Re: How can I hyperlink to an enlarged picture in Publisher 2003?

The Back to top links are needed on the FAQ, Adornments, and Glass art pages.
Those are long. As for the size, that was just the default that their stock
site creator used. I'm pretty sure the PUB files are not that wide.

The nav bars on the new sit gor across the top and the bottom. I lost too
much space by having that left column on the products pages. Is there some
way to convince Pub that it should size the boxes for the contents? If not,
I'll just use a text only bar in both places.

Thanks for the kind words, though. The site on my computer has a lot more to
it (but the cat is still there!) :)

The Kat

"Mike Koewler" wrote:

Kat,

Okay, one thing that pops up quickly - your page width is more than 800
pix. Consider that at least 1/3 of people who use the Net are viewing at
a resolution of 800x600 or less. That means they will get a scroll bar
at the bottom. You are barely over that width, so it should not be a
major task to change it.

My own preference - I would probably try to add some background color or
borders to the pages. It looks sort of "sterile" now.

Not sure why you have a "To the Top" link on each page - most of them
don't need it. They are normally reserved for very long pages with links
at the top that a user wants (needs) to get back to.

Personally, I would skip any fancy Nav bar. The one you have now works
great, looks fine, will be easily picked up by a search bot, and doesn't
take any time to load. Why spoil it just to show you know some fancy
coding? :-)

To think, you were paranoid about what kind of job you might do. I would
say you passed with flying colors.

Mike

The Kat wrote:
I know I'm not the only first time web spinner, but I am paranoid :) I have
three glass pictures to edit and describe, one more jewelry piece to
describe, and the navigation bar to set up - I'm going to do it myself
because the one created by Pub looks crazy - it's way over the edge and I
can't get it sized right. May as well get ready for when I DO have to add
individual pages.

You guys have given me so much information that I haven't absorbed it all
yet. I DID find out that I have 'non-standard' colors in there. Any idea how
color fades are handled on other browsers? I use one in my header.

Maybe tonight... At least I've got 24/7 tech support with the host. If you
want to see what's there now, look at 2-Lions.com (I'm struck by the
incapability of the Create-it editor they have for quickie sites.)

The Kat

"Mike Koewler" wrote:



The Kat wrote:

This may sound witless, but can you mis the site: some pages as
separate files updated often and the bulk of the site that does not
change much as another file with multiple pages? <<

No offense, but it does sound witless. I'm not sure what you mean.
If you mean can you make a site with a bulk of it in one file, and pages
that get updated often in their own files - yes. But ask yourself - with
the updated pages grow in size or just change? I update some pages
weekly, sometime more often, and there is no reason to create a new file
or folder for them.

I would probably start with one file and add pages as you need to. Just
don't be stupid like me - I knew in August or September my file was
going to get too large in a short period of time. I waited until January
to do something about it and then it was a lot more work.

One thing I like about the program I use is I can create any size page I
want in the same file. So say I have a piece of jewelry I want to
display. I can size to the dimensions I want (say 300 x 400 pix at 96
dpi) and place it on a page that size. This would be the size a viewer
would see if they click on a thumbnail. I can take the same image and
place it on a page with other pieces, but make it thumbnail size. The
program automatically resizes it to 96 dpi. Create a hyperlink from the
thumbnail view to a full size one. The larger view can open in a variety
of different windows - via an album such as JAlbum, in an i-frame that
doesn't show on a page until the link is clicked or even better (if I
can figure out how to do it) in a "lightbox." The latter really looks
promising. Check out http://www.huddletogether.com/projects/lightbox/ to
see how it works.

FWIW, you aren't the first one to publish a web site for the first time!
As others have said, no one will know about it until you tell them
(don't worry about search engine spiders - it will be months before you
rank high enough to worry about it). There's nothing to it but to do it.
So publish it and give us the URL. More than likely, it will be
great. If not, people will offer suggestions on how to make it better.

Mike


This may sound witless, but can you mis the site: some pages as separate
files updated often and the bulk of the site that does not change much as
another file with multiple pages?

