my testing, I still prefer Pub 2000, for many reasons,
not the least of which is the simpler code which has better cross browser
support. I am still able to do almost everything that I want with Pub 2000,
and have not found a compelling reason to move into a different program.
Until I do, I expect to use, and see no reason why I can't use Pub 2000
indefinitely. I have read nothing about Office 2000 programs not running in
Vista. I see my glass as more than half full, not half empty.
As to width, I have seen and read nothing that would suggest that I would
want to design a wider page. Like your site, much of my content is
informational and textual. Even when I widened some of my new pages slightly
to 7.92 inches (roughly equivalent to the 760 pixel width of Pub 2003
pages), I did not widen my textual columns. For one reason, I wanted the
pages to be easily printed, and as you approach and exceed 800 pixels, the
content exceeds what can be printed on a 8.5 inch page. Furthermore, if your
textual content gets too wide, it is hard to read....for the same reasons
the columns of text are limited in width in newspapers and magazines. And
though I know how to edit the code to center all the content, I prefer the
look of the left justified pages. At this point I have found the advantages
of designing for 800 outweigh the advantages of designing wider pages...at
least for my content and design.
But others may have different opinions...
DavidF
Its been a long time. Nothing has changed. Publisher uses its own form of
HTML which cannot be easily and cleanly imported into FrontPage or other
programs. The code is just too different, and trying to import it would
defeat probably the primary reason to switch...using different code. Like
you when or if I ever decide to move to a different program to produce my
site, I will reproduce one section at a time in the new program. I will copy
and paste the text, graphics, etc from Publisher into the new program and
upload and link those sections to my old, and thereby phase in the new with
the old. I accept that this will take some time and work, especially since
like you I chose to build a fairly large site with multiple Publisher files.
It will be no different than the last time I decided to change the format
and design of my website. It took quite a while to switch out the navigation
system, change the colors, the logo, the banners, etc...it took quite a
while to make the decision to do all the work. I expect it will be no
different than if I designed my site in FrontPage, and chose to move to
DreamWeaver or some other program that used different code. I accept that
there simply is a price to pay when I choose to switch programs for any
computer work I do, whether it be DTP, word processing, accounting, or web
building. All require some work.
Unlike you I am not worried or concerned about the future. Frontpage is
being replaced by Microsoft with two programs, neither of which seems to
offer me a compelling reason to switch. Pub 2007 uses basically the same
coding engine as Pub 2003 with a few tweaks, so I won't be moving into it.
Pub 2007 is better than Pub 2003, and does have some features and advantages
to Pub 2000, but from my testing, I still prefer Pub 2000, for many reasons,
not the least of which is the simpler code which has better cross browser
support. I am still able to do almost everything that I want with Pub 2000,
and have not found a compelling reason to move into a different program.
Until I do, I expect to use, and see no reason why I can't use Pub 2000
indefinitely. I have read nothing about Office 2000 programs not running in
Vista. I see my glass as more than half full, not half empty.
As to width, I have seen and read nothing that would suggest that I would
want to design a wider page. Like your site, much of my content is
informational and textual. Even when I widened some of my new pages slightly
to 7.92 inches (roughly equivalent to the 760 pixel width of Pub 2003
pages), I did not widen my textual columns. For one reason, I wanted the
pages to be easily printed, and as you approach and exceed 800 pixels, the
content exceeds what can be printed on a 8.5 inch page. Furthermore, if your
textual content gets too wide, it is hard to read....for the same reasons
the columns of text are limited in width in newspapers and magazines. And
though I know how to edit the code to center all the content, I prefer the
look of the left justified pages. At this point I have found the advantages
of designing for 800 outweigh the advantages of designing wider pages...at
least for my content and design.
But others may have different opinions...
DavidF
J
JoAnn Paules [MVP]
Syd,
Haven't you learned not to use Publisher for your website yet? ;-)
(Long time no see posts from you. How are you doing sweetie?)
--
JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]
~~~~~
How to ask a question
http://support.microsoft.com/KB/555375
Haven't you learned not to use Publisher for your website yet? ;-)
(Long time no see posts from you. How are you doing sweetie?)
--
JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]
~~~~~
How to ask a question
http://support.microsoft.com/KB/555375
A
analog
Yeah, but I am not too happy about it. I have like 300 pages of content, some
VERY long.
Hey, what about the 800x600 thing. Are you still doing your site to fit
800x600? If not, what are you doing in that regard? It seems like hardly
anybody runs a monitor at 800x600 nowadays.
Thakks.
VERY long.
