Slightly OT.. why is it so...

  • Thread starter Thread starter E. T. Culling
  • Start date Start date
E

E. T. Culling

..... that in 2002 and v.2003 it says that you can Insert Pictures from
Scanner or Camera. There are so many beginners out there who don't seem to
know that images have to be 'made ready' to use in an image editing program
.... if nothing more than to crop, resize and optimize (this being the most
important). Then these images need to be imported into the proper folder
within the site before being placed on a page. Let's not lead these folks
into image problems!!!
I also noticed that Hover Buttons are not an option in FP 2003 ... thank
heavens! We've answered so many questions here about why they don't work!!!
I see that Position Absolutely is still available .... another trap, for
sure.
And finally.... almost every day folks ask about problems with the Photo
Galleries and that component hasn't been changed at all (at least that's
what I read here in this forum).
Several aspects of 2003 are looking very much like capabilities that are
found in Dreamweaver .... but in v.4, not the latest version Dreamweaver MX.
(I admit there are traps in DWMX also.)
I will continue to use FP and will undoubtedly upgrade from 2002 but I also
use DWMX and think it will probably stay ahead of FP for years to come.
I hope Jim Buyens will jump into a discussion here.
Cranky Eleanor
 
There are many people who disagree with you about how FrontPage and
Dreamweaver compare with each other. For those who find Dreamweaver's
interface to be completely counter-intuitive and cluttered, FrontPage 2003
is going to be a dream come true. There are so many areas of improvement in
this version.

As to why the ability to import from scanners or a camera, FrontPage does
have rudimentary image editing tools, and regardless of what you might see
on the Internet, they do a fair job in many cases.

Hover buttons are still an option in FrontPage 2003.

Absolute positioning is vital for many Web sites, including many that I
develop at work. It's important for people to understand the limitations of
some browsers. Let's not forget that the W3C has current recommendations
for CSS 2.0 that have been out there for years. If it doesn't look right in
a particular browser, shame on that browser, not FrontPage.

--
Jim Cheshire
Jimco Add-ins
Add-ins for FrontPage 2000-2003
http://www.jimcoaddins.com
===============================
Co-author of Special Edition
Using Microsoft FrontPage 2003
 
Thanks, Jim...
Comments in-line
Jim Cheshire said:
There are many people who disagree with you about how FrontPage and
Dreamweaver compare with each other. For those who find Dreamweaver's
interface to be completely counter-intuitive and cluttered, FrontPage 2003
is going to be a dream come true. There are so many areas of improvement in
this version.
Click to expand...

(I certainly do know that the learning curve is far steeper for DW than
FP!!)
What do you consider to be the most important improvements?

As to why the ability to import from scanners or a camera, FrontPage does
have rudimentary image editing tools, and regardless of what you might see
on the Internet, they do a fair job in many cases.
Click to expand...

Definately a trap for beginners, all of whom need to learn the basics in an
image editing program. How many gazillion times have I offered my tutorial
on Using Images with FrontPage? as well as the one about Photo Galleries.
Hover buttons are still an option in FrontPage 2003.
Click to expand...

Where ... I guess I didn't look hard enough?? And aren't they considered
passé?
That's too bad since it's some MS IE browers that are the culprits here.

Absolute positioning is vital for many Web sites, including many that I
develop at work. It's important for people to understand the limitations of
some browsers. Let's not forget that the W3C has current recommendations
for CSS 2.0 that have been out there for years. If it doesn't look right in
a particular browser, shame on that browser, not FrontPage.
Click to expand...

Aren't tables much more recommended than absolute positioning?... especially
for beginners?

Eleanor
 
For me, there are many new features that are extremely important. In no
particular order:

* IntelliSense
* Split View
* New Layers functionality
* Dynamic Web Templates
* Behaviors
* Quick Tag Selector / Editor
* ASP.NET support (better than DW's)
* Page size feature for designing a page for a specific resolution

Add to that the extensibility of FrontPage (which is MUCH better than DW)
and you end up with a better package in my opinion.

