Images not recognized by IE (or Outlook's browser)

[Zvi Ofer]

I created a Web page with MS Publisher 2003 that includes two JPEG images. I
can see them just fine with IE6, but when I put the cursor on them and right
click, I do NOT get an image context menu. It's as if they're not there.
This does not happen with other sites, from which I can save images freely.
I tried viewing the site with Outlook 2003 and had the same problem. When I
use Firefox, however, the images behave normally and can be downloaded. I
tried adjusting security, firewalls, etc. but nothing helped. MS browsers do
not recognize the images as images, even though they do display them
properly. Is there some trick to creating sites with d/lable images?

Thanks.

 

[Mary Sauer]

What is the URL?

 

[DavidF]

Sorry, but the right click option to save the picture is disabled by default
in Pub 2003. And no, at this point in time there isn't a way to change that
default.

DavidF

 

[Zvi Ofer]

What is the URL?

www.zviofer.com

 

[Zvi Ofer]

Sorry, but the right click option to save the picture is disabled by
default
in Pub 2003. And no, at this point in time there isn't a way to change
that
default.

But that wouldn't explain why I CAN right click and save images in Firefox
when viewing a Publisher 2003-produced Website. If the images are
downloadable in Firefox, why aren't they downloadable in IE6? When
viewing/editing the site with Publisher, BTW, I can also right click and
edit/save pictures. It's only IE6 and Outlook 2003 that won't do it.

 

[DavidF]

I doubt that I can answer your question to your satisfaction, but as I
understand it the coding engine in Pub2003 uses VML and XML code that works
best in IE, and usually does not work well in Firefox. This lack of cross
browser support is a common issue and concern. Apparently it is this 'lack
of cross browser support' that makes it possible for the context menu to
work in Firefox.

Personally I hope the next version will have both better cross browser
support, and make disabling the context menu an option, not the default.

DavidF

 

[Zvi Ofer]

Sorry to put this on list, but I have no private E-mail address for DavidF,
whom I'd like to thank for his very helpful explanation. At least I now know
where the incompatibility lies. I bought myself a copy of FrontPage 2003 and
recreated the same page. The images now behave exactly as they should.
Thanks again.

Zvi Ofer

 

[DavidF]

Thanks for the feedback.

DavidF

Sorry to put this on list, but I have no private E-mail address for DavidF,
whom I'd like to thank for his very helpful explanation. At least I now know
where the incompatibility lies. I bought myself a copy of FrontPage 2003 and
recreated the same page. The images now behave exactly as they should.
Thanks again.

Zvi Ofer

 

[Ed Bennett]

IMNSHO, FP and Publisher are the devil's tools for web design as they
generate unnecessary code. If you're serious about designing for the
web, then I strongly recommend you invest in a proper package - and,
IMO, that means Dreamweaver. Shame Adobe looks set to kill it off...

But FrontPage is light years ahead of Publisher in terms of lack of code
bloat.

I've heard that DreamWeaver isn't terribly good any more (even before the
Adobe buyout). Anyone who is SERIOUS about designing for the web will learn
HTML, XHTML, and CSS and will use a text editor. Either that or Flash, but
I abhor entirely flash sites unless they are along the lines of
www.homestarrunner.com

 

[DavidF]

The catch word that both of you use is "serious". I believe that the limited
web building component of Publisher is targeted toward the "non-serious"
person that already owns and uses Publisher to produce their print
documents, and wants a web presence. They are the hobbyist, the small
business person, etc. that want a simple, static site that they can build
using their existing software and skill set. This person does not want to
invest the money to buy FrontPage or Dreamweaver, nor invest the time to
learn those programs, let alone learn coding and a text editor. It is argued
that one should use the right tool for the job, but for this person
Publisher can be the right tool for producing their "non-serious" website,
and FrontPage and Dreamweaver can be over-kill. It is a natural and logical
extension of Publisher capability that MS recognized and targeted. The
marketing goal, I imagine, was that when these people outgrew the web
building capability of Publisher, they would move up to FrontPage.

With that said, since Pub 2000, the powers that be, in an attempt to improve
this web building capability, have mucked things up a bit. The code
generated by Pub 2003 can be more than 2.5 times as large as Pub 2000, pages
take over twice as long to load, and this difference is exponential as you
add graphics. While the web design capability has improved in many ways with
each version since Pub 2000, functionally it has been diminished. There are
many things you can do with Pub 2000 that you can't do with Pub 2003. So
yes, though no professional, expert or "serious" web designer would use
Publisher, a DTP, to produce websites, there are a large group of
individuals where it is, or perhaps was, the right tool for the job.

My hope, as one of the targeted group, is that the code bloat and other
issues with Pub 2003 produced websites will be addressed in future versions,
so the "non-serious" web builder will be able to use Publisher more
effectively to produce their "non-serious" website.

Just my two cents worth...

DavidF