Save 10% On Pictar Home Studio Pro Photography Kits With Code: EPHOTOZINE10

Microsoft Front Page


DAVID LYDIATE 18 305
21 Dec 2006 11:04AM
I was having difficulties inserting Jpegs (originaly created in the digital camera) into front page.

After several attempts at working out what was wrong, I arrieved at the following conclusion below, yet I still do not understand this conclusion, can anyone explain it?

“If using a Jpeg direct from the camera, the image comes out as a square x when inserting it in “front page”, after the size has been altered, yet if you go to a preview on the same page the image shows as it would do as a webpage. Remember when modifying the image in Photoshop, load up the front page file again or the image will appear too big when inserting it”
"Files scanned in come out as no square and always show"

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Morpyre Plus
15 1.6k 8 Wales
21 Dec 2006 1:02PM
my best advice is save up and buy macromedia dreamweaver as soon as possible - frontpage is the most abysmal attempt at a web design program ever released on the market - it is so full of glitches and errors and just like your image problem that is just one of many - the other extremely annoying thing about it is that it keeps inserting frontpage specific html coding that isn't recognised by anything.

if you want a non working continous problem website then use frontpage - if you want a decent website use anything else - even just using windows notepad and typing all the code is a better choice.

i worked as the designer at a company back in about '98 and they gave me frontpage to use - i spent more time each day correcting the conding errors so barely had any actual time for concepting my design idea's

peter "morpyre" turner
Tandberg 17 1.2k 2 England
21 Dec 2006 1:16PM
Well i use front page for my web site and have no problem at all!!
And they are all J pegs too
Odd that one
Dave
DiegoDesigns 14 117 6 United Kingdom
21 Dec 2006 1:38PM
I found this on the Microsoft site, it might help.

Dave
Delphin 13 2
21 Dec 2006 1:46PM
I've been using frontpage on my site for 7 years and never had a problem.

If your using jpeg straight from the camera they are going to be very large files and may be taking too long to load, have your tried to resize them?


peter "morpyre" turner
If you'd learned to use frontpage you would have found there is an option to stop frontpage changing any hand coded pages. Also frontpage today is not the same product as it was 8 years ago.
AnthonyM 15 428 2 United States
21 Dec 2006 3:13PM
I am guessing you may be resizing without keeping the aspect ratio. In general you should not be resizing the displayed image via HTML control. If you have a 8Mpixel image and use HTML to resize to a 100pixel image, the end user is still going to download the full 8Mpixel image before it is displayed in its tiny form.

Front page has a nifty tool to auto-generate thumbnails with links to the full sized image. A second small version of the image is actually created for the thumbnail.
This is much more efficient for the end user.

Maybe you already know all this and I'll shut up now, but if not give that a whirl.
janecurrie 17 46 Scotland
21 Dec 2006 3:26PM
I use Frontpage and find it a very handy program, easy to use and understand.. not like some others I have looked at.

The red crosses appear when the program is looking in the wrong place for the image.. the 'path' has to be right.. it has to point to where the image is stored on your computer and you should really resize them first.. I find it easier that way.. hope that helps.. probably not.. but I try anyhow Smile

Jane x
mdpontin 16 6.0k Scotland
21 Dec 2006 7:38PM

Quote:Also frontpage today is not the same product as it was 8 years ago.


It certainly had room for improvement. Does it produce standards-compliant HTML these days? I believe it used to be notorious for generating pages that only rendered properly in IE.

Mind you, I started out using Notepad as my HTML editor, so I doubt if my early efforts complied with all that many standards! These days I use Dreamweaver.

Doug
Morpyre Plus
15 1.6k 8 Wales
21 Dec 2006 10:11PM
all those years ago when i was using frontpage i was still very much a notepad html coder - i had the patience then to type it all out =) frontpage made site designing a bit more convenient - i became aware of the improvements microsoft were making to it but by that time dreamweaver appeared on the scene.
when dreamweaver appeared i pretty much stopped using anything else - i like the feature of dreamweaver where you can use either totally code view, part code and part graphic or entirely graphic view. great fun working with it and flash alongside each other.
the red x instead of an image is caused by wrong file path - i get that with dreamweaver at times when i move files and suddenly remember it's changed the path.

peter "morpyre" turner
last ten 15 416 Isle of Man
21 Dec 2006 10:59PM
I use Front Page and it is very simple and effective for what I need it for! If you want bells and whistles then Dreamweaver is probably for you.

It all boils down to what you want to do with your website!?

My advice, for any website is keep it simple and Front Page certainly fulfills my needs at the moment.

Peter
mdpontin 16 6.0k Scotland
22 Dec 2006 10:36AM

Quote:If you want bells and whistles then Dreamweaver is probably for you.

It all boils down to what you want to do with your website!?



I wouldn't say that. Dreamweaver is perhaps overkill for many people, but then it's aimed more at professional web designers. It includes tools for managing the site development project including working within a team. It isn't about bells and whistles.

There are probably good alternatives to Frontpage for those not needing something as comprehensive as Dreamweaver. Some members of this forum have mentioned free web design software which they were very happy with.

Doug

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.