Microsoft Publisher - Using browsers other than Explorer

Author

Using browsers other than Explorer

Steve the Trumpet

2007-01-10, 6:56 pm

For years I've been using Publisher for my web design program and am quite
happy with the result with a few exceptions. I have 220 pages on my site and
all works well providing it is viewed through Explorer. In other browers it
is a real mess with no pictures. Is there something I can do about this in
Pub. 2003 or is it something which will be fixed in 2007?

DavidF

2007-01-10, 6:56 pm

Do you perhaps have Pub 2000 in addition to Pub 2003? What is the URL of the
site, and
what specific issues are you having? Some of the cross browser issues can be
fixed...some can't. Pub 2007 uses the same html coding engine as 2003, so
you are unlikely to have more luck with 2007. Post the URL and we will try
to help.

DavidF

"Steve the Trumpet" <StevetheTrumpet@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:2193BE1E-6B73-41CD-AB99-17CDCFF88F7D@microsoft.com...
> For years I've been using Publisher for my web design program and am quite
> happy with the result with a few exceptions. I have 220 pages on my site
> and
> all works well providing it is viewed through Explorer. In other browers
> it
> is a real mess with no pictures. Is there something I can do about this in
> Pub. 2003 or is it something which will be fixed in 2007?

Steve the Trumpet

2007-01-10, 6:56 pm

Thank you for your reply. The URL of my site is www.cinqueportmusic.com
I only have Publisher 2003 as part of Office XP 2003.
If you compare the way the site looks in Internet Explorer with how it
displays in, say, Firefox you will see that it is totally jumbled up and has
no pictures and is totally unusable. If I use Dreamweaver or Serif 9 for site
construction this does not happen. I am considering changing prgram but since
i would have to re-construct all 220 pages this is a daunting task besides I
have been using Publisher for five years and am quite used to it.

"DavidF" wrote:

> Do you perhaps have Pub 2000 in addition to Pub 2003? What is the URL of the
> site, and
> what specific issues are you having? Some of the cross browser issues can be
> fixed...some can't. Pub 2007 uses the same html coding engine as 2003, so
> you are unlikely to have more luck with 2007. Post the URL and we will try
> to help.
>
> DavidF
>
> "Steve the Trumpet" <StevetheTrumpet@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:2193BE1E-6B73-41CD-AB99-17CDCFF88F7D@microsoft.com...
>
>
>
>

DavidF

2007-01-10, 6:56 pm

I understand that rebuilding your site in another program would take time,
but you should remember that Publisher is primarily a DTP with limited web
building capability. It is intended for relatively small, simple, static
websites, and few would, or should use it for a 200+ page site. Ultimately,
you should consider switching to Dreamweaver, Serif WP10, or some other
program that is specifically designed for web building. There are always
going to be limitations on what you can do in Publisher.

With that said, there are some things you might do to see if you can get
your site to work better in FF. 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.

Run the design checker under tools.

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).

If you are using the navbar wizard to produce the navbars, then the bottom,
horizontal navbars generally do not work in FF. You may need to replace the
bottom navbars with hand built navbars. But that can wait until you get the
pages and images to load properly. Chances are that when you do, you will
find the bottom navbar has been converted to an image, and has killed the
links. You will also probably find that hyperlinks in filled text boxes are
also converted to images, and kill the links.

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). Once again, this is
probably not necessary at this point.

Alternatively, you can try: Compress graphics file sizes to create smaller
Publisher Web pages:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/p...1266301033.aspx
You should have the SP1 installed whether you use this feature or not.

As you try this fixes, Publish To The Web, direct your html output to a
folder on your computer somewhere you can find it, like a folder on your
desktop. Open FF, File > Open and browse to where you saved your files and
open the index.htm file to test your html.

If you still have no joy after trying these things, then if it were me, I
would open a second instance of Publisher, start a new Publisher web
publication, and copy and paste all the design content of your existing home
page to the new publication. Then test the HTML output from that single
page. Then start deconstructing the page by dragging all the images, html
fragment boxes, navbars, etc. off the page into the scratch area, and test
just the text. If that works in FF, then start adding back images and design
elements one by one, until you find a problem in FF.

Finally, let me say one more time, that though we may be able to work
through at least some of the cross browser problems you are having, it would
be much more time efficient to just move on to a better program. At 200+
pages, you really have outgrown Publisher and in the long run you will be
happier in DW or a more suitable program.

Let me know what happens...

