Microsoft Publisher - printer friendly pages in a website

Author

printer friendly pages in a website

Billiam

2007-08-27, 6:16 pm

I have created a website in Win XP Publisher 2007, and would like to make
"Printer Friendly pages". Can I place these printer friendly pages (8"x11")
in my web publication, and then link to them from the web publication and
back from the printer frendly publication to the webpage... or do I just set
up another publication with the printer friendly pages and link to and from
them to the website?

DavidF

2007-08-28, 3:14 am

Though you can do the first, personally, I think the later is your best
choice.

Using a second Pub file to produce your print friendly html pages and
uploading those to a subfolder on your host will be easier to produce, and
easier to manage. You can resize the width of the page so it will print on
8.5 if you use a new Pub file. You can only have one page width per Pub
file. You can layout your print content in a more print friendly format and
discard those design elements that you don't want to print.

The bigger your site gets, the more you should use separate Publisher files
to build your website, and publishing to subfolders on your host to keep
your html and image files, download files, etc. organized and easier to
manage.

I might also add, that this is one of the reasons that I still use a fixed
760 pixel width for my pages. It seems that as long as the page is 800
pixels or less in width...or so, then it will be "print friendly" in that it
will all print on 8.5 inch paper. I like the way my 760 pixel width page
prints...has good margins on the page. I don't bother trying to break my
site up into 11" long pages for printing purposes. I tend to use long pages
and when you print them you do get all the content...you just can't control
where the printer will break the page and start a new one. I decided that as
long as all the content would print on 8.5 stock paper, that was good
enough. Besides, anything that I really think someone would want to print, I
provide it as a PDF file (also contained in a subfolder). That way I really
can control the print version.

I guess my point is, that though its possible to include your print friendly
pages into your one Pub file, I think you will find it much better in the
long run to start using subfolders on your website, and additional Pub files
to build your site.

Just my opinion ;-)

DavidF

"Billiam" <Billiam@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9D71BFB7-BAE0-45C3-B953-63E27C16F5E0@microsoft.com...
>I have created a website in Win XP Publisher 2007, and would like to make
> "Printer Friendly pages". Can I place these printer friendly pages
> (8"x11")
> in my web publication, and then link to them from the web publication and
> back from the printer frendly publication to the webpage... or do I just
> set
> up another publication with the printer friendly pages and link to and
> from
> them to the website?

Billiam

2007-08-28, 6:16 pm

Excellent help---thank you very much, David.

"DavidF" wrote:

> Though you can do the first, personally, I think the later is your best
> choice.
>
> Using a second Pub file to produce your print friendly html pages and
> uploading those to a subfolder on your host will be easier to produce, and
> easier to manage. You can resize the width of the page so it will print on
> 8.5 if you use a new Pub file. You can only have one page width per Pub
> file. You can layout your print content in a more print friendly format and
> discard those design elements that you don't want to print.
>
> The bigger your site gets, the more you should use separate Publisher files
> to build your website, and publishing to subfolders on your host to keep
> your html and image files, download files, etc. organized and easier to
> manage.
>
> I might also add, that this is one of the reasons that I still use a fixed
> 760 pixel width for my pages. It seems that as long as the page is 800
> pixels or less in width...or so, then it will be "print friendly" in that it
> will all print on 8.5 inch paper. I like the way my 760 pixel width page
> prints...has good margins on the page. I don't bother trying to break my
> site up into 11" long pages for printing purposes. I tend to use long pages
> and when you print them you do get all the content...you just can't control
> where the printer will break the page and start a new one. I decided that as
> long as all the content would print on 8.5 stock paper, that was good
> enough. Besides, anything that I really think someone would want to print, I
> provide it as a PDF file (also contained in a subfolder). That way I really
> can control the print version.
>
> I guess my point is, that though its possible to include your print friendly
> pages into your one Pub file, I think you will find it much better in the
> long run to start using subfolders on your website, and additional Pub files
> to build your site.
>
> Just my opinion ;-)
>
> DavidF
>
> "Billiam" <Billiam@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9D71BFB7-BAE0-45C3-B953-63E27C16F5E0@microsoft.com...
>
>
>

Billiam

2007-08-28, 6:16 pm

Hi David,

I went back into my website publication and it is actually using a default
page size of 760 wide by 4608px long, and yet it still is cutting off the
page width. I would really prefer not to have a seperate publication to worry
about updatng (printer friendly publication), as the website I have requires
frequent updates and so would be labour intensive updating both publications.
Margin guides are set at 0" is this my problem?