Some users may be best off learning an imaging application, but not all.
For those who don't need to go that route (or don't want to), it's nice that
they have the option to use FrontPage's imaging features to their fullest.

Hover buttons are in the command well.

CSS 2.0 is quickly becoming the preferred method for layout as opposed to
tables. Also, if you are going to make full use of DHTML, if you don't
allow for positioning, you are crippling yourself. FrontPage 2003's layers
make positioning a breeze and also makes designing dynamic DHTML effects
simple without knowing any code. Pretty darn impressive if you ask me.

Let's not forget that FrontPage far exceeds any tool in site management.
Always has and always will. In my book, you can't beat FrontPage 2003 for a
Web development tool. Couple it with VS.NET for ASP.NET developers and
there's almost nothing you can't do.

--
Jim Cheshire
Jimco Add-ins
Add-ins for FrontPage 2000-2003
http://www.jimcoaddins.com
===============================
Co-author of Special Edition
Using Microsoft FrontPage 2003
 
E. T.

I concur. While FP 2003 is a big improvement over FP 2002 and especially for
the professional designer. It is quicking becoming very complex for the
beginning web designer. IMHO, the learning curve just increased for FP.
 
E. T. Culling said:
.... that in 2002 and v.2003 it says that you can Insert Pictures from
Scanner or Camera. There are so many beginners out there who don't seem to
know that images have to be 'made ready' to use in an image editing program
... if nothing more than to crop, resize and optimize (this being the most
important). Then these images need to be imported into the proper folder
within the site before being placed on a page. Let's not lead these folks
into image problems!!!
Click to expand...

I agree that this is a feature designers (new or experienced) can
abuse. However, don't you agre that's true for every command on the
menu?
I also noticed that Hover Buttons are not an option in FP 2003 ... thank
heavens! We've answered so many questions here about why they don't work!!!
I see that Position Absolutely is still available .... another trap, for
sure.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well, now there are going to be five questions a day on where
Hover Buttons went. And how to use Interactive Buttons. And how do I
make Interactive Buttons using my own picture (a gaping hole)?

Absolute positioning is another feature that new (or experienced)
designers can use or abuse. I guess they'll have to learn something.
And finally.... almost every day folks ask about problems with the Photo
Galleries and that component hasn't been changed at all (at least that's
what I read here in this forum).
Click to expand...

The features of a Photo Gallery haven't changed, but a bunch of bug
fixed are rolled in.

SlideShow mode still doesn't work with Netscape, though, so that
question will live for at least a couple more years now.
Several aspects of 2003 are looking very much like capabilities that are
found in Dreamweaver .... but in v.4, not the latest version Dreamweaver MX.
(I admit there are traps in DWMX also.)
Click to expand...

I don't own a copy of DW -- any version -- and therefore can't
comment.

It seems, however, that DW appeals to hard-core Web designers, Visual
Studio .NET appeals to hard-core Web programmers, and FrontPage
occupies the middle ground. It's also the easiest of these programs to
get started with.
I will continue to use FP and will undoubtedly upgrade from 2002 but I also
use DWMX and think it will probably stay ahead of FP for years to come.
I hope Jim Buyens will jump into a discussion here.
Cranky Eleanor
Click to expand...

The Quick Tag Selector, IMHO, is all the reason anyone should need for
upgrading. There are lots of other great features too, including
IntelliSense for HTML, but to me those are icing on the cake.

Jim Buyens
Microsoft FrontPage MVP
(e-mail address removed)
http://www.interlacken.com
Author of:
*------------------------------------------------------*
|\----------------------------------------------------/|
|| Microsoft Office FrontPage 2003 Inside Out ||
|| Microsoft FrontPage Version 2002 Inside Out ||
|| Web Database Development Step by Step .NET Edition ||
|| Troubleshooting Microsoft FrontPage 2002 ||
|| Faster Smarter Beginning Programming ||
|| (All from Microsoft Press) ||
|/----------------------------------------------------\|
*------------------------------------------------------*
 
Thank you ... I'm almost beginning to think that there should be two
versions of FrontPage... one for beginners and hobbyists and one for the
more advanced.
Eleanor
 
There are no 2003 SE.

