Microsoft Publisher - HELP! IE vs. Firefox vs. Mac vs. ...

Author

HELP! IE vs. Firefox vs. Mac vs. ...

cndctr

2006-09-08, 6:33 pm

I've created a site in Publisher. Uploaded it to host. Perfectly functional
on a PC running Explorer, does not work in Firefox/Netscape/et al., doesn't
work on a Mac even if it's running Explorer. Address is www.kitchenwalk.org.
Nothing tricky, some links, mostly informational for a company fundraiser.
I noticed from another post that maybe I should get two(?) folders after
"Publish to the Web," but I get one (no home folder). In a "faulty" browser,
the background picture comes up, but nothing else, no pictures, no links.
HELP! Fundraiser is happening soon!

THANKS!

JoAnn Paules [MVP]

2006-09-08, 6:33 pm

Websites created with Publisher are not always fully compatible with non-IE
browsers.

--

JoAnn Paules
MVP Microsoft [Publisher]

"cndctr" <cndctr@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C6E16DAE-8148-4EFC-A7F5-95237845BECF@microsoft.com...
> I've created a site in Publisher. Uploaded it to host. Perfectly
> functional
> on a PC running Explorer, does not work in Firefox/Netscape/et al.,
> doesn't
> work on a Mac even if it's running Explorer. Address is
> www.kitchenwalk.org.
> Nothing tricky, some links, mostly informational for a company fundraiser.
> I noticed from another post that maybe I should get two(?) folders after
> "Publish to the Web," but I get one (no home folder). In a "faulty"
> browser,
> the background picture comes up, but nothing else, no pictures, no links.
> HELP! Fundraiser is happening soon!
>
> THANKS!

John G

2006-09-08, 6:33 pm

Works for me in both IE and Firefox and they seem to look similar,links
work the same etc.
--
John G

Wot's Your Real Problem?

"cndctr" <cndctr@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C6E16DAE-8148-4EFC-A7F5-95237845BECF@microsoft.com...
> I've created a site in Publisher. Uploaded it to host. Perfectly
> functional
> on a PC running Explorer, does not work in Firefox/Netscape/et al.,
> doesn't
> work on a Mac even if it's running Explorer. Address is
> www.kitchenwalk.org.
> Nothing tricky, some links, mostly informational for a company
> fundraiser.
> I noticed from another post that maybe I should get two(?) folders
> after
> "Publish to the Web," but I get one (no home folder). In a "faulty"
> browser,
> the background picture comes up, but nothing else, no pictures, no
> links.
> HELP! Fundraiser is happening soon!
>
> THANKS!

cndctr

2006-09-08, 6:33 pm

Thanks to posts by David F (thank you!), changing the encoding and unticking
a couple things seemed to open it up.

One remaining issue, though - the graphics in Firefox seem substantially
degraded. An object with a shadow looks more like it has a checkerboard
behind it, logos look like they're really low resolution, etc.

Any thoughts on how to fix that?!?

"John G" wrote:

> Works for me in both IE and Firefox and they seem to look similar,links
> work the same etc.
> --
> John G
>
> Wot's Your Real Problem?
>
> "cndctr" <cndctr@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C6E16DAE-8148-4EFC-A7F5-95237845BECF@microsoft.com...
>
>
>

DavidF

2006-09-08, 6:33 pm

Good job, reading through the other posts and finding the "semi-cure" steps
for the cross browser compatibility issues with Publisher...

As per the degraded images in FireFox, in general Pub 2003 produces multiple
copies of the images you insert into a Pub file, and several file formats.
If you Publish to the Web, and to a folder on your computer where you can
find it, then open that folder and you will see the different copies and
formats...gifs, pngs and jpgs. The idea behind this is that the "best" image
will load depending on which browser is used. Unfortunately that usually
means that the images loaded by FireFox are not very attractive...and
pixilated like yours. There is a workaround...post back if you want
instructions on how to do that, but I suspect that it is beyond the scope of
what you want to do with this project.

IMHO before you worry about how your images look in FireFox, I would suggest
you should be concerned about the size of your images and your page width.

You are using images that are way too large in file size and in dimension.
Your "flash page" which opens from the link to your webpage has an image
that is 1076 pixels wide, and 278 kb, which along with the other images you
have on that page makes for a verrrrry slow loading page via a dial-up
connection.
http://www.kitchenwalk.org/index_files/image308.jpg

You really should be reducing, resizing and optimizing those pictures in a
third party image editing program, before you insert them into your Pub doc.
Your goal should be an image closer to 50 kb...or far less, and keep in mind
the more pictures the longer it will take to load...and the more likely a
visitor will leave your site before the pages load. People are very
impatient....

But this isn't an ideal world, so assuming you don't have time to optimize
your pictures before you insert them into Publisher, then be sure to
compress them via Publisher before you Publish to the Web. Read: Compress
graphics file sizes to create smaller Publisher Web pages:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/a...1266301033.aspx

If you make no changes to your page sizes or anything else, you should at
least compress you images.

