Clarity Help

[hendrickson]

Hello, I have created a website using Publisher 2003, and it shows up
alright on explorer, but if others view it, like firefox, it is
grainy. The photos are still too grainy for my liking. The site is
borgford.com if you need to view it and see what I mean.

I started with a publisher template, and inserted my own text and
photos. The photos are resized at 96dpi, by taking the original pics
in publisher, right clicking, save photo as, and resize to 96dpi.
Then reinserting the downsized photo. What can I do to make them
clearer? I have tried to increase dpi to 150 on the home page, but
this doesn't seem to make a difference. I have run the Layout checker,
and it only comes up with needing names for photos if picture doesn't
come up.

Also the back groud when viewed on firefox is very grainy, yet I have
used the templet from publisher. What can I do to make this clearer?

The text boxes I have had to resize because what I viewed in Publisher
was different when it was published to the web, and it was cutting out
some words. Is there another way I should do this?

When the web site is viewed, it only appears on the left side of the
screen. It does not adjust to screan size. Is there a way to change
this so it will appear full screan?

Whew! If you could help me with these four questions, it would be so
wonderful. Thank you for your time.
Jenna

 

[Rob Giordano \(Crash\)]

The solution is to not use Publisher to create web sites if your viewers may
be using ANY browser other than Internet Explorer...really that simple.

--

Rob Giordano
Microsoft MVP - FrontPage





| Hello, I have created a website using Publisher 2003, and it shows up
| alright on explorer, but if others view it, like firefox, it is
| grainy. The photos are still too grainy for my liking. The site is
| borgford.com if you need to view it and see what I mean.
|
| I started with a publisher template, and inserted my own text and
| photos. The photos are resized at 96dpi, by taking the original pics
| in publisher, right clicking, save photo as, and resize to 96dpi.
| Then reinserting the downsized photo. What can I do to make them
| clearer? I have tried to increase dpi to 150 on the home page, but
| this doesn't seem to make a difference. I have run the Layout checker,
| and it only comes up with needing names for photos if picture doesn't
| come up.
|
| Also the back groud when viewed on firefox is very grainy, yet I have
| used the templet from publisher. What can I do to make this clearer?
|
| The text boxes I have had to resize because what I viewed in Publisher
| was different when it was published to the web, and it was cutting out
| some words. Is there another way I should do this?
|
| When the web site is viewed, it only appears on the left side of the
| screen. It does not adjust to screan size. Is there a way to change
| this so it will appear full screan?
|
| Whew! If you could help me with these four questions, it would be so
| wonderful. Thank you for your time.
| Jenna
|

 

[Kalask]

Jenna
Within the Format Menu on the top is "Web Options" which opens up on the
left side and at the bottom of that pane is "More Web Options". Click that
and under the "Web" tab, put a check mark on "Allow PNG as a graphics format
to improve graphics quality"

You will then have to go back to the jpeg or gif version of your photos
and/or gradient and save them as a .png. You can do this by right-clicking
on the graphic/photo and choosing "Save as Picture". Them navigate to where
you want to save it, name it, and in the "Save as type" drop-down box, select
..png.

Carefully replace all the pictures/graphics with the .png version and you
should be seeing more clearly!

 

[DavidF]

Jenna,

Somehow, you managed to convert the whole page to one 761 X 2398 pixel gif
file when you open your site in FireFox:
http://www.borgford.com/index_files/image574.gif and that is why the whole
page is so grainy. I haven't seen this before.

I have never tried your way of resizing images using Publisher, and will
have to do some more testing to see how that affects the quality. In general
I have always advised people to resize the images in a third party image
editing program and then insert them at 100% scaling to get the best images
in both IE and FF. Then when you Publish to the Web, the Publisher coding
engine would make just one copy of the correctly sized image. If you just
insert your original image and resize it only by changing the size of the
image box, and thus the scale of the image, then when you Publish to the
Web, Publisher will actually make multiple copies of the image, and
typically try to load the original large image in IE, and the smaller, low
resolution copy in FF. At this point I can't tell if your method of resizing
your images is the main problem or not. One question, after right clicking
the image and then when you save it as a 96 dpi image, are you saving JPGs
as JPGs, or in other words in the same image format?

Given that you end up with one large image for the whole page when you load
your site in FF, I would suggest that we take this in steps.

