Mozilla doesn't show master page elements; hyperlinks don't work M

[KathleenJunk]

My webpage shows up perfectly using Internet Explorer and all links work.

However, in Mozilla, no elements of the Master page display, no hyperlinks
work, and some photos look terrible (photos look great on Internet Explorer.

On the Mac, the home page displays properly, but no hyperlinks work at all
and the same two photos are terrible quality (one photo is good quality).

 

[DavidF]

Publisher 2003 frequently has cross browser issues as it is designed to work
primarily with IE. It produces different code for other browsers.

Do not use Master Pages. It is intended for print publications, not web
publications.

For the best images, size and optimize your images in a third party image
editing program before you insert them into the Publisher doc, and so they
can be scaled at 100% (format > Picture > Size > Scale).

Alternatively, you can try: Compress graphics file sizes to create smaller
Publisher Web pages:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/publisher/HA011266301033.aspx
but optimizing your images before inserting them gives better results. In
some cases, importing the images is the best fix.

If you are using the navbar wizard to produce the navbars, then the bottom,
horizontal navbars do not work in FF. You need to use either the vertical
navbars, or replace the bottom navbars with hand built navbars.

Go to Tools > Options > Web tab. Uncheck "Rely on VML..." and "Allow
PNG...". Perhaps switch Encoding to Unicode UTF-8 coding, and if that is
what you are already using, try Western European (ISO).

Run the design checker under tools.

Download and install FF even if you don't want to use it for browsing. Then
when you publish to the web, direct your output to your computer somewhere
you can find it. Open FF, File > Open and browse to where you saved your
files and open the index.htm file to test your html before you upload the
pages.

Post the URL of the site, and we can make other suggestions about remaining
issues.

DavidF

 

[Mike Koewler]

David,
web publications. <<

Is this just a Publisher recommendation? I use Master Page(s) on most of
my sites and they work a treat (using WebPlus).

Mike

 

[DavidF]

Mike,

To my very limited knowledge, yes. When you use master pages in Publisher
web publications, you get unpredictable results. I don't know all the
reasons for this, but much of it has to do with how the "unique" HMTL coding
engine in Publisher works...or doesn't.

From what you have said about WebPlus, and from what I have read, it seems
to work better in many ways. Sounds like this is another.

DavidF

 

[DavidF]

Mike,

Which version of WebPlus do you use? Is it version 10?:
http://www.serif.com/webplus/webplus10/index.asp

I have occasionally suggested WebPlus as an alternative to Publisher when it
came up short, but I really know little about the program. What do you like
about it? What don't you like?

You can do a lot with Publisher, but it has some frustrating limitations.

How is the cross browser support for WebPlus sites?

DavidF

 

[Mike Koewler]

David,

Sort of hate to usurp a MS NG with news about another program.

Just some of the things I am familiar with in WP10:
Multiple Master Pages
Insert Forms (includes a wizard to add most form objects), Blogs, Shout
Boxes and Counters without needing to know any script or use a
third-party program.
Easily create mouse over Navbars and NavBars with menus.
Insert Java using "Insert HTML Code Fragment."
Built in support for e-commerce (including Wizards for PayPal, Mal's
e-commerce and Roman Cart).
Photo Gallery.
RSS feed reader and creator (haven't used the latter at all).
Direct uploading of files to web site, including incremental updates
where only changed files are uploaded.
Use either Artistic Text (something similar to Word Art) or Regular Text.
HTML compatible Text Frames or Regular Text frames (not sure about this
- regular frames allow columns which are HTML accepted and able to be
correctly read by screen readers.
With a tiny bit of care, pages pass W3C CSS and HTML validation tests.
(Hyphens are a problem, they are reported as a <wbr> for some reason.)
Generate and i-frame via a button.
Insert flash as a file format - has some basic Flash templates that can
be edited by skillful users.

One negative I have found is WP allows one to set leading and kerning,
which is a no-no in web pages. May be great for paper publishing where I
want leading at 107% but the web will not read it that way. It can lead
to spacing problems.

It seems to be compatible with all versions of IE except 7 (which isn't
a surprise!), Avant, Opera, all styles of Mozilla (Firefox, Mozilla,
SeaMonkey) and for the most part Safari.

My paper's web site is www.valleycat.net If you visit it, check out
greetings.html (News/Announcements/Greetings).

If someone is looking for a standalone Web Design Program, it is quite
worth the low cost.

