Comments\Critiques\Suggestions!

  • Thread starter Thread starter E. Schultz
  • Start date Start date
E

E. Schultz

Website check please, especially images1 page.

www.naturalworldandfarawayplaces.com

Comments, critiques, suggestions, etc.

Trying something a little different.

Combined images and text in publisher, then resaved it
as a .jpg so I could work with it (primarily for resizing) in PS.

Designed for a horizontal res of 800 (actually 770 to 800).
Want to keep the horizontal scrolling to a minimum
(set it and forget it), or none.

Have updates scheduled weekly (one page at a time) thru Dec 21.

Setting up the image pages that way, may be a little more work
up front, but I'm thinking that maintenance might be easier.......Izzy
 
When I first saw this message I had to immediately assume that the pages
would be very slow to load.. and it is so ... As I write this I am still
waiting for this page to load:
http://www.naturalworldandfarawayplaces.com/images/images1/images1.htm
I think you also need to reorganize your thinking about folders: images and
images 1.
I've now had to give up on that images 1 page ... it refuses to load.
It is best to not involve Publisher in any way when building web pages ...
you have produced image sizes that are HUGE!
Also, are you sure you want the sections of the frame sets to be that
obvious?
Finally I have a page to look at and I see very, very small text that many
will not be able to read. I suggest that you forget about using Publisher,
separate the images from the text and organize these items within tables and
cells on your page. As the material is presented now it really isn't
accessible!
Sorry to rain on your idea... get back to me for more help if you wish!
You might want to read some of these tutorials:
http://www.eleanorstravels.com/suggestedresources.htm
Eleanor
 
The issue you faces when creating your page basically as a image, is that
the search engines have nothing to index, so unless you do care about search
engines, this is a bad idea.

Your layout can be accomplished using nested tables. Just create a main
table with 8 rows, 1 column, then in rows 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 insert a another
single row table, with the number of columns needed for photos and text.

==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
WEBMASTER Resources(tm)

FrontPage Resources, Forums, WebCircle,
MS KB Quick Links, etc.
==============================================
 
In addition to the other comments - 750px is the maximum width you can use
without causing horizontal scrolling at 8x6 resolution.

Bob Lehmann
 
E.T. -

Have to disagree with you. On my DSL line, Images 1 opened instantly. Maybe
there was just some net clog when you tried. Also, I downloaded one of the
images. At 227K, it certainly could be optimized more, but it's not exactly
"HUGE".

I do definitely agree with you about the font size, though. It's very tiny.

Regards,
Craig
 
227K is large for dial-up users.

--

==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
WEBMASTER Resources(tm)

FrontPage Resources, Forums, WebCircle,
MS KB Quick Links, etc.
==============================================
 
Agreed. But "HUGE"?

Thomas A. Rowe said:
227K is large for dial-up users.

--

==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
WEBMASTER Resources(tm)

FrontPage Resources, Forums, WebCircle,
MS KB Quick Links, etc.
==============================================
Click to expand...
 
I'm on a dial up and for us 40 - 50k is the proper target page size. Web
pages will look best if images and text blocks are totally separate entities
within tables. The author should be encouraged to use better techniques
rather than imply that he'd be OK if he re-optimized these large images.
Publisher should play no roll in building web pages .... ever.
Resize/resample is an option in FP that also should never considered. It's
easy but quality will suffer every time.
I would hope that he would now choose the thumbnail route beginning with the
original images optimized properly with his image editing program. Then
Jimco Add-ins Spawn will do the trick for him: www.jimcoaddins.com
Eleanor

