Re: Photos

Karen,

Yes this is a big topic. Some generalities:

As you have already learned, too many pictures is not a good thing. More is
not always better. Besides sensory overload, the more pictures, the slower
the page will load.

As your post lacks any specifics of what you want to do, here are a couple
articles to read:

How to Thumbnail in Publisher Web Publications :
http://msmvps.com/blogs/dbartosik/pages/80553.aspx

Reference: Compress Pictures dialog box (2007):
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/help/HA100363901033.aspx?pid=CL100605171033

Be careful about compressing all the images on your site at first, but
ultimately you will want to compress them, or more specifically resize,
resample and optimize them for the web. The compress function in Publisher
is pretty good, but for optimal results you can use a third party image
editor to size and optimize your images before you insert them into your Pub
pages. When you get ready or have some more specific questions, post under a
new subject thread or scan the group for other posts about the subject.

DavidF

"karen3b" <karen3b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:CEAFC5FE-8528-4604-A0AF-78C2D0932C74@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
David ~

How do I best handle photos? I have numbers of before-and-after pictures.
I don't want all of them showing on the pages. Chops up the text too
much.
And some viewers don't want to see oodles of pix.

Is this a big topic?
--
karen3b


"DavidF" wrote:

Karen,

To make this thread a bit easier to follow, I have copied both parts of
your
response to this post.

As you did not start with a Publisher template the 'added functionality'
is
not important. But if you want to see what I was talking about open any
new
web template. Once you have one opened then go to Format > Format
Publication > and in the left hand task column look under the 'Web site
options' to find 'Add functionality...'. Click it and try out some of the
optional template pages that can be added. But as I said, since you built
a
custom page, this is unimportant at this point.

Since you are not using a Pub template it really doesn't matter what
width
page you are using, and as you had already worked up most of the layout
on
the 960 pixel width, then you might want to stay with that one. The only
difference is that you should not limit the length of the page. Change it
back to the default of 4608 pixels for now. The importance of not
limiting
the length of your page will become more apparent later in my comments.
Ultimately both the width and the length of your main publication may
change
depending on what you decide to do with some of these 'assets' as you put
it.

In general *do not* attach any files to a forum or newsgroup post.
Ideally
you would get your pages pretty well done and your site posted and just
provide a link to the website so we could help you with any issues. Only
on
rare occasions have we suggested that a copy of the Pub file be made
available here. At this point just tell us about what ever specific
problems
you are having, and we will try to offer answers.

Dotster.com does offer "Web Analytics". Spend some time reviewing the
FAQs
or Support section on the website to see what is offered with you hosting
plan.

Ok, I understand a bit better about what you meant by assets. Remember
that
Publisher is best for small, simple and *static* websites. What you are
envisioning is adding a lot of dynamic features, and is part of the
reason
you are having problems. I think you can do most of what you want to do
using the Insert > HTML code fragment tool. However, you are going to be
one
to figure out how to do it mostly. That will take some trial and terror
and
time on your part figuring out how to use and incorporate the code
snippets
from these third party 'asset' providers. Read the instructions.

As per: http://www.juvederm.com/professionals/toolsdownload.aspx I took a
quick look at this, but did not down load the instructions or study the
details of how to use those tools. I did a quick Google search though and
found someone using this:
http://www.schlessingereyeandface.com/BotoxCosmeticTV.htm
If you look at the source code by View > Source you will see that
basically
this doctor is using a iframe to import a page from the treatment
visualizer
service. In fact you can reproduce what is done on this page. Here is the
iframe code from the source code of this page:

<iframe
src="http://www.botoxcosmetic.com/treatment_visualizer/treatment-visualizer.aspx";
width="100%" height="2250" scrolling="no" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Just open your web publication...one of the ones that doesn't have an
arbitrarily short page length...and copy the above code snippet > Insert
>
HTML code fragment and paste. Make the code fragment box as wide as your
page, put it at the bottom of your page and do a web page preview. You
will
notice that you import the same page as the doctor did, and that your
short
page lengths are not going to cut it. The snippet code indicates that the
page you will import will be 2250 pixels long.

You will need to read their instructions to figure out how to incorporate
this asset correctly and legally according to their rules, but at least
you
can see it can be done. Do notice that the way the iframe code snippet is
written that the whole page is also wider than even a 984 pixel wide
page.
Read the instructions and see if you can get it to scale to a more narrow
page. Otherwise you may need to open that page outside of your web or
build
a custom page to work with it. I think it would be a mistake to make your
whole publication wider than 960 to 984, and I still prefer 760
myself...but
we have had that conversation before.

