Firefox Compatibility, Pub2007

Warden,

I am not sure there is still a question in the first part of your comments
or not. However I will say that I personally would give up on using your
"house font" on your website if it means converting it to an image. Yes, in
my long response after your original post I did discuss how sometimes having
a small amount of text converted into an image in a banner image might not
be a bad thing, but I personally would rather have the search engine webbots
reading the company name and slogan. I think that perhaps you need to
remember that this is a different medium than print, and needing to use a
slightly different font than the house font in order to use the medium
effectively, is a worthwhile tradeoff. In other words, I would leave it the
way it is.

Now as per the logo, that is a different story. There you just about have to
convert the text into an image. Personally I don't find the slight
blotchyness of the image noticeable, but after you point it out I can see
it. That blotchyness is probably caused by the compression used on the
image. To get a better quality image you will have to experiment.

Check the inserted logo image on your Publisher page to confirm it is at
100% scale. Select it > right click > format picture > Size tab and confirm
or change the Scale to 100% height and width.

Or...try right clicking the original logo image on your Publisher page >
Save as a Picture. Under Save as type choose PNG instead of JPG. Under
Resolution click change and choose Web (96) instead of standard 150 or high
quality. Go back to your first page and click the original logo > right
click > change picture > from file and browse to your new PNG version of the
image. After inserting the new PNG > right click > format picture > Size tab
and confirm or change the Scale to 100% height and width. Now test and see
if you like the quality of the png version better than the current jpg
version. I frequently find the PNG is a bit better quality for logos,
clipart, wordart etc., though the file size is a bit larger. You could also
try saving the original logo as a gif and a jpg and insert those images, and
confirming the size at 100%. Chances are the PNG is going to give you the
best quality.

If using Publisher to produce a version of your logo doesn't give you the
results you want, then the next choice is to use a third party image editing
program to optimize and produce your logo and any other images at a less
compression than Publisher uses, and inserting those images. Just be sure to
output the images at exactly the size you want to use in Publisher at 96
ppi, and then insert and scale at 100%. But once again, I am not sure anyone
but you are ever going to notice the slight blotchyness of the logo, and all
this might be more work than necessary.

Good luck.