E.T. -
Have to disagree with you. On my DSL line, Images 1 opened instantly. Maybe
there was just some net clog when you tried. Also, I downloaded one of the
images. At 227K, it certainly could be optimized more, but it's not exactly
"HUGE".
I do definitely agree with you about the font size, though. It's very tiny.
Regards,
Craig
:
When I first saw this message I had to immediately assume that the pages
would be very slow to load.. and it is so ... As I write this I am still
waiting for this page to load:
http://www.naturalworldandfarawayplaces.com/images/images1/images1.htm
I think you also need to reorganize your thinking about folders: images and
images 1.
I've now had to give up on that images 1 page ... it refuses to load.
It is best to not involve Publisher in any way when building web pages ...
you have produced image sizes that are HUGE!
Also, are you sure you want the sections of the frame sets to be that
obvious?
Finally I have a page to look at and I see very, very small text that many
will not be able to read. I suggest that you forget about using Publisher,
separate the images from the text and organize these items within tables and
cells on your page. As the material is presented now it really isn't
accessible!
Sorry to rain on your idea... get back to me for more help if you wish!
You might want to read some of these tutorials:
http://www.eleanorstravels.com/suggestedresources.htm
Eleanor
 
Thanks all for the fast replies.

Image size and download time is definitely a problem.
Knew that going in but hoped it wouldn't be quite as bad
as it is. We're also on a dial-up and 126+ seconds (images1)
as opposed to 60 something for images 4
(the other 2 were 45 and change) isn't acceptable to us either.

Text size is also a problem but I think we got that cleared up with the
Dec 21 update. That's as far as we went with the pending's. Basically
two full cycles (images1, images2, images3, images4) x 2 at a
rate of one page a week.

Someone mentioned using nested tables to lay out the pages.

We do use tables (though not nested ones). The problem though
(as you can see in the images 2, 3, & 4 pages as well as the index),
is that as long as your using IE to view the site you don't see the borders.
View the site with Netscape though, and there they are. That's the other
reason for looking at the "collage" method as an alternative to the separate
"images and text" method. Granted! It doesn't clear the problem for the
index page, or the link bars at the top and bottom of the image pages, but
it does clear the problem for the body of the image pages, where the images
are.

In fact! Were it not for that problem. We might not've considered the
collage format at all.

As for search engines not having something to index on. How big a problem
is that really. The image page is basically a template, and it's the same
for all four pages. You've got the link bars at the top and bottom, and
they're
always there.

What changes are the dates of publication, and the content
(images and text) between the bars.

There was also something about 750 pixels being the maximum width
for a screen res of 800x600. I just rechecked the update for Dec21st
(pending) which is currently the last one using the collage format.
Looked at it in three different editors. They all showed 770 as the width.

Previewed it in both IE and Netscape. Neither required horizontal
scrolling.

As for 40 or 50k being the proper target for page size. That may be the
ideal in theory, but how realistic is it ?

Let's assume that we go back to our normal format after that Dec 21st
update. As long as we keep the number of images on a page down to
no more than 4 or 5, we can make that bogie. If we go to 6, 7, or 8, which
we sometimes do. We're over. Sure! We can lower the quality on the
displayed images. But!! That quality is fairly low to begin with, and we
really don't want to go any lower.

Basically, we think the idea of what we're trying to accomplish here is
a good one. The problem is with the execution. As we see it there're
four issues.

1. Size in kb (of the collage)

2. Download time

3. Browser Compatibility

4. Text size

We think we've got "text size" taken care of with that Dec21st update.
Question is. How do we resolve the other three......Izzy
 
1. To get rid of your table borders, select each table, right click table
properties and set border to Zero instead of 1 and set color to automatic.

2. Set page backgrounds to white.

3. Here is a example of your Image 3 page using nested tables:
http://www.ycoln-resources.com/Mary/ESchultz.htm

4. When you use a image to display text, you basically have invisible page
as far as a search engine is concerned, since you have no text that can be
index. If you are not concerned with the captions or other notes regarding
the photos, being indexed, then the full page image remains an option,
except for the overall weight of the page for downloading. Maybe consider
limiting each page to 4 photos, etc or do thumbnail images link to larger
versions.
--

==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
WEBMASTER Resources(tm)

FrontPage Resources, Forums, WebCircle,
MS KB Quick Links, etc.
==============================================
 
Yeah - net clog otherwise known as "dialup" LOL.

not all of us have broadband you know.
E.T. -
Have to disagree with you. On my DSL line, Images 1 opened instantly. Maybe there was just some net clog when you tried. Also, I downloaded one of the images. At 227K, it certainly could be optimized more, but it's not exactly "HUGE".