DavidF

"Steve the Trumpet" <StevetheTrumpet@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:66CDD5D4-61E3-4792-A5A9-BD0CE5D3E19D@microsoft.com...[color=darkred]
> Thank you for your reply. The URL of my site is www.cinqueportmusic.com
> I only have Publisher 2003 as part of Office XP 2003.
> If you compare the way the site looks in Internet Explorer with how it
> displays in, say, Firefox you will see that it is totally jumbled up and
> has
> no pictures and is totally unusable. If I use Dreamweaver or Serif 9 for
> site
> construction this does not happen. I am considering changing prgram but
> since
> i would have to re-construct all 220 pages this is a daunting task besides
> I
> have been using Publisher for five years and am quite used to it.
>
> "DavidF" wrote:
>

Steve the Trumpet

2007-01-10, 6:56 pm

I have ran some experiments as you suggested. Most of what you suggested I
have tried already as I am quite experienced with Publisher after using it
regularly for 5 or 6 years. Your suggestion about copying my index page into
a new publication was successful and it displayed in FF correctly, albeit
some box shadings would have to be changed, therefore there is something
wrong in my construction which is going to be a mammoth task to sort out. I
think I must now seriously start using my Dreamweaver program even if it is a
very daunting task. Thanks for your help.

"DavidF" wrote:

> I understand that rebuilding your site in another program would take time,
> but you should remember that Publisher is primarily a DTP with limited web
> building capability. It is intended for relatively small, simple, static
> websites, and few would, or should use it for a 200+ page site. Ultimately,
> you should consider switching to Dreamweaver, Serif WP10, or some other
> program that is specifically designed for web building. There are always
> going to be limitations on what you can do in Publisher.
>
> With that said, there are some things you might do to see if you can get
> your site to work better in FF. 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.
>
> Run the design checker under tools.
>
> 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).
>
> If you are using the navbar wizard to produce the navbars, then the bottom,
> horizontal navbars generally do not work in FF. You may need to replace the
> bottom navbars with hand built navbars. But that can wait until you get the
> pages and images to load properly. Chances are that when you do, you will
> find the bottom navbar has been converted to an image, and has killed the
> links. You will also probably find that hyperlinks in filled text boxes are
> also converted to images, and kill the links.
>
> 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). Once again, this is
> probably not necessary at this point.
>
> Alternatively, you can try: Compress graphics file sizes to create smaller
> Publisher Web pages:
> http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/p...1266301033.aspx
> You should have the SP1 installed whether you use this feature or not.
>
> As you try this fixes, Publish To The Web, direct your html output to a
> folder on your computer somewhere you can find it, like a folder on your
> desktop. Open FF, File > Open and browse to where you saved your files and
> open the index.htm file to test your html.
>
> If you still have no joy after trying these things, then if it were me, I
> would open a second instance of Publisher, start a new Publisher web
> publication, and copy and paste all the design content of your existing home
> page to the new publication. Then test the HTML output from that single
> page. Then start deconstructing the page by dragging all the images, html
> fragment boxes, navbars, etc. off the page into the scratch area, and test
> just the text. If that works in FF, then start adding back images and design
> elements one by one, until you find a problem in FF.
>
> Finally, let me say one more time, that though we may be able to work
> through at least some of the cross browser problems you are having, it would
> be much more time efficient to just move on to a better program. At 200+
> pages, you really have outgrown Publisher and in the long run you will be
> happier in DW or a more suitable program.
>
> Let me know what happens...
>
> DavidF
>
> "Steve the Trumpet" <StevetheTrumpet@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:66CDD5D4-61E3-4792-A5A9-BD0CE5D3E19D@microsoft.com...
>
>
>

Mike Koewler

2007-01-10, 6:56 pm

Steve,

One thing I noticed when I tried to import your page into WebPlus - you
use Arial Black as a font. Most visitors probably have this font but it
is not considered "web safe" meaning a different font might be substituted.

Using WebPlus, it took me about four minutes to adjust everything on
your front page. It displays correctly in Mozilla.

Also, WP10 will import PP9 files so if some of your site was done with
it, there shouldn't be much work to do.

