Creating Web Pages using Word

  • Thread starter Thread starter jameserothery
  • Start date Start date
J

jameserothery

I'm a Mac user - I have Office 2004, I guess that means nothing to PC
users, but I use Word to create web pages, and will do so until I can
get something good and proper. I would use FrontPage except there is no
Mac version.

This may just be a Mac thing, but no matter what font I choose, some
letters appear screwed up ....I 've tried a number of fonts. I would
like to use Arial or Veranda but no success. Nor any luck with Comic
Sans or Helvetica ( I think thats a Mac font). Can nayone suggest a
web/Word/Mac friendly font?

Ideas? Suggestions? And yes, I am saving up for Dreamwaver

thanks!
 
I edited a friend's site one afternoon with Word. Pee-eww! - that really
..... um, well, it's sucks like a Kirby! But I can tell you her fonts were
okay.

There are a few fonts that are considered "web-safe". Comic is one of them.
And Helvetica/Arial is too. No clue why yours got all boogered up.

My advice would be to hold off creating websites until you can get something
else. If you have to use Word, then maybe it's a Mac thing. Did you check
with the web host?
 
Have a look at http://cvs.nvu.com/index.php:

"Nvu (pronounced N-view)
Finally! A complete Web Authoring System for Linux desktop users as well as
Microsoft Windows and Macintosh users to rival programs like FrontPage and
Dreamweaver. Nvu (which stands for "new view") makes managing a web site a
snap. Now anyone can create web pages and manage a website with no
technical expertise or knowledge of HTML."

Nvu is free and open source.
 
Robert said:
Have a look at http://cvs.nvu.com/index.php:

"Nvu (pronounced N-view)
Finally! A complete Web Authoring System for Linux desktop users as
well as Microsoft Windows and Macintosh users to rival programs like
FrontPage and Dreamweaver. Nvu (which stands for "new view") makes
managing a web site a snap. Now anyone can create web pages and
manage a website with no technical expertise or knowledge of HTML."

Nvu is free and open source.
Click to expand...
....

CAUTION: NVU has been stranded for almost two years now. It IS good for
basic html, but ... beware the more complex functions. Before you use it,
go to their forum and read up on it. There's also a list of bugs someplace
on the site - well worth your time. It's no Dreamweaver or Fusion, but it
is usable for the most part. Do not use its ftp abilities for uploading;
it's buggy; use your own ftp program. And don't be too surprised that it
rewrites and reformats the code you write and numbers lines improperly.

If it's design is "alive" again, great; otherwise I'd stay away from NVU
unless you're still learning HTML. YOu'll also want tidy.exe to go with it.

HTH
Pop`
 
To be honest, I personally never used Nvu. I suggested it only because it
is free, Mac compatible, and some people seem to be quite happy with it.
As far as I am concerned, I would never use a WYSIWYG application to create
a Web page. All the WYSIWYG applications that I tried in the past create
Web pages with tons of unnecessary extra code. I am probably slightly
obsessional about this, but I like my code to be neat and tidy. I only use
a pure text editor with a clipboard utility to paste ready-made HTML tags
and code snippets. You only have to know or learn which code to use to
achieve the desired effect...
 
Hi James,

For help with your actual problem--you'll need to define what you mean by
"screwed up". Appear screwed up in Word HTML view, or when you load the
page online? Then provide a link to the page. On your machine or on all
machines? In all browsers? Is there a pattern to the letters that appeared
screwed up?

Arial, Verdana should be should be safe web fonts. So is Times New Roman,
you might test that.

One of the main problems with using Word for web pages is that it's near
impossible to troubleshoot, since Word doesn't actually build web pages, but
instead stores all the information it would need to reconstruct a Word
document from the HTML format. Most people don't understand, or care to
understand, the arcane process by which that is done. Word offers many
features that browsers simply won't understand/replicate.

Re creating webpages:

I'd go with Nvu, at least for now--I've looked at it briefly and it's
certainly no worse than Word, free, and it will help you get a basic
understanding of HTML to transfer into a more sophisticated app, as *any*
WYWIWYG program is easier to use if you can switch into code view and
understand what is going on.

There are a bunch of Mac web apps--many people recommend RapidWeaver, I
think. Ask over on the MacWord group. I'm pretty happy with Dreamweaver on
my Mac, but I get education discounts (and I'm not sanguine about what Adobe
will do to the next version of Dreamweaver).

PS. There are Mac Office dedicated newsgroups, which are probably a better
place to post your question.

See here for Google/Entourage gateway to newsgroups for MacWord, MacExcel,
and other MS programs for the Mac:
<http://www.microsoft.com/mac/community/community.aspx?pid=newsgroups>

More info on using Newsgroups:
<http://word.mvps.org/MacWordNew/AccessNewsgroups.htm>
(hit refresh a few times in Safari, or use a different browser)

Hope that helps,
 
Not to be a PIA, but rather to add some relevant information here:

Daiya said:
Hi James,
....