I do definitely agree with you about the font size, though. It's very tiny.

Regards,
Craig

:

When I first saw this message I had to immediately assume that the pages
would be very slow to load.. and it is so ... As I write this I am still
waiting for this page to load:
http://www.naturalworldandfarawayplaces.com/images/images1/images1.htm
I think you also need to reorganize your thinking about folders: images and
images 1.
I've now had to give up on that images 1 page ... it refuses to load.
It is best to not involve Publisher in any way when building web pages ...
you have produced image sizes that are HUGE!
Also, are you sure you want the sections of the frame sets to be that
obvious?
Finally I have a page to look at and I see very, very small text that many
will not be able to read. I suggest that you forget about using Publisher,
separate the images from the text and organize these items within tables and
cells on your page. As the material is presented now it really isn't
accessible!
Sorry to rain on your idea... get back to me for more help if you wish!
You might want to read some of these tutorials:
http://www.eleanorstravels.com/suggestedresources.htm
Eleanor
 
That is so much better!
etc
Thomas A. Rowe said:
1. To get rid of your table borders, select each table, right click table
properties and set border to Zero instead of 1 and set color to automatic.

2. Set page backgrounds to white.

3. Here is a example of your Image 3 page using nested tables:
http://www.ycoln-resources.com/Mary/ESchultz.htm

4. When you use a image to display text, you basically have invisible page
as far as a search engine is concerned, since you have no text that can be
index. If you are not concerned with the captions or other notes regarding
the photos, being indexed, then the full page image remains an option,
except for the overall weight of the page for downloading. Maybe consider
limiting each page to 4 photos, etc or do thumbnail images link to larger
versions.
--

==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
WEBMASTER Resources(tm)

FrontPage Resources, Forums, WebCircle,
MS KB Quick Links, etc.
==============================================
Click to expand...
 
Comments below, in-line.
E. Schultz said:
Thanks all for the fast replies.

Image size and download time is definitely a problem.
Knew that going in but hoped it wouldn't be quite as bad
as it is. We're also on a dial-up and 126+ seconds (images1)
as opposed to 60 something for images 4
(the other 2 were 45 and change) isn't acceptable to us either.
Click to expand...
........ You want to aim at less than 20 seconds for download time or no one
will stay at your site long enough to see it!
Text size is also a problem but I think we got that cleared up with the
Dec 21 update. That's as far as we went with the pending's. Basically
two full cycles (images1, images2, images3, images4) x 2 at a
rate of one page a week.
Click to expand...
................Where is the Dec 21 up date for us to look at?
Someone mentioned using nested tables to lay out the pages.

We do use tables (though not nested ones). The problem though
(as you can see in the images 2, 3, & 4 pages as well as the index),
is that as long as your using IE to view the site you don't see the borders.
View the site with Netscape though, and there they are. That's the other
reason for looking at the "collage" method as an alternative to the separate
"images and text" method. Granted! It doesn't clear the problem for the
index page, or the link bars at the top and bottom of the image pages, but
it does clear the problem for the body of the image pages, where the images
are.
Click to expand...
................. It would be best all the way around for you to not continue
with the collage idea.
In fact! Were it not for that problem. We might not've considered the
collage format at all.

As for search engines not having something to index on. How big a problem
is that really. The image page is basically a template, and it's the same
for all four pages. You've got the link bars at the top and bottom, and
they're
always there.
Click to expand...
..................Now a days search engines look at 'real' text on a pge.
What changes are the dates of publication, and the content
(images and text) between the bars.

There was also something about 750 pixels being the maximum width
for a screen res of 800x600. I just rechecked the update for Dec21st
(pending) which is currently the last one using the collage format.
Looked at it in three different editors. They all showed 770 as the width.