Hey, what about the 800x600 thing. Are you still doing your site to fit
800x600? If not, what are you doing in that regard? It seems like hardly
anybody runs a monitor at 800x600 nowadays.
Thakks.
A
analog
Yeah, I learned that a long time ago. I just cannot face the transition to
something else!
JoAnn my darlink! I missed ya. Been busy off doing stuph...gawd knows what.
something else!
JoAnn my darlink! I missed ya. Been busy off doing stuph...gawd knows what.
J
JoAnn Paules [MVP]
I truly wish I could help you but we both know that the easiest way is to
start from scratch. Yuck.
--
JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]
~~~~~
How to ask a question
http://support.microsoft.com/KB/555375
start from scratch. Yuck.
--
JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]
~~~~~
How to ask a question
http://support.microsoft.com/KB/555375
D
DavidF
Syd,
Did I loose you somewhere along the way with my long winded reply? Read the
last paragraph...or are you asking something else?
DavidF
Did I loose you somewhere along the way with my long winded reply? Read the
last paragraph...or are you asking something else?
DavidF
A
analog
Sorry, I am an idiot! I somehow missed that entire paragraph.
I was centering some pages, but quit doing it.
What concerns me is appearance. My computers remained set at 800x600, but that
is the exception these days. I was just concerned that my pages appearing small
on those high resolution screens would look odd.
Syd
I was centering some pages, but quit doing it.
What concerns me is appearance. My computers remained set at 800x600, but that
is the exception these days. I was just concerned that my pages appearing small
on those high resolution screens would look odd.
Syd
A
analog
Come move in for awhile and do the change over for me. Our two sig others would
understand...
understand...
J
JoAnn Paules [MVP]
Yeah, right. I'm not as crazy as you look. ;-)
--
JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]
~~~~~
How to ask a question
http://support.microsoft.com/KB/555375
--
JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]
~~~~~
How to ask a question
http://support.microsoft.com/KB/555375
D
DavidF
I have my 19" CRT set at 1152 X 864 and your pages look good to me. I like
the larger font for my older eyes. The background fills the window. I think
your site is a good example of how far one can push the envelop of using
Publisher to build a website. I wouldn't recommend most people build a site
this big with Publisher, because most people would not have it organized as
well as you do. And yes given the size of your site and the difficulty in
managing it, at some point, it does make sense to move to a different
program. I am not the best source for a recommendation, but
http://www.asp.net/ probably should be considered.
By the way, you mention your concern with long pages. Do you use the back to
the top code snippet? I think it makes good sense when you choose to use
long pages. Try inserting the following code snippet via the insert html
code fragment feature at the bottom of your page, or even several times
along the text if it is a really long page.
<p><font face="Arial" size="2">
<A HREF="#TOP">Top of Page >></A>
DavidF
the larger font for my older eyes. The background fills the window. I think
your site is a good example of how far one can push the envelop of using
Publisher to build a website. I wouldn't recommend most people build a site
this big with Publisher, because most people would not have it organized as
well as you do. And yes given the size of your site and the difficulty in
managing it, at some point, it does make sense to move to a different
program. I am not the best source for a recommendation, but
http://www.asp.net/ probably should be considered.
By the way, you mention your concern with long pages. Do you use the back to
the top code snippet? I think it makes good sense when you choose to use
long pages. Try inserting the following code snippet via the insert html
code fragment feature at the bottom of your page, or even several times
along the text if it is a really long page.
<p><font face="Arial" size="2">
<A HREF="#TOP">Top of Page >></A>
DavidF
A
analog
David:
Thanks for the kind words. If my site is a good example of anything, it is
purely accidental! I am especially pleased to hear you think it still looks OK
on that 19" monitor with the higher resolution.
I actually do not have much trouble managing the site with Publisher. By having
a bunch of different Publisher files, and placing different content in the
logical file that covers it best, it is pretty easy to keep it all straight. It
did take me awhile to figure out the best way to do it. I hate dead links so
with only a couple of exceptions, every page ever created at logwell.com is
still there. That has resulted in a few odd folder names, but that is no big
deal.
My mention of long pages was merely because while the site is presently around
300 pages, because of the dense and arcane nature of some of the longer
dissertations, it is probably equivalent to a 600 or more page site. I just
dread reprocessing all that stuff!
I like that code snippet. Publisher 2000 automatically places three bookmarks
on every html page it generates. I have used them to accomplish the same trick
in a couple of spots. Nevertheless, I will be looking at some of the longer
pages for possible inclusion of the snippet as I have occasion to update them.
I had not thought about it before on long pages.
Thanks,
Thanks for the kind words. If my site is a good example of anything, it is
purely accidental! I am especially pleased to hear you think it still looks OK
on that 19" monitor with the higher resolution.