"DavidF" wrote:

> Though you can do the first, personally, I think the later is your best
> choice.
>
> Using a second Pub file to produce your print friendly html pages and
> uploading those to a subfolder on your host will be easier to produce, and
> easier to manage. You can resize the width of the page so it will print on
> 8.5 if you use a new Pub file. You can only have one page width per Pub
> file. You can layout your print content in a more print friendly format and
> discard those design elements that you don't want to print.
>
> The bigger your site gets, the more you should use separate Publisher files
> to build your website, and publishing to subfolders on your host to keep
> your html and image files, download files, etc. organized and easier to
> manage.
>
> I might also add, that this is one of the reasons that I still use a fixed
> 760 pixel width for my pages. It seems that as long as the page is 800
> pixels or less in width...or so, then it will be "print friendly" in that it
> will all print on 8.5 inch paper. I like the way my 760 pixel width page
> prints...has good margins on the page. I don't bother trying to break my
> site up into 11" long pages for printing purposes. I tend to use long pages
> and when you print them you do get all the content...you just can't control
> where the printer will break the page and start a new one. I decided that as
> long as all the content would print on 8.5 stock paper, that was good
> enough. Besides, anything that I really think someone would want to print, I
> provide it as a PDF file (also contained in a subfolder). That way I really
> can control the print version.
>
> I guess my point is, that though its possible to include your print friendly
> pages into your one Pub file, I think you will find it much better in the
> long run to start using subfolders on your website, and additional Pub files
> to build your site.
>
> Just my opinion ;-)
>
> DavidF
>
> "Billiam" <Billiam@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9D71BFB7-BAE0-45C3-B953-63E27C16F5E0@microsoft.com...
>
>
>

DavidF

2007-08-28, 10:15 pm

Billiam,

Hummm...perhaps I am just lucky that my pages print ok, or perhaps it is the
printer default margins? Some printers will not print as close to the edge
as others. Did you perhaps try printing your pages on a different printer?

I certainly understand not wanting to maintain two sets of files. I would
first ask whether the cropping is the full length of the page, or is it just
one design element? Did you run the Design Checker tool? Is it possible that
you have some elements in the scratch area? Are those the ones being
cropped? If you have a text box where all the text is being cropped on one
side, and it is all on your page and not in the scratch area, then indeed it
is probable that even a 760 pixel page is too wide for your printer. And
yes, the best answer is to increase the margin guide or guides slightly
until the page fits. Once you increase the margin guide(s), be sure to have
the Snap To function enabled under Arrange in 2003. Then it will be
relatively easy to move your content within the margins. Once you find the
width that will print correctly, then you can add margins to all pages, or
you could resize your pages to that width.

DavidF

"Billiam" <Billiam@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:59DCF0EE-4FCD-4F56-BEBA-4401D6CBDDB5@microsoft.com...[color=darkred]
> Hi David,
>
> I went back into my website publication and it is actually using a default
> page size of 760 wide by 4608px long, and yet it still is cutting off the
> page width. I would really prefer not to have a seperate publication to
> worry
> about updatng (printer friendly publication), as the website I have
> requires
> frequent updates and so would be labour intensive updating both
> publications.
> Margin guides are set at 0" is this my problem?
>
> "DavidF" wrote:
>

Mike Koewler

2007-08-28, 10:15 pm

What is the url of your website? Are you trying to make just specific
pages print friendly or a bunch of them?

Does your printer friendly pages include a banner, Nav Bar, background,
etc.? Or just plain text?

I set my printer friendly pages up 750 pix wide and there is no problem
printing them.

Mike

Billiam wrote:[color=darkred]
> Hi David,
>
> I went back into my website publication and it is actually using a default
> page size of 760 wide by 4608px long, and yet it still is cutting off the
> page width. I would really prefer not to have a seperate publication to worry
> about updatng (printer friendly publication), as the website I have requires
> frequent updates and so would be labour intensive updating both publications.
> Margin guides are set at 0" is this my problem?
>
> "DavidF" wrote:
>
>