I assume that you are using Pub 2003, so the first step is to go to Tools >
Options > Web tab and uncheck "Rely on VML..." and "Allow PNG...". This
change alone will change the way the page looks in FF. It also appears that
you did a "Save As a web page" to produce your html files. Yes? This
produces a bloated unfiltered code. When you are ready to produce your site
from your Publisher document, use "Publish to the Web" instead. Try
uploading this new html output to your site and see if the images look
better, and especially in FF. Let me know when you get the new code uploaded
so we can compare the quality of the images. If the quality of the images
are still not satisfactory, we can take additional steps at that time.

As to the text box issues could you give us a specific example to view on
your site? Sometimes if you are using print formatting techniques such as
word wrap around an image, master pages, etc, you will find that Publisher
cannot convert that to html. So describe what type of formatting you are
doing in the text box, and which font when you have the problem.

As per wanting the page to load in the center of the page, that's not going
to happen. Publisher produces a left justified page. You can sometimes
simulate a centered page, and you can read about that here if you want, but
for now I would concentrate on the rest of your issues.: Understanding
background padding in a Publisher web (aka white space) :
http://msmvps.com/blogs/dbartosik/archive/2006/01/07/80563.aspx

DavidF

 

[DavidF]

Rob, you doth protest and generalize too much, I say ;-)

I too have repeated the generalization I was taught that one could not
expect good cross browser behavior with a Publisher produced website.
However, little by little I have found that in almost all cases, if the page
options are set correctly and the page is built correctly, then Publisher
pages will render well in FF. I would imagine the same is true in FP...if
you don't use the tool correctly, then the pages are not going to work
equally well in all browsers.

My point is that I don't think it accurate to say that the simple answer is
to not use Publisher. The better answer is that you have to use Publisher
correctly. And don't get me wrong, I am not asserting that Publisher will
produce code that works as well as FP, but I am saying that if you use
Publisher correctly, you can get decent cross browser capability.

And by the way, did you read the thread "Remove underlines in hyperlinks" by
brelade? Do you perhaps have a suggestion on how to write that code snippet?
Thanks.

DavidF

 

[Rob Giordano \(Crash\)]

Sorry not being very verbose today...too many words not enough time.

The same is true in FP if you use anything that relies on VML...textboxes,
wordart..anything from the Draw toolbar you'll get downleveled gif
renditions of VML generated art in other browsers (or worse; a gray box).
But people continue to use it because it's easy, some even after they've
looked at their web on other browsers...go figure. It wouldn't matter much
if it were on an intranet and all your viewers were know to be using IE.



--

Rob Giordano
Microsoft MVP - FrontPage





| Rob, you doth protest and generalize too much, I say ;-)
|
| I too have repeated the generalization I was taught that one could not
| expect good cross browser behavior with a Publisher produced website.
| However, little by little I have found that in almost all cases, if the
page
| options are set correctly and the page is built correctly, then Publisher
| pages will render well in FF. I would imagine the same is true in FP...if
| you don't use the tool correctly, then the pages are not going to work
| equally well in all browsers.
|
| My point is that I don't think it accurate to say that the simple answer
is
| to not use Publisher. The better answer is that you have to use Publisher
| correctly. And don't get me wrong, I am not asserting that Publisher will
| produce code that works as well as FP, but I am saying that if you use
| Publisher correctly, you can get decent cross browser capability.
|
| And by the way, did you read the thread "Remove underlines in hyperlinks"
by
| brelade? Do you perhaps have a suggestion on how to write that code
snippet?
| Thanks.
|
| DavidF
|
| | > The solution is to not use Publisher to create web sites if your viewers
| > may
| > be using ANY browser other than Internet Explorer...really that simple.
| >
| > --
| >
| > Rob Giordano
| > Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > | > | Hello, I have created a website using Publisher 2003, and it shows up
| > | alright on explorer, but if others view it, like firefox, it is
| > | grainy. The photos are still too grainy for my liking. The site is
| > | borgford.com if you need to view it and see what I mean.
| > |
| > | I started with a publisher template, and inserted my own text and
| > | photos. The photos are resized at 96dpi, by taking the original pics
| > | in publisher, right clicking, save photo as, and resize to 96dpi.
| > | Then reinserting the downsized photo. What can I do to make them
| > | clearer? I have tried to increase dpi to 150 on the home page, but
| > | this doesn't seem to make a difference. I have run the Layout checker,
| > | and it only comes up with needing names for photos if picture doesn't
| > | come up.
| > |
| > | Also the back groud when viewed on firefox is very grainy, yet I have
| > | used the templet from publisher. What can I do to make this clearer?
| > |
| > | The text boxes I have had to resize because what I viewed in Publisher
| > | was different when it was published to the web, and it was cutting out
| > | some words. Is there another way I should do this?
| > |
| > | When the web site is viewed, it only appears on the left side of the
| > | screen. It does not adjust to screan size. Is there a way to change
| > | this so it will appear full screan?
| > |
| > | Whew! If you could help me with these four questions, it would be so
| > | wonderful. Thank you for your time.
| > | Jenna
| > |
| >
| >
|
|

 

[hendrickson]

By the way, are you using a master page?