Mike

Steve the Trumpet wrote:[color=darkred]
> I have ran some experiments as you suggested. Most of what you suggested I
> have tried already as I am quite experienced with Publisher after using it
> regularly for 5 or 6 years. Your suggestion about copying my index page into
> a new publication was successful and it displayed in FF correctly, albeit
> some box shadings would have to be changed, therefore there is something
> wrong in my construction which is going to be a mammoth task to sort out. I
> think I must now seriously start using my Dreamweaver program even if it is a
> very daunting task. Thanks for your help.
>
> "DavidF" wrote:
>
>

Steve the Trumpet

2007-01-10, 6:56 pm

Thank you, Mike, for pointing out the misuse of typefaces. It had completely
skipped my notice that I was using non web typefaces in some places although
I am aware of which ones I should be using. I have noticed that I have other
non web typefaces on text which has been imported and I am in the process of
changing that and checking all 118 pages!
I am very interested in how you managed to import my opening page into
Webplus without having the graphics available. Also you mention PP9 files -
what are they? My site was originally constructed with Publisher 2000, then
2002 and now 2003 which is by far superior to the previous versions in many
ways. I have Serif Webplus 9 - would I be able to import my site into that or
would I need version 10?
Thanks for your help very much appreciated. Also to DavidF whose tip about
constructing text navigation bars is fantastic.

"Mike Koewler" wrote:

> Steve,
>
> One thing I noticed when I tried to import your page into WebPlus - you
> use Arial Black as a font. Most visitors probably have this font but it
> is not considered "web safe" meaning a different font might be substituted.
>
> Using WebPlus, it took me about four minutes to adjust everything on
> your front page. It displays correctly in Mozilla.
>
> Also, WP10 will import PP9 files so if some of your site was done with
> it, there shouldn't be much work to do.
>
> Mike
>
> Steve the Trumpet wrote:
>

Mike Koewler

2007-01-10, 6:57 pm

Steve,

Your graphics are on your site - they have to be for visitors to view
them. WP simply imports them.

I'm fairly certain WP9 will import the site but cannot say for sure -
the first version I used was WP10. Read I read your original post, I
(wrongly) concluded it was PagePlus9 instead of WebPlus9.

Mike

Steve the Trumpet wrote:
[color=darkred]
> Thank you, Mike, for pointing out the misuse of typefaces. It had completely
> skipped my notice that I was using non web typefaces in some places although
> I am aware of which ones I should be using. I have noticed that I have other
> non web typefaces on text which has been imported and I am in the process of
> changing that and checking all 118 pages!
> I am very interested in how you managed to import my opening page into
> Webplus without having the graphics available. Also you mention PP9 files -
> what are they? My site was originally constructed with Publisher 2000, then
> 2002 and now 2003 which is by far superior to the previous versions in many
> ways. I have Serif Webplus 9 - would I be able to import my site into that or
> would I need version 10?
> Thanks for your help very much appreciated. Also to DavidF whose tip about
> constructing text navigation bars is fantastic.
>
> "Mike Koewler" wrote:
>
>

Steve the Trumpet

2007-01-10, 6:57 pm

I have been running trials on my web site using information supplied by
DavidF. When the tick box "Rely on VML ..." is unchecked, my web site size is
increased from 20mb to 30mb but it does display almost correctly in Firefox.
So if I want to have this option I would have to accept the longer upload
time (which isn't too important as I have devised a method of renaming the
Index folder, uploading that then swapping the names over on my server, thus
being off-line for only a few seconds) but mainly because the web size is so
much larger that my host will increase their fees.
The solution is to definitely move to a purpose-built web designing program
which will take quite a lot of time.
Thank you David and Mike for taking the trouble to answer my queries.

"Mike Koewler" wrote:

> Steve,
>
> Your graphics are on your site - they have to be for visitors to view
> them. WP simply imports them.
>
> I'm fairly certain WP9 will import the site but cannot say for sure -
> the first version I used was WP10. Read I read your original post, I
> (wrongly) concluded it was PagePlus9 instead of WebPlus9.
>
> Mike
>
> Steve the Trumpet wrote:
>
>

DavidF

2007-01-10, 6:57 pm

I am not sure exactly what you are doing, but unchecking 'Rely on VML...'
should not be increasing your file size that much. Are you perhaps doing a
file > save as a web site vs. Publish to the web, to produce your html
files? The later is the proper method with Pub 2003, the former the proper
method with Pub 2000. One is filtered, and the other is unfiltered in Pub
2003, which might account for the size increase.

