Re: New problem with Firefox

offended? what made you think I was...im not..wasn't...aren't

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rob Giordano
Microsoft MVP Expression






"CWWJ" <CWWJ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:8745AAC9-4373-4EAB-8B75-A1B22AF4A55C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Well, pardon me, Rob, I didn't mean to offend. Many of us are on the
clunky
web interface, so forgive us for our unsophisticated approach to all of
this.

Whatever the initial problem with IE7 immediately after download -- it
displayed only in the top half of the screen and I guess you'll just have
to
take my word for that -- it stopped doing it the next time I logged on. I
am
on IE7 right now and it is a superior browser.

For John G's information, I have viewed our web site on IE7 in both 120dpi
and 96dpi and it looks better than it ever looked. Forms are flawless and
work perfectly in both resolutions. I don't know what you were seeing
when
you told me that the forms failed on both FireFox and IE7 at 96dpi. While
some elements of the form did not display correctly on FireFox, the forms
were capable of being filled out (with a little guesswork) and there was
no
problem in submitting the info. On IE7 both looked and worked great.

So now, the only problem I have is the FireFox browser at 96dpi, and with
a
new version coming out soon, maybe even that problem will soon be
corrected.
In any case, it's a much smaller problem even now than I had
anticipated --
if I'd had a problem with IE7 I would have really been concerned.

Thanks again for your help, and John G., I'd appreciate it if you'd tell
me
what you saw on IE7.

"Rob Giordano (Crash)" wrote:

You may be on a "web page" but many of us are NOT, we are on nntp USENET
access, not the clunky web-interface. The web interface sux.
So it's hard to see what you are etalking about.




--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rob Giordano
Microsoft MVP Expression






"CWWJ" <CWWJ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:A4E6D513-7671-452C-B59B-96A14B70F2A0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
David and John G.

One final thing. I downloaded IE7 this morning and accessed our web
site.
Used the forms with no problem whatsoever, so I don't understand John's
insistence that they "fail" with both FireFox and IE7. However, I note
a
peculiarity in IE7 -- when viewing a web site (this one we're on right
now,
for example), only the top half of the page is visible; the bottom half
is
just white space. You have to scroll down to see the rest of the page.
This
is disconcerting at best. Anybody have the same experience? I am at
96dpi
and with a screen resolution of 1024x468. What gives?

"DavidF" wrote:

Hiya,

I agree with your computer guys. I don't like my workaround anymore
than
telling people that they have to use IE in order to view a page
properly,
which you see on some web sites. I also think the issue of centering
your
pages or laying your pages out so that they simulate centering is not
really
that important, if your forms pages are still jumbled for some users
in
some
browsers.

This key issue is how the Publisher html coding engine fails to
produce
code
that works equally well whether it is produced or viewed on a screen
or
monitor set at either 96 dpi or 120 dpi. Until now most people have
been
able to live with the pages produced at 96 dpi, as most screens and
monitors
came at that setting, but that is increasingly not the case these
days.
Also
I have no reason to doubt John G when he says that IE7 also now chokes
on
the different dpi settings...IE6 rendered both fairly well. And also
until
now the people that have had this problem were not using forms on
their
pages, and so if the pages looked a bit different in FF, that was also
something people could live with. But now given all these things, I
think
you have reached a place where you should consider moving away from
Publisher.

You are also using HTTP uploading protocol which is dependent upon
FPSE.
MSFT has made that process difficult in IE7 and especially with Vista,
and
they have stopped supporting FPSE. This means that eventually your
host
will
probably discontinue their support of FPSE...many already have. Your
forms
are dependent upon FPSE.