This goes back a bit in the string to what I need to do on the site: "I will
have to update the files frequently as new pieces are created and new jewelry
styles come out." Only two pages (for now) will be updated regularly and my
home page with change a bit, but not too much - after I finally get
everything running! (Still have to figure out Miva Merchant).

The Kat

"Mike Koewler" wrote:



David,

Since you gave me the suggestion (or at least encouraged me to do what I
needed to do), I found there's a great thing and a horrible thing about
using sub-folders or different files for pages:

You have to write absolute links, not a relative one.

Horrible, as I have to remember the exact location of the file. Great,
as I don't have to redo all my links.

Now, before everyone decides to use a horde of sub-folders or different
files for their web site, consider how your site is structured and
updated. If you are going to have several categories that will keep
growing, then I would set up a file for each category. This will keep
the file size down (saving time with Save, Autosave, Publish, etc.) as
well as provide a measure of safety if your file becomes corrupted - and
it will if you add a lot of pages week after week.

OTOH, if one is going to just update a site periodically and not worry
about keeping the old news, or adding a lot of pages over a period of
time, there's probably not a good reason to split sites.

Of course, YMMV, Take this with grain of salt, Buyer Beware, E. Pluribus
Unum, NaNa-NaNa, This Cat is where it's at, etc.!

Mike




DavidF wrote:


I'm back. answers in line


"The Kat" <TheKat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1D55872F-9154-4037-BCB4-86271144786A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Now YOU lost ME. I just did a "save as" of the optimized file because I
was
unsure what would happen if I re-optimized the files after I added new
pictures. At least I can uncheck the allow PNG before any more of them
breed
in my program. The site uses LOTS of photos - stained glass, fused glass,
jewelry,... and each piece is unique.



Sorry about that. To clarify, when I was talking about using Publish to the
Web vs. Save As , I was referencing the way you produce your html
files...not the way you save your Pub file. I think it is always a good idea
of doing a Save As to a new name when you make any major change in a Pub
file. Its nice to have that original to go back to.






I will have to oupdate the files frequently as new pieces are created and
new jewelry styles come out. Will it be best to replace the entire page
and
load that up instead of trying to place each new photo into the niche of
the
old one?




One of the places where Publisher starts to feel its limits is when the
website gets big, and when you have pages that need to be updated
frequently. When my site grew, I decided to break it up and produce it with
multiple Publisher files. I have several parts of my site that get updated
at least monthly, and I produce these with seperate Publisher files.

Depending on how you have things organized, you might be better off using
multiple Pub files. Reference this article by David Bartosik: Building a web
site with multiple Publisher web publication files:
http://msmvps.com/blogs/dbartosik/archive/2006/01/16/81264.aspx
I approach it a bit different than David though. I just create subfolders on
my site for the different sections, and continue to use the index.htm as the
default file name. Rather than mixing all those files in one folder, I find
it easier to manage the files on my site when they are organized in separate
subfolders...more like I have them organized on my computer. I also tend to
just delete the entire contents of those subfolders before I upload the
updated HTML. This is probably not necessary, but I like an empty folder and
to avoid the possibility of orphaned image files that aren't overwritten by
the new files. To each their own. Sometimes if it is only a word or two, I
just change out the index.htm file. You will need to decide what makes sense
for you. One caveat...you will probably need to abandon the navbar wizard
and build your own navbar or menu with absolute links...







Should I presume the larger files will be the 400 pixel ones (sorry - NOT
dpi, I meant pixels!). I use Photoshop for the image fixes and crops. The
ones in the site now are at 100 DPI so the 400 "DPI" of which I spoke was
400
pixels across = 4" on my resize. Is this a reasonable size for the "big"
shots? How do I link the little PUB thumbnails to the larger files? And
WHEN?
Before I save as HTML and move that to the site or after the site is up?