DavidF



"Warden" <Warden.RemoveThis@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F409725B-F693-4651-8B2D-512B8F32DF7D@microsoft.com...
> DavidF,
> I've been checking the new banner by publishing it to a test folder, so it
> isn't uploaded yet. Another reason why I thought of using my scanned-in
> letterhead is that it accurately renders my house font, which isn't
> web-safe.
> Obviously I've had to ditch house font for bulk text and headings, but I
> thought it would be good at least to use it for the banner.
> Another question is to do with my logo, in which the burgundy areas come
> out
> blotchy on all browsers, even though they look perfectly flat on
> Publisher.
> Is this to do with using web-safe colours? If so, how can any colour image
> be
> rendered accurately? Yet the pictures seem to be rendered with accurate
> colours.
> Thank you,
> Warden
>
> "DavidF" wrote:
>
>> Warden,
>>
>> I don't see any major problem with your banner area anymore. Before you
>> apparently had all the banner elements grouped together and as a result
>> Publisher combined them into one low quality .gif image:
>> http://www.alal.co.uk/index_files/image468.gif
>> However, now when you go to your home page the banner area looks fine in
>> both IE and FF and is broken up into different components: The logo:
>> http://www.alal.co.uk/index_files/image321.jpg , The background picture:
>> http://www.alal.co.uk/index_files/image328.jpg and the text is still
>> text,
>> as you can left click and drag to select it. The only slight difference I
>> see is the text renders a bit different in FF than in IE, but unless you
>> look carefully you would hardly notice. That may be because you have it
>> in
>> italics, or it may be that you are using a non web font. If that font is
>> supposed to be 'Cambria' then that might explain the slight variation. In
>> that case, change the font to a web font. But as I said, I don't see a
>> problem with your 'banner' on your home page in IE or FF.
>>
>> DavidF
>>
>> "Warden" <Warden.RemoveThis@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:09FB5DE5-319A-4F1A-AAAB-AEE73BBE7913@microsoft.com...
>> > Hello again DavidF or anyone else who can help ...
>> > To avoid the poor definition in my banner area and to get the font
>> > always
>> > rendered correctly, I scanned in my letterhead and used the resulting
>> > cropped
>> > picture instead of the made-up version that's currently live. This
>> > approach
>> > should also prevent the underlines being in the wrong place on some
>> > browsers.
>> > However on checking the result with IE, FF and Safari, I found with FF
>> > &
>> > Safari that the text was jagged and the underlines sort of dotted. As I
>> > had
>> > slightly reduced the size of the image, I tried compressing it on one
>> > page
>> > while leaving it on another, but there was no difference in the
>> > results.
>> > On
>> > checking the files in the test folder I had used, I found only one new
>> > banner
>> > (not a compressed and an uncompressed) - this may be because Publisher
>> > had
>> > only "uploaded" the image once. The file is rendered as a JPEG image of
>> > 197kB, much larger than the 1.04kB GIF file currently live.
>> > Any suggestions for improving the image on FF and Safari?
>> > Warden
>> >
>> > "DavidF" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Sigh...
>> >>
>> >> This is a PS to Warden or anybody else that happens upon this thread.
>> >> I
>> >> am
>> >> sorry Warden that you have been sucked into this nonsense. Just do the
>> >> experiment I suggested and you will see how Publisher 2007 works for
>> >> yourself. Also here are some MSFT references for you that I should
>> >> have
>> >> included the first time:
>> >>
>> >> Reference: Compress graphics file sizes to create smaller Publisher
>> >> Web
>> >> pages (2003):
>> >> http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/publisher/HA011266301033.aspx
>> >>
>> >> Reference: Compress Pictures dialog box (2007):
>> >> http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/help/HA100363901033.aspx?pid=CL100605171033
>> >>
>> >> By the way...dpi and ppi are frequently used interchangeably, and the
>> >> difference does not change the facts as I explained them. Our troll is
>> >> just
>> >> trying to muddy the waters...
>> >>
>> >> DavidF
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "DavidF" <Nope.RemoveThis@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:%23KWmauJwJHA.6068@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> >> > Warden,
>> >> >
>> >> > You are welcome.
>> >> >
>> >> > While it certainly your choice to use Publisher or another program
>> >> > to
>> >> > build
>> >> > your site, be advised that the other person that answered your
>> >> > question
>> >> > is
>> >> > our resident troll. Unfortunately his primary mission here is to not
>> >> > help
>> >> > people, it is to convince people to not use Publisher to build
>> >> > websites,
>> >> > and
>> >> > sometimes attack those of us that help people here. Even more
>> >> > unfortunately