Bottom line is that MSFT has to update Publisher to deal with evolving
technology or people such as yourself will have to move on to
something
else. As Rob said, Web Expression which replaced FrontPage is your
choice
if
you want to stay with MSFT. They just released version 2, and by most
accounts it is a great program. It just will present a big learning
curve
for you, and you will have to rebuild your site mostly from scratch.
Alternatively, I would suggest that you consider Serif Web Plus. It
will
be
less expensive and it gives you much the same ease of use as
Publisher...perhaps easier. To my knowledge it will do everything that
Publisher fails to do in your case...and rebuilding your site in it
shouldn't take that long.

I am sure this isn't what you want to hear, but given your
circumstances,
I
think it is time for you to abandon Publisher. Sorry, but it is
failing
you
on too many levels.

DavidF

"CWWJ" <CWWJ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:E4D556C9-26E0-4E9E-8D29-0E38AB219653@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I am still using IE6, but I will download IE7 tonight and see if I
find
the
same problem John G. says he noticed. Gulp. I think having two
versions,
one at 96 and the other at 120 makes sense. But some of my computer
guys
say
I should never ask a client to "do something else" -- it makes it
appear
we
didn't know what we were doing in the first place. (Of course we
didn't).
But that certainly is an option. The "centering code" option would
be
difficult, since we have a 28 page site that is updated fairly
often.
Did
I
understand you to say that each iteration would involve redoing all
pages,
not just the ones being updated?

I do understand what the different screen resolutions -- 1024 x 768
to
800x600 -- might do to an attempt to fake "centering" by simply
moving
the
left margin of the page over and building the page over a background
color,
texture, picture or design (even a custom design). But I have done
a
couple
of sample pages this way and have viewed them at 800x600, and
although
the
page does move to the right, at that screen size it still looks much
better
than it would jammed to the left with all that space, no matter what
the
color or background. (Hmmm. How about creating a custom background
of
a
photo montage that pertains to the site -- court rooms, conference
rooms,
maybe even some kind of logo watermarking used as a background)?

But even that would not eliminate the forms problem between the two
resolutions of 96 and 120! Is there any way you can think of to
overcome
this really fundamental problem? The pages may look okay in both
browsers,
except for the forms, which are, after all, the most important
elements
in
the web site. MS really needs to tackle this, because no web site
created
with Publisher can guarantee that forms will ever work in both
resolutions,
when viewed on FireFox. I have just been lucky because our client
base
is
so
small, and most are apparently aol or yahoo subscribers.

"DavidF" wrote:

Only you can decide what dpi setting to use as a default...you know
your
customers. And yes the forms page looks ok with IE6, but according
to
John
G. not in IE7. There simply is no simply answer I am afraid.
Publish
at
96
dpi and some people at 120 dpi are going to have problems...and the
other
way around. My suggestion to build your site with two Pub files is
not
a
great workaround, but I can't think of another at this point that
would
guarantee your customers a page that will look ok in whatever
browser
at
either 96 or 120 dpi. And like I said, if you want to discuss that
more,
let
me know...there are a couple ways to go.

I do think you are misunderstanding something though in terms of
laying
your
page out so it fills the space on YOUR monitor. You may be viewing
your
site
with your monitor set at 1280 X 768 and your browser window at full
screen.
But I have my monitor set at 1152X864 so any page you design to
"fill"
a
browser window at 1280 pixels wide is going to require me to scroll
horizontally. And what if I have it set at 800 pixels wide? In
reality
I
rarely view a page at full screen, and if I do, I almost always
have
the
favorites or the history sidebar, which means I have significantly
less
than
1152 pixels width to view the page. I also tend to use multiple
browser
windows set at less than 800 pixels wide without the sidebars...a
leftover
practice from using IE6 without tabs. What I am saying is that just
because
it looks like it is filling your browser on your computer, doesn't
mean
it
won't overflow mine or still come up short for that young person's
eyes
that
has their monitor set to 1920 pixels wide.