Mike

 

[DavidF]

Mike,

Thank you for taking the time to create and send this list. I think it might
be helpful to those people who have built a site, or are thinking about
building a site with Publisher, to see an alternative.

I believe that the web-building component is a natural and logical extension
of Publisher capability that MS recognized and smartly targeted. No
professional, expert or "serious" web designer would use Publisher, a DTP,
to produce websites, or even care about it having that capability. However,
there is a large, targeted group of small businesses and others, where it
is.should be.or perhaps was, the right tool for the job.

They are the "non-expert" persons that already owns, or will purchase, and
uses Publisher to produce their print documents, and wants a web presence.
They are the small businessperson, hobbyist, etc., that want a fairly
simple, static site that they can build using their existing software and
skill set. They do not have the resources to hire an expert to build their
site, nor do they want to invest the money to buy FrontPage or invest the
time to learn the program, and would likely find it overkill for their
modest goals anyway.

I believe that Publisher is a good DTP, with which you can fairly easily
build a relatively simple, small, static website, and have seen examples
where people built some pretty impressive sites. I have always believed that
it is the skill of the person that wields the tool, that is more important
than the tool itself. If all you need is a basic site, and you already own
and know how to use Publisher, then I think it can be the "right" tool for
the job. But that is not to say that it is the "best" tool for the job. And
sometimes, given the limitations of Publisher, a person should move on to
something else, depending on what their goals are for their sites.

I think that Serif WebPlus is a good alternative, and I am glad you shared
your knowledge about the program. Your website is a great example of just
how good of site can be created. I think Nvu as suggested by Chuck is
another good choice: http://www.nvu.com/index.php And, of course FrontPage
and the new programs that MS will introduce to replace FP, are viable
alternatives. There are indeed many alternatives...

I got involved in the beta testing of Pub 2007, and along with David
Bartosik and others fought for changes. David is responsible for much of the
improvement of Pub 2003 over Pub 2002 for web building, and with the newest
version. Pub 2007 will be a better version than Pub 2003, but unfortunately
still has many of the limitations of Pub 2003. I am disappointed, and will
continue to say that Pub 2000 is probably the best version for web building
because of a different coding engine. And, now I must say, it may be
approaching the time for me to move on to a different program. I won't be
upgrading my Pub 2000 sites to Pub 2007.

My attitude in this newsgroup, has been to not criticize people for their
choice to use Publisher for building websites, but to give them answers as
to how best to use the program within the limitations. I have also chosen to
not criticize MS for what they have done...or not done. However, I think it
is also helpful to provide people with alternatives when Publisher is simply
too limited for what they want to do, so thanks again for outlining Serif
WebPlus. I just wish MS would fix the problems with Publisher. After looking
at WebPlus, its obviously possible.

I will get off my soap box now...;-)

DavidF

 

[Mike Koewler]

David,

Thanks for the compliments!

For far too many years, I have frequented NG where if one didn't use
Quark (now it's ID), Illustrator and PhotoShop, it was impossible to
create a professional publication - at least according to the
self-proclaimed experts.

I did professional print jobs in Word - whichever version came before
Word 95!(Word 3?) Now to me, professional may mean something different
from the people in other NGs - I sent full page ads to very upscale
magazines that they could print exactly as designed and made decent
money doing it.

Given, using Word was a real PITA, especially when one needed to send a
hard copy, fax changes and create a PS file for the filmmakers. Not
being printer independent was a huge drawback.

That's why I ended up buying PagePlus. Saw it in a computer magazine for
$99 (included a couple of other programs) and I was off and running. The
people in CPP NG were at first vicious. But they came to realize it
isn't as much the program one uses as the person using the program and
his/her willingness to work with printers to create a usable output.

I also used that version of Word to create a web site or two, then got
into HTML coding. Then I bought a weekly newspaper and didn't have time
for doing web pages for nearly nine years.

Since I had PagePlus and it did web pages, I used it. The sites were
okay, but it was more my limitations in knowing design rather than the
capabilities of the program.

I was asked if I would like to provide input on WP10 and since I was now
involved in web design, I jumped at it. In more ways than not, it was
like switching from a Word Processor to a DTP program, but with more
significant changes. I could always use forms in PP, but WP meant I
didn't have to remember the coding to add a Combo box with one item
selected by default. I didn't need to configure a script to handle the
data, etc. Nothing I couldn't do before, but it makes it a lot easier!

If I was just going to do a simple site for myself or family, no way
would I sink money into another program.

Mike