I actually do not have much trouble managing the site with Publisher. By having
a bunch of different Publisher files, and placing different content in the
logical file that covers it best, it is pretty easy to keep it all straight. It
did take me awhile to figure out the best way to do it. I hate dead links so
with only a couple of exceptions, every page ever created at logwell.com is
still there. That has resulted in a few odd folder names, but that is no big
deal.
My mention of long pages was merely because while the site is presently around
300 pages, because of the dense and arcane nature of some of the longer
dissertations, it is probably equivalent to a 600 or more page site. I just
dread reprocessing all that stuff!
I like that code snippet. Publisher 2000 automatically places three bookmarks
on every html page it generates. I have used them to accomplish the same trick
in a couple of spots. Nevertheless, I will be looking at some of the longer
pages for possible inclusion of the snippet as I have occasion to update them.
I had not thought about it before on long pages.
Thanks,
D
DavidF
Syd,
Another thing I do on my long pages, is use bookmarks and anchors to produce
a "on this page" table of contents if you will. If I have tables, or graphs,
or sections on a long page that a viewer might like to jump to, rather than
scroll down to, I use this code snippet at the top under a text box heading
"On This Page" or "Jump To":
<p><font face="Arial" size="2">
<LI><A HREF="#READHERE">Population Growth</A><br>
<LI><A HREF="#READHERE1">Market & Trends</A><br>
<LI><A HREF="#READHERE2">Sales Price Tables</A><br>
<LI><A HREF="#READHERE3">Average Price Graph</A><br>
<LI><A HREF="#READHERE4">Median Price Graph</A><br>
This produces a list that uses Arial font, size about 10 (size 3 would be
closer to 12), and the <LI> gives me a bulleted item. I can fill the box
with color, and add a border if I desire. The result looks no different than
my regular text boxes.
Then down the page to the left, and just above the Population Growth
section, the graphs etc. I insert the anchor:
<A NAME="READHERE"></A>
and <A NAME="READHERE4"></A> for the Median Price Graph, etc. These code
snippets aren't visible when you produce your html, but when you click on
the link at the top, you jump to that section.
And after each of those sections, I also insert the "back to the top"
snippet.
You can test this in Web Page Preview to see if you like the approach.
Personally, I think that this helps overcome the issues of having a long
page of content. I have some pages where I use this technique that are the
equivalent of four or more pages in total length. I also always use a
textual navbar like you do at the bottom of each page, and eliminate the
need for the viewer to go back to the top to navigate to another section or
page of my site.
As I said, given your number of pages, I think looking into ASP.net or
something similar makes sense in the long run. But then again, as long as
your content is fairly static, I don't know why you can't continue to use
Pub 2000.
Just some thoughts...
DavidF
Another thing I do on my long pages, is use bookmarks and anchors to produce
a "on this page" table of contents if you will. If I have tables, or graphs,
or sections on a long page that a viewer might like to jump to, rather than
scroll down to, I use this code snippet at the top under a text box heading
"On This Page" or "Jump To":
<p><font face="Arial" size="2">
<LI><A HREF="#READHERE">Population Growth</A><br>
<LI><A HREF="#READHERE1">Market & Trends</A><br>
<LI><A HREF="#READHERE2">Sales Price Tables</A><br>
<LI><A HREF="#READHERE3">Average Price Graph</A><br>
<LI><A HREF="#READHERE4">Median Price Graph</A><br>
This produces a list that uses Arial font, size about 10 (size 3 would be
closer to 12), and the <LI> gives me a bulleted item. I can fill the box
with color, and add a border if I desire. The result looks no different than
my regular text boxes.
Then down the page to the left, and just above the Population Growth
section, the graphs etc. I insert the anchor:
<A NAME="READHERE"></A>
and <A NAME="READHERE4"></A> for the Median Price Graph, etc. These code
snippets aren't visible when you produce your html, but when you click on
the link at the top, you jump to that section.
And after each of those sections, I also insert the "back to the top"
snippet.
You can test this in Web Page Preview to see if you like the approach.
Personally, I think that this helps overcome the issues of having a long
page of content. I have some pages where I use this technique that are the
equivalent of four or more pages in total length. I also always use a
textual navbar like you do at the bottom of each page, and eliminate the
need for the viewer to go back to the top to navigate to another section or
page of my site.
As I said, given your number of pages, I think looking into ASP.net or
something similar makes sense in the long run. But then again, as long as
your content is fairly static, I don't know why you can't continue to use
Pub 2000.
Just some thoughts...
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.