Also, even 20 Mb seems really large. How many pages do you have? Have you
run the "compress images" feature? See: Compress graphics file sizes to
create smaller Publisher Web pages:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/p...1266301033.aspx

DavidF

"Steve the Trumpet" <StevetheTrumpet@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:CDC2952B-33CB-4DA5-B15E-791A9E852D1B@microsoft.com...[color=darkred]
>I have been running trials on my web site using information supplied by
> DavidF. When the tick box "Rely on VML ..." is unchecked, my web site size
> is
> increased from 20mb to 30mb but it does display almost correctly in
> Firefox.
> So if I want to have this option I would have to accept the longer upload
> time (which isn't too important as I have devised a method of renaming the
> Index folder, uploading that then swapping the names over on my server,
> thus
> being off-line for only a few seconds) but mainly because the web size is
> so
> much larger that my host will increase their fees.
> The solution is to definitely move to a purpose-built web designing
> program
> which will take quite a lot of time.
> Thank you David and Mike for taking the trouble to answer my queries.
>
> "Mike Koewler" wrote:
>

Steve the Trumpet

2007-01-10, 6:57 pm

I am definitely using 'Publish to the Web'. I have 218 pages with quite a lot
of graphics. Using Photopaint I re-size the graphics to exactly to right size
using different graphics for the thumbnails and save them compressed as
72dpi. The pictures are of CDs; large one are about 25k and thumbnails 12k -
but I do have a lot of them. The site can be seen at www.cinqueportmusic.com
.. I have proved that the increase in size is when unchecking VML (27Mb) and
using png graphics increases the size lots more to 36mb. Having VML checked
and PNG unchecked results in a web size of 20Mb. One of the problems with
Publisher (as I see it) is that if a graphic, say a logo, is used on every
page, when this is converted into a web publication the logo becomes a
seperate graphic for each page and thus you end up with many more graphics
than antiscipated. It is a pity that Publisher can't just point to a single
graphic and use it for every time it occurs insread of creating a new one;
but tere you can't have everything and Publisher isn't really desogned for
commercial web sites is it?

"DavidF" wrote:

> I am not sure exactly what you are doing, but unchecking 'Rely on VML...'
> should not be increasing your file size that much. Are you perhaps doing a
> file > save as a web site vs. Publish to the web, to produce your html
> files? The later is the proper method with Pub 2003, the former the proper
> method with Pub 2000. One is filtered, and the other is unfiltered in Pub
> 2003, which might account for the size increase.
>
> Also, even 20 Mb seems really large. How many pages do you have? Have you
> run the "compress images" feature? See: Compress graphics file sizes to
> create smaller Publisher Web pages:
> http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/p...1266301033.aspx
>
> DavidF
>
> "Steve the Trumpet" <StevetheTrumpet@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:CDC2952B-33CB-4DA5-B15E-791A9E852D1B@microsoft.com...
>
>
>

DavidF

2007-01-10, 6:57 pm

Hi Steve,

Shortly after I sent the last response, I remembered how many pages you
have, and given the number of images, I can see why your file size is so
high. And your conclusions are pretty much right on.

MS changed the html coding engine starting with Pub 2002, and overall file
size increased significantly from Pub 2000. Pub 2003 produces a slightly
larger file size still. One of the reasons is when you produce the html,
Publisher generates several copies of each image, even in different formats
including png. The goal was to load the best image depending on what browser
was used to view your site...with mixed results...and file bloat. For a
better description of these changes, reference David Bartosik's articles:
Web Publication Changes Made in Version 2002 of Publisher:
http://msmvps.com/blogs/dbartosik/pages/81262.aspx
and: Publisher 2003 - What's new in web design for this version:
http://msmvps.com/blogs/dbartosik/pages/80555.aspx

You are doing a the best thing by optimizing your images before you insert
them into your Publisher document, but you might be able to get more
compression, and smaller file sizes if you do use the Compress Graphics tool
also. And, you do not have to have both the VML and PNG options checked, or
unchecked. Unchecking the PNG option alone will decrease your file
significantly, as fewer PNG images will be produced...and I would recommend
it.

If you do have a logo or banner image that appears on multiple pages, you
can import those images rather than insert them. You would create a
subfolder on your host server, perhaps called "images", and upload the logo
or banner images to that folder. Then in your Publisher document instead of
inserting your logo image, you would insert a code fragment the same size
and location of where you had the inserted image:

<IMG SRC="http://www.cinqueportmusic.com/images/logo.gif"/>

With all this said, the way to reduce your file size and increase your cross
browser support the most, would be to reinstall Pub 2000, and produce your
site with it. You can run both versions on the same computer, just install
Pub 2000 into its own folder and don't overwrite 2003. Then you could use
Pub 2003 for print documents, and 2000 for your web documents. Publisher
2000 produced the smallest file size, only one copy of each image, and the
cleanest code with the best cross browser support.