One of the main problems with using Word for web pages is that it's
near impossible to troubleshoot, since Word doesn't actually build
web pages, but instead stores all the information it would need to
reconstruct a Word document from the HTML format.
Click to expand...

Not quite: You're splitting hairs with "doesn't actually build web pages"
because it in fact does, and it saves them to disk in perfectly readable AND
edittable format by Word or any other text editor. In Word, you can even
work directly in Source View to edit and manipulate the code. Word will
display what you wrote, complete with warts and all.
The REAL drawback to Word is:
-- It was not intended for Web pages; it was intended for intranet usages.
-- In versions past Word97, it places a huge amount of PERSONAL information
into the file which should NOT be placed on a web site! That's because it's
intended to be used on the intranet, not the web or internet, whatever you
wish to call it yourself. There, it makes sense, but not on a web site.

Most people don't
understand, or care to understand, the arcane process by which that
is done. Word offers many features that browsers simply won't
understand/replicate.
Click to expand...

You are misunderstanding. In HTML design mode, Word writes very capable
code, including xml, albeit pretty bloated, but again it's not intended for
the web. That said however, ALL of the major browsers read Word's code very
well, especially IE of course. In fact, the whole Office suite can write
pretty good and usable by browsers, code. There are a very few things that
the latest version of Word cannot do. What you said is just plain
inaccurate.
Re creating webpages:

I'd go with Nvu, at least for now--I've looked at it briefly and it's
certainly no worse than Word, free, and it will help you get a basic
understanding of HTML to transfer into a more sophisticated app, as
*any* WYWIWYG program is easier to use if you can switch into code
view and understand what is going on.
Click to expand...

I could agree with that, as long as the bugs are understood: e.g. incorrect
centering, re-write/re-positioning of code, odd code structure, intermittant
browser calls, unreliable ftp abilities, incorrect line numbering for
troubleshooting, and so on. As I said before, it would be OK if one reads
and understands the bug list first. And keep in mind it's dormant and maybe
even dead w/r to further development. Yes, I used NVU; until it went
dormant.

Regards,

Pop`
 
Robert said:
To be honest, I personally never used Nvu. I suggested it only
because it is free, Mac compatible, and some people seem to be quite
happy with it. As far as I am concerned, I would never use a WYSIWYG
application to create a Web page. All the WYSIWYG applications that I
tried in the past create Web pages with tons of unnecessary extra
code. I am probably slightly obsessional about this, but I like my
code to be neat and tidy. I only use a pure text editor with a
clipboard utility to paste ready-made HTML tags and code snippets.
You only have to know or learn which code to use to achieve the
desired effect...
Click to expand...

All good points. And the other thing to keep in mind is that no wsywyg can
actually show you the differences in the ways different browsers will
display pages. What looks fine in one might look pretty messed up in
another and vice-versa. It's best to have at least IE and NS on board for
testing purposes.

Regards,

Pop`
 
Hi Pop,

Not to be a PIA, but rather to add some relevant information here:

Daiya Mitchell wrote:

Not quite: You're splitting hairs with "doesn't actually build web pages"
because it in fact does, and it saves them to disk in perfectly readable AND
edittable format by Word or any other text editor.
Click to expand...

Right, that was sloppy writing.
You are misunderstanding. In HTML design mode, Word writes very capable
code, including xml, albeit pretty bloated, but again it's not intended for
the web. That said however, ALL of the major browsers read Word's code very
well, especially IE of course. In fact, the whole Office suite can write
pretty good and usable by browsers, code. There are a very few things that
the latest version of Word cannot do. What you said is just plain
inaccurate.
Click to expand...

Actually, you missed my point, or I wasn't clear. Many people using Word
for web pages seem to expect the *Word*-specific features to transfer over
into HTML, and I'm basing this on questions posted by people on these
newsgroups. For instance, Font Scaling, Kerning, I think I've seen someone
ask about section breaks, people ask where their columns went because they
wanted side by side text.... Word offers many features that browsers simply
won't understand/replicate.

I suspect that if you use the HTML mode of Word to design webpages, what you
get is pretty much what you see. However, the impression I get (again, from
questions posted here), is that most people design their webpages-to-be in
the regular modes of Word, not in HTML mode, and that they expect the full
range of Word tools to be available to them, which is simply not the case.

PS. A quick test suggests that HTML mode does not hide such features as
columns, but that applying them to an HTML doc does nothing.
 
No need to apologize, especially since I *was* sloppy. Anyhow, can there be
any such thing as unsolicited advice on a public platform where one asks
thousands of strangers for help? :)

Daiya
 
Back
Top