gif include vs. overlay (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Web Development] >> Microsoft FrontPage Help



Message

Winxmaster -> gif include vs. overlay (12/18/2007 22:28:20)

Hi all,

I'm building a website using FrontPage 2002.

I'm working on my very first website and I am using tables to lay it out. I have one cell on the very left of the table that I want to put my navigation hyperlinks in.

I want to use a picture background in that cell behind my hyperlinks but I also have FP set up to build the site so it will be compatible with both IE and NN and apparently because of this the "use picture for background" area in the cell property box is grayed out.

I don't want to change the "compatible with both IE and NN " settings (because I really want the site to work well with both) so I came up with two work-arounds and would like opinions as to which is best and if you think there will be any browser compatibility issues with either method.

Method #1 is that I created a gif of the background picture with the hyperlink text on it and turned the text into hyperlink hotspots on the gif. I then put that gif, hotspots and all, onto an include page and used an include element within the cell to achieve my goals. It looks good but page load time is 26 sec. at 28.8.[:(]

Method #2 is that I used "insert" to place the picture in the cell and then layed a text box on top of it and made the box transpatent and then typed the text that I wanted to use as hyperlinks. I used positionong to move the picture to the back and to bring the text box to the front position. It looks exactly as good as method #1 with a great load time of 14 sec. at 28.8.[:D]

Unfortunately I am not as of yet hooked up to the internet (yes I know that I need to do that very quickly) so I am unable to download different browser types to view the results. As of now I can only see the results in IE and they both look the same.

How do you think that different browsers will display each of them. I have been told by the folks at the library that method #1 should look good in all browsers (slow download time and all) but that the use of overlays in method #2 could get all jumbled up.

As this is my very first website building try any help will be greatly apperciated and as a total web building neophyte please keep answers simple so my head doesn't explode again.

(It took days to clean up the first time after I opened the FP 2002 box and tried to make my first blank page come up on the screen)





swoosh -> RE: gif include vs. overlay (12/18/2007 23:34:01)

Welcome to Outfront

There is no reason to set FP to code for both browsers, especially since FireFox is not one of them. If you set your settings to custom and put in a background pic to a cell there is no reason IE, FF and NN won't show it. I know FF and IE will, and the latest version of NN does also.

Don't forget Opera either, which also has no problem with a cell background. And if your still going to use tables and one of the two options from above. I would suggest the first one.



Winxmaster -> RE: gif include vs. overlay (12/19/2007 22:22:45)

Thank you for the welcome to Outfront and for the information on my budding website.

I'll take your advise and go with the first method.

Also, do you think that a 26 sec. download time at 28.2 for a homepage is OK or too long?

Thanks again for the help and welcome.[:)]



codenamebill26 -> RE: gif include vs. overlay (1/19/2008 5:25:46)

28.8 ? does that even exist anymore in this country? chance are most people that will browse sites will be on a broadband connection and the difference in a few kb is nothing, and even if it does take 2 days for a modem user to get the page loaded chances are they will cache it, bottom line is do what makes you happy and what suits your needs, if they wanna see your page they will wait, if not then you didnt need to share your creation with them right??!??!



Tailslide -> RE: gif include vs. overlay (1/19/2008 7:57:47)


quote:

ORIGINAL: codenamebill26

28.8 ? does that even exist anymore in this country?


In what country? The OP doesn't specify which country they're from. How would you be sure where and what connection your users have? Much better to make the users' lives easier and plan ahead.

This is quite an old post to be reviving - any particular reason?



BobbyDouglas -> RE: gif include vs. overlay (1/19/2008 13:58:30)

It exists, but the number of users with that is VERY small compared to users with other connections.



treetopsranch -> RE: gif include vs. overlay (1/19/2008 21:18:51)

In Oregon, most rural residents still have dialup. We had it here at the ranch until last year when we had to bribe Qwest to install the necessary gear to bring broadband out to our area. They asked $1000 from 99 customers in order to accomplish this. Some contributed but not all. Qwest said it would cost $60,000 to $80,000 to install their broadband equipment but when they started they found that the lines from the city were shot and had to be replaced also. That explained why we were getting intermittent service when on dial up. It took them 3 months to accomplish the task and I expect that it cost them way more than the stated price.




d a v e -> RE: gif include vs. overlay (1/20/2008 6:23:06)

Don: hmm but is that 56k dialup or 28.8?!



codenamebill26 -> RE: gif include vs. overlay (1/20/2008 6:44:49)

thanks Dave , i think most cell phones even have a better connection than a 28.8...... if i lived in the sticks i think i would look into a satellite connection......................



treetopsranch -> RE: gif include vs. overlay (1/20/2008 10:24:07)

Dave - 28.8k



womble -> RE: gif include vs. overlay (1/20/2008 11:05:38)


quote:

ORIGINAL: codenamebill26
bottom line is do what makes you happy and what suits your needs, if they wanna see your page they will wait, if not then you didnt need to share your creation with them right??!??!


If for nothing else than lacking common sense, the above advice isn't really worth wasting screen space and pixels on, or your time reading it.

Hardly the way to win friends and influence people really, is it? If it's a business site, you can't afford for your site to take an age to load because your potential customer's just gone and tried the next site down the road that does load quickly. Even if it's not a business site, you've just lost a page view, and if you're bothering to put a site up, then it's all a little pointless not to be concerned about how your site's going to look to visitors.

If you're following that line of thinking why not go the whole hog and just slap a "Best viewed with a broadband connection using Internet Explorer at something a hell of a lot bigger than 800 x 600 resolution"? Or if you really don't care if people don't see it, why not bother putting it on the web at all?

Anyways, back to the OP and the original query - method #2's much better IMO because with method #1 your text's part of the images that are slowing up the load time. It's better for anyone using assistive technology to have plain text, and if someone surfing without graphics turned on (which someone on a slow dial-up connection may do), they still get the navigation while the rest of the graphics are loading.

Of course an even better way for your layout's to learn a little basic CSS (and there are plenty of sites offering free CSS navigation) and use a styled list for your navigation. CSS navigation doesn't have to be boring, as Stu Nicholls' CSSPlay site shows (always worth checking out for insiration), and if you lose the table layout for your navigation and if it's near the beginning of the page in your source code, your navigation's going to load before the rest of your table layout.

Trying to get your page size and load times down is well worth the effort - people are more likely to want to stick around your site if each page doesn't take an age to load, as well as saving you server space and bandwidth as well.





Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0625