As to the CareCredit I can see why you might want to include this feature
too. However, I wouldn't ever believe all the hype about how much it will
increase your search engine rankings. Take it all with a grain of salt.
Once
again, read the instructions and you will probably end up using the
Insert
html code fragment feature to insert their code into your page.

The advantage of using FireFox to test your site is you can do it locally
before you have actually published you site, and from our experience here
if
you can get your site to work in both IE and FF, then it will work in
other
browsers mostly. If you have started reading the posts in this group you
will already be aware of the 'grouping' issue with IE8, but at least it
doesn't sound like this will affect your navbar as you probably built
your
own. Feel free to test your site with the on-line services...can't hurt.
At
the same time you need to remember that Publisher is not a code editor,
so
if any of these sites suggest that you need to edit the code, you aren't
going to find that very easy or practical. The reason most of us use
Publisher is to avoid the need to edit the code. We really don't care if
the
code Publisher produces is 'standards compliant' per se...we only care
whether our pages render correctly and work properly in IE, FF and thus
Opera and Safari and probably the other major browsers. If you want to
get
caught up in trying to produce standards compliant code, then you need to
move to a program such as Web Expression.

Change your ruler to pixels so you can see what 720 pixels is. You should
start thinking in pixels anyway...this is a web publication, not a print
publication. Go to Tools > General Tab and change the measurement units
to
pixels and now your ruler will be in pixels.

I think I have addressed most of the issues you raised. Just do away with
the Master Page as I suggested, remember that you will have to use the
insert html code fragment tool to incorporate the third party dynamic
features. And you are going to have to be the one reading the
instructions
and figuring out how to do that. We don't have time to build your site
for
you...or at least I don't. Once again I would first focus on getting the
main parts of your site built and working correctly and then worry about
adding the third party dynamic features. Perhaps just put "coming soon"
or
some text on the page where you will put it, and then try to get your
basic
page published. Then if you want help on specific problems, post a link
to
the site and where you are having the problem, and we will try to help.

Good luck.

DavidF

"karen3b" <karen3b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:8D38937F-9BB6-4F6F-A456-948D564F30EB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

DavidF ~

OK. So I will try some more. I will keep in contact with you
until I
have the/a website up & running.

I think the lesson here that I'm learning (still & now in this
arena)
is one of judgement: to know when to keep perservating and when to
step
back
& ask for help. I went way past the "when to ask for help" place. I
can't
be the only person out there that makes this type of mistake -- so
hopefully
these posts will be beneficial to someone else! <grin>

So, while striving to KISS a website design, I did not use a Pub
2007
template. All of them were too "busy" -- I thought. As a result, I
cannot
follow your first set of instructions. I've tried (too hard, of
course --
I
tried unsuccessfully to get my simple format categorized as a Pub 2007
format).

What I currently have are 3 webpages:
2 of 'em are very similar in that they both have 90%+ of content,
each
with different aspects of the format remaining. One is 960 px wide;
the
other is 984 wide. Since I re-sized both of them to get the 960/984
widths,
I've probably lost the ability to add functionality. [I do not know to
which
specific functionalities you are referring. However, I now know that
it
is
somehow possible to "loose the ability to add that functionality". And
that
is not good.]
The 3rd one has most of the template bones, complete with 984 px
width
(from the beginnning -- not from re-sizing) & waiting for the content
to
be
dropped in (I hope).

I would gladly send all 3 to you, since I think a quick gander of
them
would be self-explanatory....I just don't know whether or not that is
appropriate. Nor do I know whether or not this forum could physically
handle
the 3 files. I certainly would not mind a public dissection of what I
did
wrong -- since such a process would be educational for me -- and
hopefully
others. I learn well from mistakes! Mine or others'.

My quick responses to your points:
1) I completely agree: a fast-loading page is more important than
fancy stats. I'll check if Dotster.com offers stats. I will not mess
with
the other ones.
2) The 3 dynamic features/assets I want to include really add
interest
to the reader. Boosts the content.
-Two of them are Treatment Visualizers, with which the
reader
can either upload a photo of themselves or use a photo that is already
on-site. These Visualizers give readers an idea of what 2 different
kinds
of
treatments might look like on their face. Very cool. Very fun to use.
Trust me. Maybe it is a girl-thing.
The other one is cool too -- but in a different way. Access
information
about how to afford cosmetic procedures, via no-interest financing.
Has a
functional & useful Payment Calculator, a fill-in application for
credit
approval, etc. Again, offering more content than the average website.


