I'm working on a webpage and have had excellent luck with it so far, I'm just having trouble getting the font to show up on IE the same as it shows on Frontpage. I've made several other changes and all the other changes took place, just not the font. I had no luck with "Frontpage Help". Any ideas?
Keep in mind also that if you use a font that is out of the mainstream or more "exotic", then it is possible that the person viewing the site won't have it on their PC. In that case, IE or any other browser will fall back to the browser default font. In other words, the way you see it on your PC and the way it is viewed on the web can end up being totally different!
So I went under "IE Help" to try to figure it out and then went Tools - Internet Option - General - Accessibility and it said this under the "fonts" button: "The fonts you select here are displayed on web pages and documents that do not have a specified text font." So maybe a better question is, since I specified a text font, why is it defaulting to Times New Roman on IE?
Also make sure you test your web pages on Firefox (I thought it looked good) however my experiences with FrontPage taught me some hard lessons. What looked good on IE (also a Microsoft Product) didn't look so hot on an Apple or other Internet software.
That brings about a good question dlock. If I were to switch to something like Dreamweaver, is it easy to update an existing site with a new type of software? You don't have to tell me how to do it, I'm just curious if it's possible. I'm basically through with my site now, but I do make updates frequently. By the way, per Ridge's question, what is Firefox?
Note to self.... Asking Devilock a question will invoke feelings of inadequacy, stupidity, and an overall lack of knowledge of computers and the English language as a whole.
Not exactly. It's more of an uncertain or confused feeling when I come to you for advice. Hmmm, should I end it all with a shotgun or a drug overdose?
Ridge & Chuck Firefox is simple to load in (and you probably will prefer it for is of use and security). Go to http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/ and choose Free Download in the upper right.
A web site done in FrontPage doesn't easily translate to Dreamweaver and vice versa. Although most programs of this type will have an import function (allowing you to pull in an existing site), my experience has been that they never work very well. Usually your best bet is to redo a site in the new program if you do switch.
Chuck, my question is why are you dumping FrontPage (other than Bill Gates being the antichrist)? My company webpage has been tweaked (minor tweaks) to look good on >95% of the web page viewers out there and it is pretty easy to do for those who do not wish to learn html. Recently my employer started talking to some web experts to see if anybody could improve the sales we are getting off the site and he quit after talking to a couple of the “Pro’s”. One told him that our site was “crap” and that for $50,000 he would make a respectable site. My boss, when he got back to his feet, asked how much more business we would get and how would we get more business, and the pro could not answer. We still get about 10 positive comments for every negative comment about our site (per my boss).
Not really looking to change. I've simply noticed that a bunch of people here prefer Dreamweaver and I just thought about it. For my use of it though, it wouldn't make a lot of sense, especially if I have to redo the whole thing. Besides, my copy of Frontpage cost me $19.95 through work.
NVU.com This is the new hot web page editor. It was originally based on the mozilla composer designed for Linux. They also have ported it to windows. The price = free. It will be the best WYSIWYG editor. www.nvu.com
Thanks for the link Pirate96. Between working on 15 other things today I downloaded the Windows version and fired up Nvu for a test drive. Nice clean interface and I liked some of the features, but it brought to mind once again why the tech people of the world leave the general users with a blank look on their faces. Open Source is great and I use a lot of it, but the open source crowd seems to always be one of the biggest offenders in this area. Their need for describing everything in geekspeak shoots them in the foot when it comes to enticing John Q. Public to use their products. (And so I dont' fall in the same trap, for anyone not familiar with the phrase, Open Source software defined is: A program in which the source code is available to the general public for use and/or modification from its original design free of charge, ie, open. Open source code is typically created as a collaborative effort in which programmers improve upon the code and share the changes within the community.) A few examples. First, on the front page of the Nvu site they state: "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 (pronounced N-view, for a "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." While I'm familiar with marketing hype and copy writing, that statement is very misleading. From the minute I fired up my downloaded copy of Nvu, I could guarantee that any HTML newbie's eyes would glaze over if they got this program expecting to "create web pages and manage a website with no technical expertise or knowledge of HTML." This fact is highlighted when you check out their page entitled "Why You Should Switch to Nvu". I quote: Nvu is based on Gecko , the layout engine inside Mozilla ; it's a super-fast, very reliable, standards conformant engine maintained on a daily basis by a wide community of developers. Its remarkable support of XML, CSS and JavaScript offers the best authoring platform on the market. Its architecture based on XUL makes it the most extensible editing tool ever. Alright!! Now THAT should prove that it's made for the non-technical masses, right!?! :roll: That's what I mean about shooting themselves in the foot. Your casual user who might consider the product based on that first paragraph is going to cough up a furball as soon as they start reading about the Mozilla layout engine, support of XML, CSS and XUL!! The IT industry for the most part flat out SUCKS at getting down to the users level and make the constant mistake of describing FEATURES rather than BENEFITS. As for Nvu itself, I can see using it for my own work...like I said, nice clean interface. However, unless I missed it, it doesn't do the one thing I expect a WISIWYG editor be able to do...and that is to pick up any element on the page with your mouse pointer and drop it where you want it...totally free form layout. I think the one product on the market that does this best, plus has a superior page and site management system is NetObjects. For anyone that has ever used PageMaker for print layouts, Netobjects work style will be completely familiar to them. http://www.netobjects.com/products/html/nof8.html BTW, Netobjects SUCKS also when it comes to describing their product! Should be a law that any acronymn used in a product description must be fully defined in daily conversational terms, not geekspeak! Ok, I've finished beating up on my industry. :wink:
Agree 100% Webbie, I agree that is one problem with open source. You can't beat the price though. My biggest problem with any program that says (What You See Is What You Get) most people will never figure it out. If you try to make it easy for anyone that can start a computer it becomes unflexible for the above average user.
