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

David,

The good news is that I got the links working in IE browser on my own
computer. They should work once I load the files onto the server. Glass Art
handed me 3 more photos yesterday that need to go up with the first try. I've
got one of them done, but one needs serious editing. I'm trying to get that
one taken with a digital camera so it will be easier to work on, but he
"hates to bug the client.''

Mike suggested I resize the pages, so I've been squeezing thing together.
Big question: what size font should I use? Most of the site is in 10 pt
Trebuchet with a few larget accents in Comic sans. I prefer the san serif
fonts (and Pub want to create the entire site with Georgia, despite all my
format modifications). Suggestions welcome.

I need to calculate just how large this site is. The way Pub stores the HTML
in different folders makes this difficult. I do know I've got a bunch of
photos in it.

Also, where is the index page? I can't find one anywhere - never could. NOW
what have I done? To edit the site I open a file called "pdesgal" that Pub
created; it is linked to all the pages.

As Dvorak always said: "Real Soon Now." That's when I'll get the site up. At
least thanks to you all I can see the light and the end of the tunnel and
feel fairly sure it's not a fast freight.

"DavidF" wrote:

Mike,

I can use all the suggestions and feedback I can get...thanks.

The bigger the site, the harder it is to organize it and the navigation
system...and the more important it is to organize it well. Otherwise as you
suggested with your experience, you end up down the road at a dead end, or
at least a cul-de-sac.;-)

If you have only 5 or 10 pages...maybe even 15 to 20 pages, then producing
the whole site in one Publisher file, and using the navigation wizard to
produce your navbar/menu with relative links, is probably the best way to
go. Add a page...delete a page, and the wizard automagically redoes the menu
so everything is linked together. And as I understand it, this is the way it
also works in Serif WebPlus.

The problems start when your site grows to 50 to 100+ pages. This is when
many people move to different dynamic web applications to produce their
sites. I, perhaps foolishly, chose to stay with Publisher and found that it
was easier to manage the site by breaking it up into sections and
subfolders. When I did this, I was also forced to give up on using the
navigation wizard that wrote relative links and start using absolute links.
In fact, Publisher 2000's menu wizard would only produce 10 pages.

Kat is using Pub 2003 which allows pretty much as many pages as you want,
and the navigation wizard will add them to the menu. The only reason I
suggested that he consider breaking up the site was his comments about some
pages needing to be updated frequently. I guess I felt it might be a good
idea to produce these variable pages with one or more separate Publisher
files, and then linking them together with absolute links. I just thought it
might be easier to manage that way. Just as an example, say he sold a
selection of rings, watches, and necklaces. I would consider creating a
separate Publisher file for each category, and create a new Publisher file
if I added another category. He could use the Pub navigation wizard to
create a menu if he needed multiple pages within a category, and then if he
sold out of a particular ring, or added two models of rings, he would only
have to edit the Ring Publisher file.

I guess the bottom line is that I have no idea of what he is wanting to do,
and your point is well taken. For most people using Publisher, they should
not worry about breaking the site up into subfolders...nor do they need to.
It will be a lot easier letting Publisher's navigation wizard manage the
links....and as you said, you won't have to remember where the files are
:-).

DavidF

"Mike Koewler" <wordwiz@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5c0b6$45d79dd1$d844dc4e$12832@xxxxxxxxxxx
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
acceptable
to you. If you want to optimize the images that you insert, just resize
the
original to the custom size you created on your Publisher page, insert
them,
and then make sure they are at 100% scale. (Select the image > Format >
Picture > Size tab). This is likely to give you the best picture when
viewed.

DavidF

"The Kat" <TheKat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:B1B67A6A-EAAD-4FC0-9D6B-C96DF20BFF8F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Most of my "small" files are 400 dpi. I optimized the pages and did a
save
as
(still need to add photos). I looked at the page image files (Not the
ones
I
pasted) and the sizes were down considerably ... except for the PNGs.
Does
this mean I should upload the ~400 dpi original files for my expanded
files.

Any way to edit the PNGs to make them smaller? That's a new format to
me
and
it crept onto the pages with some of the Office graphics files. They
are
real
space hogs!

"DavidF" wrote:


Reference: How to Thumbnail in Publisher 2003 Web Publications:
http://pubs.logicalexpressions.com/Pub0009/LPMArticle.asp?ID=564

Size? Its a trade off. The bigger the picture, the larger the file,
the
slower it loads. Start thinking in pixels instead of inches. I
generally
use
a 400 pixel width for most "full size" views, and occasionally 480.
This
gets the file sizes down to no more than 15 to 20 kb, which load
pretty
fast. Some people will provide two links...one for dial-up users to
smaller
images, and another for broadband users where file size isn't so
important,
and then link these to larger pictures.

DavidF

"The Kat" <TheKat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:C882998C-72C4-450B-A382-2F74FAB26C51@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I would like to link to expanded pictures as well.

What ia the best resolution and photo size (3x5, 4x6 ...) to use for
.

Relevant Pages

  • 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. ... 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: Attention David F
    ... resampling and resizing images to 96 dpi in Publisher. ... I'm glad my pages load decently. ... Web Plus does seem to offer a lot of features that you ...
    (microsoft.public.publisher.webdesign)
  • 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: CONCERNED About the Publisher 2007 index file size
    ... While you will find some expert web designers, ... Publisher effectively takes a print document and ... approximately 23 seconds to load fully. ... so people will have something to read while the images load. ...
    (microsoft.public.publisher.webdesign)
  • Re: Attention David F
    ... I do have a 56k modem, but because of the distance from the switching ... Both of your home pages load relatively quickly for me, ... more images you have the longer it takes for a page to load. ... comparison from a person that had built a 200+ page site in Publisher, ...
    (microsoft.public.publisher.webdesign)