When you resize and optimize your images, I would agree with Rob. Make the
images 400 pixels (or whatever final width you want), and at 72 or 96 dpi,
for your "large" version. I find that 400 pixel wide images give me enough
detail, but you might need larger, and perhaps not need that large depending
on the photo. Try different sizes until you find the smallest that works for
you. I use 100 or 150 pixel wide images for thumbnails. 100 can be awful
small... As to linking the two, you didn't take the time to read the article
I referenced did you? ;-) The short of it is that you will upload your large
size images to a subfolder on your site, and link to them from your
thumbnails. Here is the reference again: How to Thumbnail in Publisher 2003
Web Publications:
http://pubs.logicalexpressions.com/Pub0009/LPMArticle.asp?ID=564







That's where you lost me - you say "publish to the web" and I don't have a
clue how to do that! I was planning to load HTML files that PUB creates
each
time I save.




I don't know if you are still confused about this or not, but when you
produce the html files from Publisher you can click on the little icon, or
File > Publish to the Web. If you produce your html files this way they are
"filtered" and your over all file size and loading time is minimized. What I
didn't want you to do was go to File > Save As > Save as type, a web page in
html format. That results in unfiltered html, that you don't want. Part of
the confusion is that in Pub 2000, you do produce your html files via the
Save As approach, and in Pub 2002 you do something different. Sorry if I
confused you. Here is a brief outline of the whole process that might clear
things up: Prepare, publish, and maintain your Publisher Web site:
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/publisher/HA011053521033.aspx

Now then, its all clear as mud, eh?

DavidF





Lost in space,
The Kat

"DavidF" wrote:




Pub 2003 makes copies of any inserted images in various formats including
PNGs. I don't remember if you have already done this, but if not, go to
Tools > Options > Web Tab and uncheck "Rely on VML..." and "Allow
PNGs...".
This will minimize the use of PNGs, but not eliminate their production.
Just
ignore them.

Secondly, unless I am reading your post wrong, you do not want to do a
Save
As to produce your html output. Do a Publish to the Web, and you will get
filtered html.

400 dpi images are for print documents. It is good that you are using the
graphics compression tool in Publisher but if you want the optimal images
in
your pages, then you will resize and optimize the images before they are
inserted into the page. And if you are going to link to "full size"
images,
they have to be optimized and sized in a third party program. There are
lots
of them out there, but a freebie that works pretty well is
www.irfanview.com
.. Download and install it, and then open your original images and resize
them to the 400 or 480 pixel width, at 72 or 96 dpi and perhaps 30%
compression...play with it to see what final quality and size is
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How can I hyperlink to an enlarged picture in Publisher 2003?
    ... server will let me use Publisher; I had intended to change it to HTML & FPage ... When you resize and optimize your images, ... on the photo. ...
    (microsoft.public.publisher.webdesign)
  • Re: How can I hyperlink to an enlarged picture in Publisher 2003?
    ... Think I understand what you're saying about the upload. ... I was referencing the way you produce your html ... One of the places where Publisher starts to feel its limits is when the ... When you resize and optimize your images, ...
    (microsoft.public.publisher.webdesign)
  • Re: How can I hyperlink to an enlarged picture in Publisher 2003?
    ... Discovered one reason I could not set up the background I wanted: Publisher is looking only in its PUB60COR files for graphics for the website. ... I also tend to just delete the entire contents of those subfolders before I upload the updated HTML. ... dpi, I meant pixels!). ... I find that 400 pixel wide images give me enough detail, but you might need larger, and perhaps not need that large depending on the photo. ...
    (microsoft.public.publisher.webdesign)
  • Re: How can I hyperlink to an enlarged picture in Publisher 2003?
    ... They should work once I load the files onto the server. ... The way Pub stores the HTML ... I, perhaps foolishly, chose to stay with Publisher and found that it ... When you resize and optimize your images, ...
    (microsoft.public.publisher.webdesign)
  • Re: How can I hyperlink to an enlarged picture in Publisher 2003?
    ... I was referencing the way you produce your html ... One of the places where Publisher starts to feel its limits is when the ... When you resize and optimize your images, ... on the photo. ...
    (microsoft.public.publisher.webdesign)