>> >> > he does have some knowledge and can appear credible, but obviously
>> >> > he
>> >> > does
>> >> > not understand how to use Publisher correctly, as you can tell by
>> >> > his
>> >> > answer
>> >> > about what was causing the ftp issue. You probably know the
>> >> > type...just
>> >> > enough knowledge to be dangerous <g>. Much of the rest of what he
>> >> > had
>> >> > to
>> >> > say
>> >> > is also inaccurate, and certainly his suggestion that you need to
>> >> > use a
>> >> > different program. If you want to stay with Publisher we will be
>> >> > able
>> >> > to
>> >> > help you work through all the other issues you might have with your
>> >> > site.
>> >> > Your choice.
>> >> >
>> >> > I noticed that you are concerned about some of the poor quality
>> >> > images
>> >> > that
>> >> > are rendered in FireFox. While you weren't specific I can see that
>> >> > your
>> >> > 'banner' area image needs some tweaking. If you were to look in your
>> >> > 'index_files' folder in thumbnail view on your local computer, you
>> >> > would
>> >> > see
>> >> > this image: http://www.alal.co.uk/index_files/image468.gif As you
>> >> > can
>> >> > see
>> >> > all the elements you have used in your 'banner' have been converted
>> >> > to
>> >> > one
>> >> > combined, low quality .gif image. This is usually caused by
>> >> > 'grouping'
>> >> > different elements together. When you do that Publisher makes a
>> >> > combined
>> >> > image of all the elements that are grouped together and serves up
>> >> > that
>> >> > image
>> >> > in FF.
>> >> >
>> >> > Assuming that is the problem, the fix is probably as simple as
>> >> > ungrouping
>> >> > the elements from each other. Chances are when you click on any of
>> >> > those
>> >> > design elements, you will see a grouping icon at the bottom which
>> >> > looks
>> >> > like
>> >> > a couple boxes overlapping each other. Just click that icon and this
>> >> > ungroups the elements from each other. If you don't recognize the
>> >> > grouping
>> >> > icon, you can also go to Arrange > Ungroup. While grouping elements
>> >> > together
>> >> > so that you can drag them around while you are designing and laying
>> >> > out
>> >> > your
>> >> > pages is a handy tool, be sure to ungroup them before you publish
>> >> > your
>> >> > web
>> >> > files.
>> >> >
>> >> > Now to test this, rather than take the time to upload new web files,
>> >> > when
>> >> > you 'Publish to the Web' direct your index.htm file and the
>> >> > index_files
>> >> > folder to somewhere on your computer where you can easily find them.
>> >> > I
>> >> > direct them to a test folder I keep on my desktop for this purpose.
>> >> > After
>> >> > publishing new files, go to the 'index.htm' file (your home page) or
>> >> > the
>> >> > other *.htm files (your other pages) in the 'index_files' folder,
>> >> > right
>> >> > click > Open with > FireFox. This way you can preview what your
>> >> > pages
>> >> > will
>> >> > look like in FF before you upload. You can also just open FF > File
>> >> > >
>> >> > Open
>> >> > File and browse to where you directed your .htm files on your
>> >> > computer
>> >> > if
>> >> > you prefer.
>> >> >
>> >> > Now to the follow up on the comments in the second post by our
>> >> > favorite
>> >> > troll about how Publisher handles images, his answer and information
>> >> > is
>> >> > again inaccurate and misleading and again demonstrates his ignorance
>> >> > of
>> >> > how Publisher works. I will explain with a specific example. On your
>> >> > home
>> >> > page you have this image:
>> >> > http://www.alal.co.uk/index_files/image332.jpg .
>> >> > I
>> >> > suspect that after you inserted your original .jpg image you resized
>> >> > the
>> >> > picture box to get the size and proportion you wanted on your web
>> >> > page.
>> >> > I
>> >> > also suspect that you then used the 'compress pictures' tool on that
>> >> > image
>> >> > because it has been 'resampled' from the original size and
>> >> > resolution
>> >> > to a
>> >> > 384 X 256 pixel image at 96 dpi. This is exactly the correct thing
>> >> > to
>> >> > do
>> >> > with Publisher. Now if you had inserted a large, high resolution
>> >> > image
>> >> > and
>> >> > changed the size of the picture box, and not used the 'compress
>> >> > pictures' tool Publisher would have made either a low resolution
>> >> > .gif
>> >> > image
>> >> > copy of that .jpg or possibly a resized jpg for FF and other non-IE
>> >> > browsers, and also made a copy of the original jpg for IE.
>> >> > Unfortunately
>> >> > that original high resolution image would take a long time to load
>> >> > in
>> >> > IE
>> >> > and
>> >> > if Publisher made a .gif copy for FF it would be low quality. You
>> >> > can
>> >> > test
>> >> > and confirm this for yourself. Try this experiment.
>> >> >
>> >> > Open a blank Publisher web page. Insert either your original high
>> >> > resolution/large .jpg image that we talked about above or another
>> >> > high
>> >> > resolution image. Now resize the picture box to less than the
>> >> > original
>> >> > size