But, I am getting off track here, because to go back to our earlier
discussion, your site has grown large enough, and complex enough, that
rather than rebuild it using Pub 2000, and multiple files and folders, your
time would be better used to switch to a different program. Even though Pub
2000 is arguably the best version for producing a website, it is still
limited in what you can do with it. So before you go to a lot of trouble to
rebuild your site, I would again suggest that you look at serif webplus 10,
frontpage, webexpression, dreamweaver, or perhaps
http://www.nvu.com/index.php ....or in general, a program that is more
specifically designed to produce a website. You will be much happier in the
long run.

DavidF

"Steve the Trumpet" <StevetheTrumpet@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:0683B301-F762-41F4-9B73-AAF61F1262B7@microsoft.com...[color=darkred]
>I am definitely using 'Publish to the Web'. I have 218 pages with quite a
>lot
> of graphics. Using Photopaint I re-size the graphics to exactly to right
> size
> using different graphics for the thumbnails and save them compressed as
> 72dpi. The pictures are of CDs; large one are about 25k and thumbnails
> 12k -
> but I do have a lot of them. The site can be seen at
> www.cinqueportmusic.com
> . I have proved that the increase in size is when unchecking VML (27Mb)
> and
> using png graphics increases the size lots more to 36mb. Having VML
> checked
> and PNG unchecked results in a web size of 20Mb. One of the problems with
> Publisher (as I see it) is that if a graphic, say a logo, is used on every
> page, when this is converted into a web publication the logo becomes a
> seperate graphic for each page and thus you end up with many more graphics
> than antiscipated. It is a pity that Publisher can't just point to a
> single
> graphic and use it for every time it occurs insread of creating a new one;
> but tere you can't have everything and Publisher isn't really desogned for
> commercial web sites is it?
>
> "DavidF" wrote:
>

Steve the Trumpet

2007-01-10, 6:57 pm

Mike, please can you explain to me in detail how you managed to import my
website into WebPlus 10? I have been trying to do this in various ways and
all I get is the text, and that is in a separate text box for every carriage
return. All the check boxes are ticked on the import dialog.
I have tried importing from the folder on my hard drive, from my isp, by
copying and pasting from IE7 and every other way I can think of. If I can
import properly it will make my transition to WebPlus much easier.
Do you think I ought to start afresh so that everything is 'cleaner'?
Thanks for you help.

"Mike Koewler" wrote:

> Steve,
>
> One thing I noticed when I tried to import your page into WebPlus - you
> use Arial Black as a font. Most visitors probably have this font but it
> is not considered "web safe" meaning a different font might be substituted.
>
> Using WebPlus, it took me about four minutes to adjust everything on
> your front page. It displays correctly in Mozilla.
>
> Also, WP10 will import PP9 files so if some of your site was done with
> it, there shouldn't be much work to do.
>
> Mike
>
> Steve the Trumpet wrote:
>

Mike Koewler

2007-01-10, 6:57 pm

Steve,

That is one of the pitfalls of importing a web page(s). It isn't a
perfect process.

What I usually end up doing after importing a site is to open a new file
and cut/paste the text. Since you use absolute links and not relative
ones, they will work without any trouble. Plus, I'm use to shortcuts
(Ctrl/A, Ctrl/C, select the new text frame, Ctrl/V) so it doesn't take
much time. WP also has a neat shortcut for pasting the exact same place.
With nothing selected on a page but after copying what you want, hit
Ctrl/Alt/V. I use that when I want some but not all Master Page items on
another page but want them to be in the exact same position.

Mike

Steve the Trumpet wrote:[color=darkred]
> Mike, please can you explain to me in detail how you managed to import my
> website into WebPlus 10? I have been trying to do this in various ways and
> all I get is the text, and that is in a separate text box for every carriage
> return. All the check boxes are ticked on the import dialog.
> I have tried importing from the folder on my hard drive, from my isp, by
> copying and pasting from IE7 and every other way I can think of. If I can
> import properly it will make my transition to WebPlus much easier.
> Do you think I ought to start afresh so that everything is 'cleaner'?
> Thanks for you help.
>
> "Mike Koewler" wrote:
>
>