DavidF

Ok..silly question...How could I tell if I'm using a master page?? I
started using one of the predesiged templets in publisher then added
photo detail pages. Where could I check if I used a Master page (what
is a master page?) ? What should I use instead?

Jenna

 

[Rob Giordano \(Crash\)]

css style should work as he has it written in the other thread (link without
underline)

--

Rob Giordano
Microsoft MVP - FrontPage





| Rob, you doth protest and generalize too much, I say ;-)
|
| I too have repeated the generalization I was taught that one could not
| expect good cross browser behavior with a Publisher produced website.
| However, little by little I have found that in almost all cases, if the
page
| options are set correctly and the page is built correctly, then Publisher
| pages will render well in FF. I would imagine the same is true in FP...if
| you don't use the tool correctly, then the pages are not going to work
| equally well in all browsers.
|
| My point is that I don't think it accurate to say that the simple answer
is
| to not use Publisher. The better answer is that you have to use Publisher
| correctly. And don't get me wrong, I am not asserting that Publisher will
| produce code that works as well as FP, but I am saying that if you use
| Publisher correctly, you can get decent cross browser capability.
|
| And by the way, did you read the thread "Remove underlines in hyperlinks"
by
| brelade? Do you perhaps have a suggestion on how to write that code
snippet?
| Thanks.
|
| DavidF
|
| | > The solution is to not use Publisher to create web sites if your viewers
| > may
| > be using ANY browser other than Internet Explorer...really that simple.
| >
| > --
| >
| > Rob Giordano
| > Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > | > | Hello, I have created a website using Publisher 2003, and it shows up
| > | alright on explorer, but if others view it, like firefox, it is
| > | grainy. The photos are still too grainy for my liking. The site is
| > | borgford.com if you need to view it and see what I mean.
| > |
| > | I started with a publisher template, and inserted my own text and
| > | photos. The photos are resized at 96dpi, by taking the original pics
| > | in publisher, right clicking, save photo as, and resize to 96dpi.
| > | Then reinserting the downsized photo. What can I do to make them
| > | clearer? I have tried to increase dpi to 150 on the home page, but
| > | this doesn't seem to make a difference. I have run the Layout checker,
| > | and it only comes up with needing names for photos if picture doesn't
| > | come up.
| > |
| > | Also the back groud when viewed on firefox is very grainy, yet I have
| > | used the templet from publisher. What can I do to make this clearer?
| > |
| > | The text boxes I have had to resize because what I viewed in Publisher
| > | was different when it was published to the web, and it was cutting out
| > | some words. Is there another way I should do this?
| > |
| > | When the web site is viewed, it only appears on the left side of the
| > | screen. It does not adjust to screan size. Is there a way to change
| > | this so it will appear full screan?
| > |
| > | Whew! If you could help me with these four questions, it would be so
| > | wonderful. Thank you for your time.
| > | Jenna
| > |
| >
| >
|
|

 

[DavidF]

By the way, are you using a master page?

DavidF

Jenna,

Somehow, you managed to convert the whole page to one 761 X 2398 pixel gif
file when you open your site in FireFox:
http://www.borgford.com/index_files/image574.gif and that is why the whole
page is so grainy. I haven't seen this before.

I have never tried your way of resizing images using Publisher, and will
have to do some more testing to see how that affects the quality. In
general I have always advised people to resize the images in a third party
image editing program and then insert them at 100% scaling to get the best
images in both IE and FF. Then when you Publish to the Web, the Publisher
coding engine would make just one copy of the correctly sized image. If
you just insert your original image and resize it only by changing the
size of the image box, and thus the scale of the image, then when you
Publish to the Web, Publisher will actually make multiple copies of the
image, and typically try to load the original large image in IE, and the
smaller, low resolution copy in FF. At this point I can't tell if your
method of resizing your images is the main problem or not. One question,
after right clicking the image and then when you save it as a 96 dpi
image, are you saving JPGs as JPGs, or in other words in the same image
format?

Given that you end up with one large image for the whole page when you
load your site in FF, I would suggest that we take this in steps.

