MD
Fri Jan 02 08:15:38 CST 2004
The bottom line is that CSS based menus are faster and it is easier to
change the attributes of the menu, eg, background color, etc. CLBMM was born
out of necessity on our own web site, as our FP Custom Link Bars grew larger
the page display time also grew substanually thus we developed CLBMM. The
page that you copied was not created by CLBMM as stated above our web site
needed something different so we manually created some CSS based link menus
but soon decided that we needed a tool to convert our FP Custom Link Bars to
CSS base menus and CLBMM was born.
As for the refresh, a refresh does not re-download the image if it is
present in the cache. It will send a request to see if there is a newer
image, provided your using IE's default setting. I believe the same is true
of NS 6 and greater.
To your points:
1. Sure if the image is optimized then the download will be smaller, but it
still does not remove the need to open the file, render the image on the
page, and close the file. Also, is your point here to say that Interactive
Buttons are optimized versus Theme buttons? I don't believe they are. BTW,
if you want a custom Interactive Button like that used in a theme then
you'll need to create the button images (6 images) and support files, e.g.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555010 I just
noticed that you're the author of this article, very nicely done. But you
still have a bit of work ahead of you that is not required by CSS based
buttons / menus that are produced by CLBMM.
2. But that is on a single button by button case,e.g. , if you wish to
change the font for all the buttons in an IB navigation system you must
modify each button individually, your page would require 30 such
interactions. In the case of the menu you produced,
http://sbrenjoy.bizland.com/sample/Include_Images.htm , to change the
background color of the buttons one would have to create the base images (6
images), copy and modify the ibutton.xml file to reference the new buttons
and their attributes, then replace all 30 Interactive Buttons.
3. I don't have an example but I'll see if I can create one and post it.
4. Okay but the effects are the same.
5. Possible. As stated above not all menus on our site were accomplished
with CLBMM I know that page was not as it was one of the first pages
converted to CSS menus.
I only have one thing else to say "What's your time worth?"
--
Mike -- FrontPage MVP '97-'02
http://www.websunlimited.com
FrontPage Add-ins Since '97 2003 / 2002 / 2000 Compatible
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
If you think I'm doing a good job, let MS know at mvpga@microsoft.com
"Stefan B Rusynko" <sbr_enjoy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OZzz7jR0DHA.2160@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Good points, but IMHO it's still a general Web Design issue the web
developer needs to make trade offs on (just like users need to
> be aware of the pitfalls of using JAVA Hoovers)
> And yes often the "generic" stuff FP uses from themes can be unwieldy,
> - that's why I chose the New FP2003 Interactive Buttons as a comparison
basis so users could have some quantitative information upon
> which to make their choice
>
> And w/ all the bandwidth multiple channel feed issues of the internet, for
a page that small it's almost impossible to compare
> subsequent load times
> As for using a Refresh, that negates the benefits of image caching, so of
course there will be a 3x factor (same times as initial
> load)
>
> To your points
>
> 1) All depends on the source of the button images
> - most theme buttons are not optimized at all and are very large
> But even the "ugly' buttons from a theme in your demo page at
http://www.fpplus.com/order/Product/CssMenu/Compareboth.htm only adds
> ~ 15 kb of images to the page (if I get a chance I will convert it to
Interactive Buttons to look exactly like your CSS ones)
> 2) Interactive button changes are just several clicks to change
> - if there is an existing button to select it's 1 double click and select
a new image 9for each) the save the page (much longer if
> you have to create your own custom buttons)
> 3) Don't necessarily agree
> - if you create custom IB you can create exactly the effect you have
(offset text), plus a 3rd state
> 4) Did that () just to keep the links consistent
> 5) I just saved
http://www.websunlimited.com/order/Include_Products.htm in
FP (which probably added the <tbody> tags
>