Previewed it in both IE and Netscape. Neither required horizontal
scrolling.

As for 40 or 50k being the proper target for page size. That may be the
ideal in theory, but how realistic is it ?
Click to expand...
................. It is very realistic!!! pretty important also!
Let's assume that we go back to our normal format after that Dec 21st
update. As long as we keep the number of images on a page down to
no more than 4 or 5, we can make that bogie. If we go to 6, 7, or 8, which
we sometimes do. We're over. Sure! We can lower the quality on the
displayed images. But!! That quality is fairly low to begin with, and we
really don't want to go any lower.
Click to expand...
................. Quality counts! Optimize your original images to about 30 -
40 Kb each and then put thumbnails in the place of the large images on your
page. ............There are programs for making Thumbnails... BatchThumbs is
a good one.
Basically, we think the idea of what we're trying to accomplish here is
a good one. The problem is with the execution. As we see it there're
four issues.

1. Size in kb (of the collage) Don't do a collage!

2. Download time... Keep page file size to under 50Kb.

3. Browser Compatibility... if you do this right I think you'll be OK here.

4. Text size - As someone pointed out text must be text... not an image of
Click to expand...
text. Set the size at 12.

............. Thomas gave you a wonderful example of what can be
accomplished, but you must be will to essentially start over to get it
right.
We think we've got "text size" taken care of with that Dec21st update.
Question is. How do we resolve the other three......Izzy
Click to expand...
.............. We need to see this Dec. 21 update!
Eleanor
P.S. ... don't use Publisher any more!
Eleanor
 
Well! Can't say I like the way the pics and associated text
were repositioned. But I gotta admit. It sure as h--l looks like
the browser compatibility issue is taken care of <g>.

Regarding item 4. We actually aren't particularly concerned
with an engines ability to index the image pages. In fact, we'd
rather they didn't. Ideally, we'd prefer it if the only page they
indexed, was in fact, the "index" page. The idea being of course
that visitors to the site would start there. Read the welcome message
in the middle, Click an appropriate link on the left. Look around.
See something they like, and buy it. <shrug> Hope springs eternal.
<nother shrug>

As for thumbnails, the thing we don't like about them is the back and
forth aspect.

Click a thumbnail, look at the fullsize image, close the fullsize image,
click another thumbnail, look at that fullsize image, close that fullsize
image, click another thumbnail, etc, etc, etc. Kind of like driving through
midtown NY during rush hour, when the president's in town.

Also, maintenance of image pages (as in pages with images on them)
is a lot easier.

As for the Dec21st update! That'll go up (hopefully) on Dec 21.
Believe the text (associated with the pics) is font size 11 or 12, and even
though we're still using the pics\text collage we did get it down to less
than 125k. Still to high of course, but it beats 200+.

If steps 1 & 2 below work out ok, and we're unable to resolve the
filesize issue acceptably, we'll go back to the format we've been
using.

Thanks for the help........Izzy
 
It was just a quick layout example, just to show you how you could use
nested tables and get rid of the borders.

Have you consider using a frameset similar to the example done by Jim
Buyens, but with just plain HTML and no server-side scripting such as ASP,
etc.

http://www.interlacken.com/fp11extras/piclib/default.aspx

--

==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
WEBMASTER Resources(tm)

FrontPage Resources, Forums, WebCircle,
MS KB Quick Links, etc.
==============================================
 
Get a hold of Spawn (Jimco) that I mentioned earlier for the pop up view of
the larger photo.
 
It was just a quick layout example, just to show you how you could use
nested tables and get rid of the borders.
Understood!

Have you consider using a frameset similar to the example done by Jim
Buyens, but with just plain HTML and no server-side scripting such as ASP,
etc.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding! I haven't even got basic HTML figured out yet!!
Suppose I should look into it though.

Away for a few days, I'll look when we get back.

Does FP2002 support ASP?

news:[email protected]...
 
I'll take a look at that too. Can you resend the link?
I seem to have misplaced it......Izzy
 
Back
Top