I assume that you are using Pub 2003, so the first step is to go to Tools
change alone will change the way the page looks in FF. It also appears
that you did a "Save As a web page" to produce your html files. Yes? This
produces a bloated unfiltered code. When you are ready to produce your
site from your Publisher document, use "Publish to the Web" instead. Try
uploading this new html output to your site and see if the images look
better, and especially in FF. Let me know when you get the new code
uploaded so we can compare the quality of the images. If the quality of
the images are still not satisfactory, we can take additional steps at
that time.

As to the text box issues could you give us a specific example to view on
your site? Sometimes if you are using print formatting techniques such as
word wrap around an image, master pages, etc, you will find that Publisher
cannot convert that to html. So describe what type of formatting you are
doing in the text box, and which font when you have the problem.

As per wanting the page to load in the center of the page, that's not
going to happen. Publisher produces a left justified page. You can
sometimes simulate a centered page, and you can read about that here if
you want, but for now I would concentrate on the rest of your issues.:
Understanding background padding in a Publisher web (aka white space) :
http://msmvps.com/blogs/dbartosik/archive/2006/01/07/80563.aspx

DavidF

 

[DavidF]

If you have to ask, then you aren't using a master page. A master page works
well in a print document, but not so well in a Publisher web document. In a
web document you can use "background" instead. Sorry to confuse you, but
some of the most frequent problems people have is the use of master pages,
so I just wanted to rule that out.

DavidF

 

[DavidF]

The use of VML in Publisher is also one of the primary reasons for cross
browser issues and for poor image quality in FF.

DavidF

 

[DavidF]

Thanks Rob. Yes, it works in Pub 2000, 2002 and 2003, but for some reason
does not work in Pub 2007. I didn't think MSFT made any substantial changes
in the coding engine for 2007, but apparently they changed something, and I
haven't figured out why that code snippet no longer works. I was just hoping
that you might.

If you get a chance in all your free time <g> to test it in Pub 2007 and can
suggest a solution, it would be appreciated.

DavidF

 

[DavidF]

Thanks for your suggestion. I will have to test this.

My experience has been that if you leave the option checked and Publish to
Web...producing the html output...that Publisher will make PNG copies of
some JPG and other graphics, and that those PNG images tend to be very
large, slow loading and of lesser quality. Converting all the images to PNG
format and taking the extra step of resizing and optimizing the PNG before
inserting it back into the Publisher might change my mind about unchecking
"Allow PNG...".

However, I suspect that GIF format will still be the best format in terms of
quality and file size for wordart, simple graphics, gradients, and other
images with few colors....at least in Publisher. Personally I have also
found it easier to work with transparencies with GIF, but that might just be
inexperience.

Also, it has been my understanding that PNGs are not supported in all
browsers...is this false?

DavidF

 

[DavidF]

By the way, I forgot to say something last night when I was telling you to
Publish to the Web instead of Save As to produce your html. Be sure to
delete all the old Publisher generated html files off your server before
uploading your new. When you do a Save As to produce your html, some
additional files are produced that won't be overwritten when you upload the
new, and might still affect the way the page loads.

DavidF

 

[hendrickson]

By the way, I forgot to say something last night when I was telling you to
Publish to the Web instead of Save As to produce your html. Be sure to
delete all the old Publisher generated html files off your server before
uploading your new. When you do a Save As to produce your html, some
additional files are produced that won't be overwritten when you upload the
new, and might still affect the way the page loads.

DavidF






- Show quoted text -

David,
Yes I saved the original jpg picts as reduced jpg. I will start
changing all of them over to the png like you suggested - this may
take a while.

I have had to group link all items on each page together so they won't
rearrange on me... would this be the cause of FF thinking it is one
big picture? When I don't group the items together, pictures and text
boxes move order from front to back and dissappear. And the tool bar
buttons resize to completly off the web site. Is there another way to
stop this from happening than using group lock?

The background of the website was a template, but I notice that it is
a series of square shapes with fill in color - not a
"background"...would this be causing discontent in the web world?

Thanks for all your info! I have been completely erasing what I load
on the web site each time I change it - though I would like to say it
was my vast knowledge of web sites that I knew erasing it was the
thing to do... ha! let's get real!

Jenna

 

[Rob Giordano \(Crash\)]

I would, but I don't have Pub 2007 installed yet...waiting to build a new
box.
I can't imagine any change they made effecting how CSS works though.