Part of good web design is learning how to optimize images for the web. If
you want to pursue this, then by all means Google on the topic, and read up
on the subject. To get you started, read the first two articles on David
Bartosik site on this page:
http://msmvps.com/blogs/dbartosik/s...px?q=images&p=1

Though this has little to do with the quality of your image, it is probably
more important. Your pages should not be wider than 800 pixels, and you
really should be using the default "standard" which is 760 pixels. File >
Page setup > Layout. 1076 pixel wide pages are just way too wide...

Hope I haven't overloaded you. :-)

DavidF

"cndctr" <cndctr@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6CA08915-B50C-47D9-B0CF-9A7A49AA9A67@microsoft.com...[color=darkred]
> Thanks to posts by David F (thank you!), changing the encoding and
> unticking
> a couple things seemed to open it up.
>
> One remaining issue, though - the graphics in Firefox seem substantially
> degraded. An object with a shadow looks more like it has a checkerboard
> behind it, logos look like they're really low resolution, etc.
>
> Any thoughts on how to fix that?!?
>
> "John G" wrote:
>

John G

2006-09-08, 6:33 pm

Yes there is some degredation in Firefox but if you did not compare them
carefully you probably would not notice in my opinion.
--
John G

"cndctr" <cndctr@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6CA08915-B50C-47D9-B0CF-9A7A49AA9A67@microsoft.com...[color=darkred]
> Thanks to posts by David F (thank you!), changing the encoding and
> unticking
> a couple things seemed to open it up.
>
> One remaining issue, though - the graphics in Firefox seem
> substantially
> degraded. An object with a shadow looks more like it has a
> checkerboard
> behind it, logos look like they're really low resolution, etc.
>
> Any thoughts on how to fix that?!?
>
> "John G" wrote:
>

DavidF

2006-09-08, 6:33 pm

Ha! Actually I would tend to agree with you. In fact your answer is much
better than mine. And think of just how much time I would have saved typing
;-) Thanks...

DavidF

"John G" <Greentest@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:4500cf15$0$758$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Yes there is some degredation in Firefox but if you did not compare them
> carefully you probably would not notice in my opinion.
> --
> John G
>
> "cndctr" <cndctr@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6CA08915-B50C-47D9-B0CF-9A7A49AA9A67@microsoft.com...
>
>

cndctr

2006-09-12, 10:48 pm

DavidF,

Thanks for incredibly helpful posts. I think the oversized width happened
along the way of trying to get that first page to appear the way I wanted it.
I originally started narrower, but upon previewing the page, I found
something that didn't slightly resemble what I was working with in regular
mode. I'll continue updating and resizing. Can you tell me how to do that
"workaround" you mentioned?

Thanks!

"DavidF" wrote:

> Good job, reading through the other posts and finding the "semi-cure" steps
> for the cross browser compatibility issues with Publisher...
>
> As per the degraded images in FireFox, in general Pub 2003 produces multiple
> copies of the images you insert into a Pub file, and several file formats.
> If you Publish to the Web, and to a folder on your computer where you can
> find it, then open that folder and you will see the different copies and
> formats...gifs, pngs and jpgs. The idea behind this is that the "best" image
> will load depending on which browser is used. Unfortunately that usually
> means that the images loaded by FireFox are not very attractive...and
> pixilated like yours. There is a workaround...post back if you want
> instructions on how to do that, but I suspect that it is beyond the scope of
> what you want to do with this project.
>
> IMHO before you worry about how your images look in FireFox, I would suggest
> you should be concerned about the size of your images and your page width.
>
> You are using images that are way too large in file size and in dimension.
> Your "flash page" which opens from the link to your webpage has an image
> that is 1076 pixels wide, and 278 kb, which along with the other images you
> have on that page makes for a verrrrry slow loading page via a dial-up
> connection.
> http://www.kitchenwalk.org/index_files/image308.jpg
>
> You really should be reducing, resizing and optimizing those pictures in a
> third party image editing program, before you insert them into your Pub doc.
> Your goal should be an image closer to 50 kb...or far less, and keep in mind
> the more pictures the longer it will take to load...and the more likely a
> visitor will leave your site before the pages load. People are very
> impatient....
>
> But this isn't an ideal world, so assuming you don't have time to optimize
> your pictures before you insert them into Publisher, then be sure to
> compress them via Publisher before you Publish to the Web. Read: Compress
> graphics file sizes to create smaller Publisher Web pages:
> http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/a...1266301033.aspx
>
> If you make no changes to your page sizes or anything else, you should at
> least compress you images.
>
> Part of good web design is learning how to optimize images for the web. If
> you want to pursue this, then by all means Google on the topic, and read up
> on the subject. To get you started, read the first two articles on David
> Bartosik site on this page:
> http://msmvps.com/blogs/dbartosik/s...px?q=images&p=1
>
> Though this has little to do with the quality of your image, it is probably
> more important. Your pages should not be wider than 800 pixels, and you
> really should be using the default "standard" which is 760 pixels. File >
> Page setup > Layout. 1076 pixel wide pages are just way too wide...
>
> Hope I haven't overloaded you. :-)
>
> DavidF
>
> "cndctr" <cndctr@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:6CA08915-B50C-47D9-B0CF-9A7A49AA9A67@microsoft.com...
>
>
>