------------------
My reply was posted in spite of me. [And probably because I tried to
use
the
"tab" key twice for formatting purposes.]
Quick responses, cont'd:
2) To sum up, I think these "assets" offer significant value to an
interested viewer. Here are the two URLs so you can check them out for
more
specifics. Treatment visualizers =
http://www.juvederm.com/professionals/toolsdownload.aspx ; CareCredit =
http://www.carecredit.com/webtoolkit/cosmetic/gettingstarted2.html +
instructions =
http://www.carecredit.com/webtoolkit/cosmetic/pdf/gettingstartedpdf.pdf
.

Business/traffic-wise reasons to include CareCredit assets are (and I
quote):

"CareCredit's Web Site Tool Kit includes payment calculators, banners,
buttons, and sample website pages to help make it easy to include
information
about financing on your practice web site. Promoting payment options
on
your
practice website not only remove cost concerns, but it also drives more
business to your practice.
Higher search engine rankings: by using this kit, your practice website
will
naturally appear higher on sites like Google since CareCredit receives
over
700,000 unique visitors a month."
Convinced? I am. But I'm gullible, too. <big grin>

On to "quick" response 3) Did not know about the darn Master Page.
The
concept is great. The implementation of same needs polishing.

4) I will install the FireFox info as you outlined. Thanks for the
warning
about default browser.
So I don't need to submit it to:
a.
http://www.geekestateblog.com/test-our-your-blog-or-website-in-50-different-browsers/
b. http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/ ;
c.
https://www.google.com/accounts/ServiceLoginAuth?service=websiteoptimizer;
nor
d. http://www.addme.com/ ?
5) I so totally gave up on the 960 px format. Did as you suggested:
984.
6) I know the Pub truncates the length to fit.
7) I didn't know -- and still don't really have a feel for -- the size
of
720 pxs. I have a feel for a 1,000 word essay -- not for a 720 pxs-
length
chunk of info.
8) I've tried to use the guideline and ruler fxs in Pub'07. I remain
mystified about why the divisions don't show up evenly divided. By
futzing,
I think I've managed to more-or-less hit the
"most-important-content-before-the-fold-line" rule. Although I've
expended
at least 10 times the amount of time/energy doing so than if I could
easily
manipulate the guidelines.
9) 'Content is King.' O, yes. However, what is too rudimentary and
what
is
too esoteric is up for interpretation. Hopefully I've come up with a
syngery
of content that is valuable enough for viewers. Feedback welcome!
10) I still would like other useful functions. But first I will work
on
what I've got.

Thank you very much. It may take a village to raise a child -- it also
takes a community for Karen to raise a website!

--
karen3b


"DavidF" wrote:

Karen3b,

Perhaps I did you a disservice when I gave you those resources, as you
seem
to have gotten lost in the theory of web design, which is an open
ended
subject. I looked up your post in November:
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.publisher.webdesign/browse_thread/thread/aa4902dd501f9f69/1e7d1c73418dc62d?lnk=gst&q=webpagesthatsuck#1e7d1c73418dc62d

You were concerned in that post about keeping all the content of your
pages
"above the fold" because that is what you had read somewhere. I
congratulated you on spending some time planning your site, and
offered
those resources because you seemed interested in learning more about
webdesign theory. Unfortunately it sounds like you missed some of the
more
important points I tried to make, and have spent your time overly
concerned
with the theory.

The approach I take in this newsgroup is to first answer a poster's
question
as best I can without judgment as to the merits of the question or the
motivation behind the question. Then I will sometimes add comments and
suggestions that are more judgmental and opinionated. In your case I
probably should have suggested that what was probably most important
to
remember is that 'content is king'. I probably should have been more
emphatic and judgmental and said that yes, be sure to put your most
important information in the first few paragraphs, but don't worry
about
how
long a page is. If you get a viewer's attention in the first few
paragraphs,
they will happily scroll down for more. It is not so important how
long
your
page is vs. how good the content is. Of course avoid being verbose as
I
tend


.

Loading