--

Rob Giordano
Microsoft MVP - FrontPage





| Thanks Rob. Yes, it works in Pub 2000, 2002 and 2003, but for some reason
| does not work in Pub 2007. I didn't think MSFT made any substantial
changes
| in the coding engine for 2007, but apparently they changed something, and
I
| haven't figured out why that code snippet no longer works. I was just
hoping
| that you might.
|
| If you get a chance in all your free time <g> to test it in Pub 2007 and
can
| suggest a solution, it would be appreciated.
|
| DavidF
|
| | > css style should work as he has it written in the other thread (link
| > without
| > underline)
| >
| > --
| >
| > Rob Giordano
| > Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > | > | Rob, you doth protest and generalize too much, I say ;-)
| > |
| > | I too have repeated the generalization I was taught that one could not
| > | expect good cross browser behavior with a Publisher produced website.
| > | However, little by little I have found that in almost all cases, if
the
| > page
| > | options are set correctly and the page is built correctly, then
| > Publisher
| > | pages will render well in FF. I would imagine the same is true in
| > FP...if
| > | you don't use the tool correctly, then the pages are not going to work
| > | equally well in all browsers.
| > |
| > | My point is that I don't think it accurate to say that the simple
answer
| > is
| > | to not use Publisher. The better answer is that you have to use
| > Publisher
| > | correctly. And don't get me wrong, I am not asserting that Publisher
| > will
| > | produce code that works as well as FP, but I am saying that if you use
| > | Publisher correctly, you can get decent cross browser capability.
| > |
| > | And by the way, did you read the thread "Remove underlines in
| > hyperlinks"
| > by
| > | brelade? Do you perhaps have a suggestion on how to write that code
| > snippet?
| > | Thanks.
| > |
| > | DavidF
| > |
| > message
| > | | > | > The solution is to not use Publisher to create web sites if your
| > viewers
| > | > may
| > | > be using ANY browser other than Internet Explorer...really that
| > simple.
| > | >
| > | > --
| > | >
| > | > Rob Giordano
| > | > Microsoft MVP - FrontPage
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > | > | > | Hello, I have created a website using Publisher 2003, and it
shows
| > up
| > | > | alright on explorer, but if others view it, like firefox, it is
| > | > | grainy. The photos are still too grainy for my liking. The site
is
| > | > | borgford.com if you need to view it and see what I mean.
| > | > |
| > | > | I started with a publisher template, and inserted my own text and
| > | > | photos. The photos are resized at 96dpi, by taking the original
| > pics
| > | > | in publisher, right clicking, save photo as, and resize to 96dpi.
| > | > | Then reinserting the downsized photo. What can I do to make them
| > | > | clearer? I have tried to increase dpi to 150 on the home page,
but
| > | > | this doesn't seem to make a difference. I have run the Layout
| > checker,
| > | > | and it only comes up with needing names for photos if picture
| > doesn't
| > | > | come up.
| > | > |
| > | > | Also the back groud when viewed on firefox is very grainy, yet I
| > have
| > | > | used the templet from publisher. What can I do to make this
| > clearer?
| > | > |
| > | > | The text boxes I have had to resize because what I viewed in
| > Publisher
| > | > | was different when it was published to the web, and it was cutting
| > out
| > | > | some words. Is there another way I should do this?
| > | > |
| > | > | When the web site is viewed, it only appears on the left side of
the
| > | > | screen. It does not adjust to screan size. Is there a way to
change
| > | > | this so it will appear full screan?
| > | > |
| > | > | Whew! If you could help me with these four questions, it would be
so
| > | > | wonderful. Thank you for your time.
| > | > | Jenna
| > | > |
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|

 

[DavidF]

I was not the one that suggested changing everything to PNG, and in fact
would recommend that at this point you do not do that. Leave your images as
is for now.

I realize that my response was lengthy and a bit disjointed, but here is
what you should do first:

"I assume that you are using Pub 2003, so the first step is to go to Tools >
Options > Web tab and uncheck "Rely on VML..." and "Allow PNG...". This
change alone will change the way the page looks in FF. It also appears that
you did a "Save As a web page" to produce your html files. Yes? This
produces a bloated unfiltered code. When you are ready to produce your site
from your Publisher document, use "Publish to the Web" instead. Try
uploading this new html output to your site and see if the images look
better, and especially in FF. Let me know when you get the new code uploaded
so we can compare the quality of the images. If the quality of the images
are still not satisfactory, we can take additional steps at that time."

Do the above before you do anything else, and post back when you have
uploaded the new code.

DavidF

 

[DavidF]

Don't worry about it. I am sure you are more busy than normal having just
got the MVP.

I don't know the why for either, but I will play with it and see if can
figure something out.

Thanks.

DavidF