The database features that FrontPage has offered in 2002 are still there,
but now they will also generate ASP.NET code if you choose. The ASP.NET
version uses a DataGrid that is customizable in the FP UI.

FrontPage also has UI support for editing of ASP.NET Server Controls and
IntelliSense for ASP.NET control tags.

--
Jim Cheshire
Jimco Add-ins
Add-ins for FrontPage 2000-2003
http://www.jimcoaddins.com
===============================
Co-author of Special Edition
Using Microsoft FrontPage 2003
 
Jm,

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I think that what you've been reading
might be misleading you. Do you have any specifics about it wreaking havoc
on security? I'm sure I can dispell them.

--
Jim Cheshire
Jimco Add-ins
Add-ins for FrontPage 2000-2003
http://www.jimcoaddins.com
===============================
Co-author of Special Edition
Using Microsoft FrontPage 2003
 
Jm,

The ASPNET account is a very restricted account. To worry about it is
similar to worrying about having that dang IUSR account on the machine. :)

The only rights that ASPNET has to content is RX, List Folder Contents, and
Read. That's it.

--
Jim Cheshire
Jimco Add-ins
Add-ins for FrontPage 2000-2003
http://www.jimcoaddins.com
===============================
Co-author of Special Edition
Using Microsoft FrontPage 2003
 
I followed this article last time I tried to get ASP.NET to work on IIS5 and
win2k server.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnnetsec/html/SecNetHT01.asp
I'm currently looking on msdn to see how to configure the default asp.net to
work on my website. I see in the admin tools, there's the MS .NET framework
1.1 configuration and wizard. I briefly looked at it but realize I need to
research it before I go messing around with it.

Thanks for you continued input! :-)

--
Jm
www.jmconsultingllc.com
www.jmconsultingllc.com/catalog.htm (Website Templates)
www.jmconsultingllc.com/aspforum (Brand New Free Forum)
Go Ahead, Check it out, after all, it's free!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
That's an excellent article, but not necessary to implement unless you
cannot use the ASPNET account by default. For example, if you are running
on a domain controller with the 1.0 Framework.

If you are running the .NET Framework 1.1, ASP.NET runs under the IWAM
account on a DC.

If you don't understand the security implementation of the CLR, don't mess
with the .NET Framework Configuration in Control Panel. You can severely
muck things up.

--
Jim Cheshire
Jimco Add-ins
Add-ins for FrontPage 2000-2003
http://www.jimcoaddins.com
===============================
Co-author of Special Edition
Using Microsoft FrontPage 2003
 
But Dennis, that would require people to READ. You can't get lots of these
people to click on the Help menu, let alone turn physical pages.

P.S. I've got a whole *list* of things I'm avoiding by reading newsgroups
today. ;)
 
Dennis D. said:
What (IMHO) is missing is documentation in the form of a soft cover book.
Without having two versions of the program, there could be a simplified book
and a (stiff) recommendation for an advanced document such as Jim Buyens
Inside Out included with the program. Considering the $100 to $150 cost of
the program a detailed beginners manual (read excellent source for
beginners) would do nothing but add sales which would offset the cost at
least.

Dennis D.,
DenniSys.com
Click to expand...

This has been a common complaint ever since the days that software
came with 400-page books. Even in those days, however, people still
bought third-party books, because the in-box doc was so mechanical. It
was more of a feature tool than a true, how-to manual.

Timing is another problem. Anything that comes in the box has to be
translated into dozens of local languages, and that includes screen
shots. Given today's ship cycles, this is almost impossible to achieve
on time.

Microsoft Ofice FrontPage 2003 Step by Step is the primary beginner
book, and this time there's a Faster Smarter Microsoft Orrice
FrontPage 2003 as well.

The comprehensive book is, of course, Microsoft Office FrontPage 2003
Inside Out.