>> >> > of that image. Then without using the 'compress pictures' tool,
>> >> > Publish
>> >> > to
>> >> > the web and direct your output to that test folder on your desktop.
>> >> > Open
>> >> > the
>> >> > index_files folder and look at the contents in thumbnail view (View
>> >> > >
>> >> > Thumbnails). You will see at least two copies of the image that you
>> >> > just
>> >> > inserted. It may be two jpg images or a jpg and a gif. Now switch to
>> >> > Details
>> >> > view, and if you have the Size showing, notice the difference in
>> >> > file
>> >> > size...or if you don't have the size showing in Details view you can
>> >> > also
>> >> > just right click the thumbnail > properties and it will show you the
>> >> > difference in file size. In fact if you compare the file size of the
>> >> > larger
>> >> > one, you will notice that it is the same file size as your original
>> >> > image...it is simply a copy of that original.
>> >> >
>> >> > Now, go back to the Pub file > Select the image > and find the
>> >> > 'compress
>> >> > pictures' button on the Picture Toolbar and click. On the dialog
>> >> > that
>> >> > comes
>> >> > up choose 'Web' under 'Target Output'. Now Publish to the Web again
>> >> > and
>> >> > again go to the index_files folder. Now you will see only one copy
>> >> > of
>> >> > your
>> >> > image, and that copy will have been resampled and compressed, and it
>> >> > will
>> >> > be
>> >> > the image that is rendered in IE and in FF and other browsers. If
>> >> > you
>> >> > open
>> >> > that copy in a graphics editor such as Photoshop, Photoshop Elements
>> >> > or
>> >> > Irfanview which is a good freebie, you will also see that the
>> >> > picture
>> >> > is
>> >> > now
>> >> > 96dpi. As I said, our resident troll has just enough knowledge to be
>> >> > dangerous as he is misleading people.
>> >> >
>> >> > As per his comments about using the Master Page feature in
>> >> > Publisher,
>> >> > once
>> >> > again I would suggest you ignore him as once again he demonstrates
>> >> > that
>> >> > not
>> >> > only does he not understand how Publisher works, but he is dogmatic
>> >> > about
>> >> > his views even when he is wrong and in spite of when given evidence
>> >> > to
>> >> > the
>> >> > contrary. Besides one of the biggest advantages of using Publisher
>> >> > is
>> >> > that
>> >> > you should never need to look at or directly edit the HTML coding in
>> >> > a
>> >> > Publisher web. You change your pages by changing your design, layout
>> >> > or
>> >> > formatting in the original Pub file and when you Publish to the web,
>> >> > the
>> >> > Publisher html coding engine handles all the coding in the
>> >> > background
>> >> > just
>> >> > as you did by properly moving the design elements off the Master
>> >> > Page.
>> >> > Much
>> >> > easier than learning how to write and edit code...
>> >> >
>> >> > Now, as per the fonts. I notice that you are using 'Cambria'. This
>> >> > is
>> >> > not
>> >> > a
>> >> > 'web safe font' which are fonts that most people have on their
>> >> > computers.
>> >> > Select any of your text boxes > Format > Fonts. In that Font dialog
>> >> > notice
>> >> > the option box 'Show only Web Fonts'. Check that box and now you
>> >> > will
>> >> > see
>> >> > a
>> >> > list of the fonts that you can safely use on the web. If you choose
>> >> > to
>> >> > use
>> >> > a
>> >> > non-web safe font frequently what will happen is that Publisher will
>> >> > convert
>> >> > that text into an image, which as a rule you would not want to do.
>> >> > Text
>> >> > that
>> >> > has been converted to an image cannot be read by the search engine
>> >> > webbots
>> >> > when they index your site, or by text readers. One exception to this
>> >> > rule
>> >> > in
>> >> > my opinion would be if you were using a specialty font in a logo, a
>> >> > banner
>> >> > or some other design element where the design is more important than
>> >> > the
>> >> > text. In that case you could add an Alt tag to the image, and that
>> >> > would
>> >> > be
>> >> > read and indexed by the search engines and read by the text readers.
>> >> > So,
>> >> > while I did not search out where you were using Cambria, you should
>> >> > consider
>> >> > changing the font. Oh, and by the way...it would probably not matter
>> >> > what
>> >> > program you used to produce your site. If you use a non-web font and
>> >> > the
>> >> > viewer does not have that font installed on their computer, then the
>> >> > browser
>> >> > will usually substitute in what it thinks is a suitable replacement,
>> >> > and
>> >> > your design will still not be as you intended. Best to use web fonts
>> >> > in
>> >> > a
>> >> > web page, but if you are using it in a logo, etc. post back and I
>> >> > will
>> >> > explain how best to use it in that capacity.
>> >> >
>> >> > Now, as to the text on your navbar buttons. The reason that text is
>> >> > 'fuzzy'
>> >> > is again because it has been converted to an image for FF. Each
>> >> > button
>> >> > on
>> >> > your navbar is made up of several design elements. Usually it is a