MAC users can't get website links to work

[miguel formerly michael]

I've been using Microsoft Publisher for years to publish websites. Recently
switched to Publisher 2003, and now all the Mac users are complaining they
can't get the links to work. What's up?

 

[DavidF]

Pub 2003 uses a different coding engine and the code does not have good
cross browser support. If you still have your old version of Publisher,
reinstall it beside 2003 and use it for your websites.

For follow up questions about web building with Publisher:
microsoft.public.publisher.web.webdesign and post the URL.

DavidF

"miguel formerly michael" <miguel formerly
(e-mail address removed)> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

 

[miguel formerly michael]

Thanks, DavidF.

But what a bite. Why do I suspect it was designed that way? So now I have
a brand new version of Publisher that is useless to me for the reason I got
it.

It makes me want to buy a Mac myself and say adios to Bill Gates and
Microsoft's proprietary attitude.

 

[DavidF]

I think that there was an intent to improve the coding engine, but it just
didn't work out that way. Don't forget that Publisher is first and foremost
a DTP, and has always had limited web building capability. Now it is just
limited in different ways. Not to make excuses...

As I said, you can run older versions of Publisher alongside newer versions,
and Pub 2003 does have advantages for print docs. You can also workaround
some of the issues, such as not using the navbar wizard to produce your
navbar, and building your own menu with absolute links instead of the
relative links produced with the wizard. If you want more help, as I said,
post in the web design newsgroup. In the meantime you might find this
article interesting: "Are You Cross Browser Compatible?"
http://msmvps.com/blogs/dbartosik/archive/2006/01/11/80825.aspx

DavidF

 

[Rob Giordano \(Crash\)]

Bill's retiring in 2 years.
Mac is not proprietary?


"miguel formerly michael" <[email protected]>
wrote in message | Thanks, DavidF.
|
| But what a bite. Why do I suspect it was designed that way? So now I
have
| a brand new version of Publisher that is useless to me for the reason I
got
| it.
|
| It makes me want to buy a Mac myself and say adios to Bill Gates and
| Microsoft's proprietary attitude.
|
| "DavidF" wrote:
|
| > Pub 2003 uses a different coding engine and the code does not have good
| > cross browser support. If you still have your old version of Publisher,
| > reinstall it beside 2003 and use it for your websites.
| >
| > For follow up questions about web building with Publisher:
| > microsoft.public.publisher.web.webdesign and post the URL.
| >
| > DavidF
| >
| > "miguel formerly michael" <miguel formerly
| > (e-mail address removed)> wrote in message
| > | > > I've been using Microsoft Publisher for years to publish websites.
| > > Recently
| > > switched to Publisher 2003, and now all the Mac users are complaining
they
| > > can't get the links to work. What's up?
| > >
| > >
| >
| >
| >

 

[Chuck Davis]

Bill has left "active" management... (so they say)

 

[Rob Giordano \(Crash\)]

Apparently to have more time to give away a bunch o'money.
Sounds like a greedy bastid eh?


"Chuck Davis" <newsgroup at anthemwebs dot com> wrote in message
| Bill has left "active" management... (so they say)
| | > Bill's retiring in 2 years.
| > Mac is not proprietary?
| >
| >
| > "miguel formerly michael"
| > <[email protected]>
| > wrote in message
| > | > | Thanks, DavidF.
| > |
| > | But what a bite. Why do I suspect it was designed that way? So now I
| > have
| > | a brand new version of Publisher that is useless to me for the reason
I
| > got
| > | it.
| > |
| > | It makes me want to buy a Mac myself and say adios to Bill Gates and
| > | Microsoft's proprietary attitude.
| > |
| > | "DavidF" wrote:
| > |
| > | > Pub 2003 uses a different coding engine and the code does not have
| > good
| > | > cross browser support. If you still have your old version of
| > Publisher,
| > | > reinstall it beside 2003 and use it for your websites.
| > | >
| > | > For follow up questions about web building with Publisher:
| > | > microsoft.public.publisher.web.webdesign and post the URL.
| > | >
| > | > DavidF
| > | >
| > | > "miguel formerly michael" <miguel formerly
| > | > (e-mail address removed)> wrote in message
| > | > | > | > > I've been using Microsoft Publisher for years to publish websites.
| > | > > Recently
| > | > > switched to Publisher 2003, and now all the Mac users are
| > complaining
| > they
| > | > > can't get the links to work. What's up?
| > | > >
| > | > >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| >
| >
|
|

 

[Mike Koewler]

David,

I was going to add a comment on the page you cite but didn't know how.

Those who use Mozilla/Firefox browsers can download an add-on that will
check W3C compatibility, CSS, Validate links and feeds and provide a
download time based on the type of connection. This is a must for anyone
serious about creating a web site.