You know, though, the hard part of using FrontPage really isn't the
mechanics of using hte program. The hard part is understanding what
works and what doesn't with the usual collection of browsers. For some
features, such as absolute positioning, drawings, wordart, and
SlideShow picture galleries, I often think FrontPage should display a
warning box like:

Warning!
This feature may not work correctly in the following browsers:
Internet Explorer 3
Netscape Navigator 4
Netscape Navigator 6
Netscape Navigator 7
Problem description: These browser may not position
your content in the location you expect.
Click here to stop receiving this message.
OK Cancel

This might be kind of drastic but oh well. FP2003 does have a feature
that scans an entire Web site looking for code that might be
incompatible with a given browser, using much the same procedure as
checking spelling throughout an entire Web site.

Jim Buyens
Microsoft FrontPage MVP
(e-mail address removed)
http://www.interlacken.com
Author of:
*------------------------------------------------------*
|\----------------------------------------------------/|
|| Microsoft Office FrontPage 2003 Inside Out ||
|| Microsoft FrontPage Version 2002 Inside Out ||
|| Web Database Development Step by Step .NET Edition ||
|| Troubleshooting Microsoft FrontPage 2002 ||
|| Faster Smarter Beginning Programming ||
|| (All from Microsoft Press) ||
|/----------------------------------------------------\|
*------------------------------------------------------*
 
Right as rain.
Pathetic isn't it, and that's just the tip of the iceburg when it comes to
implementing automated solutions.
Tell you what though, that 1 in 10 person who does read can accomplish the
same amount of work as the other 9 combined. Reading should be a promotion
selector in the corporate world. It would truely transform the majority of
businesses. Can you imagine a company consisting of people who read?

Translating documents:
A well written book in English would serve most people well. 3/4 of an inch
thick should do the trick even if it had to be ordered as a separate product
at a discounted price for those who buy FP. An included CD with sample code
would be a nice touch too. I got a deal like that with Corel Draw or Paint
Shop Pro (don't remember which) and was more than satisfied with the
purchase.

That's another option that should be considered. Microsoft Press could offer
a discounted price on publications for those who buy the related software.

Translations could be offered as a Microsoft download based on demand.
 
I never liked the W3C version of Internet documents which has always been a
stripped down generally ugly no frames, no tables, nothing special of any
kind model.

Seems that the model is gaining acceptance. In doing so, previous versions
of browsers are going to become quickly extinct. The browser wars seem to
have become the parser wars moving the core differences from the client to
the server, which is generally out of sight for the amateur website author.

The purpose of a site is to publish ideas. For some sites (PowerPoint like)
presentation is the focus. For some sites content (primarily narration) is
the focus. The new technological model seems to have modularized the coding
where once it took 2 or 3 separate files to display a page, now it takes 3
or 4 and the code while more logical is more lengthy.

Learning the technology is wading through obfuscation which requires
comparison and research of several sources simultaneously. I'd like to see
the Video Professor tackle the new model for website development which
combines XHTML, CSS, JavaScript, Java, and XML subjects related to the
functions of proprietary parsers.

At this point all authoring software seems to be an interim solution. It's
difficult to even start something today when the technology is changing
faster than my ability to recode the pages. I've decided to pitch the whole
thing for awhile and go camping. I'll probably be coming back to XHTML 2.1
and CSS3. I started out simply wanting to publish articles on a regular
basis. Amazing how easy it is to get sucked into the site building business
in the process.
 
Just because the W3C site is so plain and boring doesn't mean it has to be
tha way when using web standards. Take a look at http://www.csszengarden.com
The goal of that project is to create good looking pages that transcend
browser quirks.
 
Yes. I'm hoping that is where FrontPage is going because those are the types
of sites we are (re)building. If there is an additional requirement to
associate the id's with a branch of knowledge (physical science, social
science, humanities) then you get increased likelyhood of meaningful
searches (a smarter Internet). I wonder if we will be using the Dewey
Decimal System (or some other classification system, (bar code)) for id's?
Since I'm recoding my site anyway, I might just as well throw in some sort
of classification system to help the robots. (UGH. Don't read this. I just
woke up.) Have a great day.
 
Back
Top