I do hear what you are saying about the excess padding not looking
good...and depending on the background used, I would agree. But the
advantage of using the centering code is that you can make a 760
pixel
width
page dynamically center in whatever width browser window it is
viewed
in.
If
it is viewed in a 800 pixel wide browser window, there will be a
tiny
amount
of padding on both sides of the page. If it is viewed on a 1920
pixel
wide
window, there will be 580 pixels of padding on both sides, but it
is
likely
to look better than if it was left justified. Anyway, I just wanted
to
clarify that...and in case you want to read David Bartosik's
article
again,
here it is: Understanding background padding in a Publisher web
(aka
white
space) :
http://msmvps.com/blogs/dbartosik/archive/2006/01/07/80563.aspx

Enough for now...

DavidF

"CWWJ" <CWWJ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3E70437D-7EE2-4BA4-A103-7EDB140725DE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It is helpful to know that a centering option is now available.
However,
that is not going to solve the problem of a FireFox user at
120dpi
visiting
my 96dpi site. They will find chaos.

Let me say something about our clients. Most (nearly all) are
repeat
clients from a relatively small community -- lawyers and in some
cases,
judges. They book mediations with us most often by phone and
mail.
However,
they have booked a considerable number online -- probably a
couple
of
hundred
in the last two years -- and we have received (my coordinator
tells
me
now)
only one complaint, vs. dozens of thank you's for making this
feature
available. That's what leads me to believe that we have a
preponderance
of
aol and yahoo users (IE works with both 96 and 120 dpi), and
whatever
FireFox
users are out there are set at 120dpi. In other words, our
clients
know
in
advance they are either going to use us or someone else -- a
non-functioning
forms page won't lead them elsewhere.

I like your idea of the link to a 96dpi version of the web site
for
FireFox
users. But although I think Publisher is a good, easy-to-use web
authoring
tool for simple sites like mine, I am baffled by the "padding"
issue.
I
can't imagine developing software that will publish files at a
default
96dpi
knowing that you are going to have 25% of the right-hand side of
the
page
blank. I know some sites do this -- link to Love Field or DFW
Airport
from
our web site -- but unless you know in advance this is the way it
is
going
to
look and design your pages accordingly, your site is going to
look
weird.

I had thought I might just set my left page margin at about 20%
of
the
page
to give the illusion of centering. That would give me 55% of the
viewable
screen for my content, and then instead of using big blocks of
color
and
text
boxes inside frames laid out like a newsletter or brochure, I
would
let
text,
photos and graphics "float" over a background color or texture.

Meantime, I have republished the pages at 120dpi as before, and
I'm


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: New problem with Firefox
    ... Whatever the initial problem with IE7 immediately after download -- it ... on IE7 right now and it is a superior browser. ... able to live with the pages produced at 96 dpi, as most screens and ... And what if I have it set at 800 pixels wide? ...
    (microsoft.public.publisher.webdesign)
  • Re: New problem with Firefox
    ... Our website works perfectly on IE7. ... peculiarity in IE7 -- when viewing a web site (this one we're on right ... with your monitor set at 1280 X 768 and your browser window at full ... And what if I have it set at 800 pixels wide? ...
    (microsoft.public.publisher.webdesign)
  • Re: New problem with Firefox
    ... some with IE7 and FF2. ... just to sum up: I have had only one problem: viewing my web site ... @ 120 dpi - layout wanked ... with your monitor set at 1280 X 768 and your browser window at full ...
    (microsoft.public.publisher.webdesign)
  • Re: New problem with Firefox
    ... Whatever the initial problem with IE7 immediately after download -- it ... on IE7 right now and it is a superior browser. ... monitor set at either 96 dpi or 120 dpi. ... And what if I have it set at 800 pixels wide? ...
    (microsoft.public.publisher.webdesign)
  • Re: New problem with Firefox
    ... Make a copy of your Publisher file and delete all ... This page is a great example of why they need to address this 96/120 dpi ... some with IE7 and FF2. ... with your monitor set at 1280 X 768 and your browser window at ...
    (microsoft.public.publisher.webdesign)
Loading