Mike

 

[Rob Giordano \(Crash\)]

IE has one too, the Developers Toolbar:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...64-672d-4511-bb3e-2d5e1db91038&displaylang=en

Very cool. It's beta but I've been using it for a long time without any
problems.


| David,
|
| I was going to add a comment on the page you cite but didn't know how.
|
| Those who use Mozilla/Firefox browsers can download an add-on that will
| check W3C compatibility, CSS, Validate links and feeds and provide a
| download time based on the type of connection. This is a must for anyone
| serious about creating a web site.
|
| Mike
|
| DavidF wrote:
| > I think that there was an intent to improve the coding engine, but it
just
| > didn't work out that way. Don't forget that Publisher is first and
foremost
| > a DTP, and has always had limited web building capability. Now it is
just
| > limited in different ways. Not to make excuses...
| >
| > As I said, you can run older versions of Publisher alongside newer
versions,
| > and Pub 2003 does have advantages for print docs. You can also
workaround
| > some of the issues, such as not using the navbar wizard to produce your
| > navbar, and building your own menu with absolute links instead of the
| > relative links produced with the wizard. If you want more help, as I
said,
| > post in the web design newsgroup. In the meantime you might find this
| > article interesting: "Are You Cross Browser Compatible?"
| > http://msmvps.com/blogs/dbartosik/archive/2006/01/11/80825.aspx
| >
| > DavidF
| >
| > "miguel formerly michael"
<[email protected]>
| > wrote in message
| >
| >>Thanks, DavidF.
| >>
| >>But what a bite. Why do I suspect it was designed that way? So now I
| >>have
| >>a brand new version of Publisher that is useless to me for the reason I
| >>got
| >>it.
| >>
| >>It makes me want to buy a Mac myself and say adios to Bill Gates and
| >>Microsoft's proprietary attitude.
| >>
| >>"DavidF" wrote:
| >>
| >>
| >>>Pub 2003 uses a different coding engine and the code does not have good
| >>>cross browser support. If you still have your old version of Publisher,
| >>>reinstall it beside 2003 and use it for your websites.
| >>>
| >>>For follow up questions about web building with Publisher:
| >>>microsoft.public.publisher.web.webdesign and post the URL.
| >>>
| >>>DavidF
| >>>
| >>>"miguel formerly michael" <miguel formerly
| >>>[email protected]> wrote in message
| >>>| >>>
| >>>>I've been using Microsoft Publisher for years to publish websites.
| >>>>Recently
| >>>>switched to Publisher 2003, and now all the Mac users are complaining
| >>>>they
| >>>>can't get the links to work. What's up?
| >>>>
| >>>>
| >>>
| >>>
| >>>
| >
| >

 

[DavidF]

Hi Mike,

I don't think that David Bartosik has his blog content set up to add
comments.

The add-on sounds like a good tool, but would be of limited use to the
non-serious web builder that uses Publisher. Publisher 2002 and 2003 code
only works sometimes in FireFox (Pub 2000 code works fine), and you wouldn't
be able to do much with the information about web code standards, as
Publisher is not a code editor. Trying to edit the code with Notepad or
something else would be beyond what the average Publisher user could do, or
would want to do, and the serious web builder wouldn't waste their time.
However, I guess it would show the Publisher user that if they want to get
serious, they should consider using better software for building their web.
That's part of the reason I referenced the article.

DavidF

 

[Mike Koewler]

David,

One reason I use it, not so much to see if I'm producing compliant HTML
but is to check download times. My home page is quite full, with a large
logo, a RSS feed, something that is similar but not a feed, per se, a
couple of forms and some links. I wanted to make sure it didn't take too
long to load - with dial-up it's reported as just over 30 seconds, which
I can handle. The vast majority (greater than 95%) of people in Cincy
tend to either have broadband or enhanced dial-up so I'm looking at 4-15
seconds to load. On an old computer I have, with a 33.6 modem, it takes
about a minute.

If someone is really interested in building a web site but cannot afford
GoLive, I would suggest they try Serif WebPlus. It lists for about $80
but people can go to freeserifsoftware.com, download Version 6, wait a
couple of weeks and update to the latest version for about $40. I use it
and while the HTML is not perfect, it seems to work in all browsers. The
newest version, which is supposed to be released next month, will
include the ability to add a photo gallery, web forms (without having to
use mailto, e-commerce, download web pages, and probably a lot more.

Mike

 

[DavidF]

Mike,

Good point about the download times. I used to use another source for that,
but ultimately started just timing it with my dial-up account, which is
about as slow as you can get, and then started looking at file size.
Unfortunately many of my customers use dial-up...

I tried Serif once, but if I remember correctly, doesn't it convert much of
a page, text and all, into an image? Perhaps I am remembering wrong, or it
has been improved since I tried it...I just tried the free version.

DavidF

 

[Mike Koewler]

David,

I think it use to, at least if text was placed on a colored background.
It doesn't seem to do this anymore.

Mike