> I just opened
http://www.websunlimited.com/order/Include_Products.htm in
NN4.79 and got no links
> Whereas in
http://www.websunlimited.com/order/Product/CssMenu/ProductCSSMenu.htm
> the links do work but selecting 1st one takes me to
http://www.websunlimited.com/order/features_and_benefits.htm (which does not
> work)
> - so my comments on NN compatibility is solely based on your main site
page
>
> I agree that stopping support for older browsers is way past due
> (now if we could just get all the clowns insisting on open source in govt
agencies to upgrade to at least NN6)
>
> _____________________________________________
> SBR @ ENJOY (-: [ Microsoft MVP - FrontPage ]
> "Warning - Using the F1 Key will not break anything!" (-;
> To find the best Newsgroup for FrontPage support see:
>
http://www.net-sites.com/sitebuilder/newsgroups.asp
> _____________________________________________
>
>
> "MD WebsUnlimited.com" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:%23ag9V9N0DHA.2328@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> | Hi Stefan,
> |
> | First I agree with your analysis based upon download volume but I have
an
> | exception in that it is missing a vital piece of information, the
rendering
> | of the graphic images that make up the link bar. Even if the image
files
> | are preloaded, they must be rendered on the screen which is a time
consuming
> | process. Also, it does not take into account that the image files must
be
> | opened and closed from the disk media. Even with my high speed video
card
> | with 256 mb there is a very noticeable difference in the rendering of
the
> | two menus. View them both then do a refresh the CSS menu are at least
three
> | times faster.
> |
> | Second, CSS menu links are downward compatible with NS 4.x. The page in
your
> | example has another problem that is not related to our product (see
notes).
> | If you view the page at
> |
http://www.websunlimited.com/order/Product/CssMenu/ProductCSSMenu.htm in
NS
> | 4.x you'll see that the links are fully functional even though the menu
does
> | display a little differently in NS 4.x.
> |
> | While on the subject of NS 4.x it is my view that web designers should
> | follow the lead of the major web sites, e.g.,
http://www.espn.com, and
stop
> | designing for NS 4.x compatibility. The percentage of visitors that
utilize
> | NS 4.x is so small that it does not justify the effort required to
support
> | it. Instead direct and help those visitors that continue to utilize it.
The
> | next versions (2) are "FREE" and will run on older systems, so what is
the
> | problem? Answer, web designers. ;>)
> |
> | Notes:
> | 1. One of the major purposes of CSS Link Bar Menu Maker (CLBMM) is
replace
> | Custom Link Bars that use images. The image files are normally much
larger
> | that those created with Interactive Buttons.
> |
> | 2. Interactive buttons have to be created one at a time. If you need to
> | change the background color of the button then you'll have to reproduce
the
> | entire set of buttons again.
> |
> | 3. There are affects that you can achieve with CSS Link Bar menus that
you
> | can not with FP Interactive buttons.
> |
> | 4. The use of a <base target="_blank" > can affect NS 4.7 as shown in
your
> | example.
> |
> | 5. The CSS table that you sourced was not authored by CLBMM. We have
never
> | utilized the <tbody> tag that is included in your example.
> |
> |
> | An aside, I've created the page
> |
http://www.fpplus.com/order/Product/CssMenu/Compareboth.htm so that you
can
> | see the two menus side by side. This is not an exercise in making the
menus
> | look the same, which is very easy to do, but to show that there is a
speed
> | difference using CSS over the FP Custom Link Bar produced with images.
Also,
> | it must be noted that the FP Custom Link Bar has the advantage on the
page
> | as it is first in the top to bottom stream of HTML.
> |
> | --
> | Mike -- FrontPage MVP '97-'02
> |
http://www.websunlimited.com
> | FrontPage Add-ins Since '97 2003 / 2002 / 2000 Compatible
>
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> | --------------------
> | If you think I'm doing a good job, let MS know at mvpga@microsoft.com
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> | "Stefan B Rusynko" <sbr_enjoy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | news:%23xVYOgI0DHA.2680@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> | > Mike
> | >
> | > What you say about using pure Html/CSS vs. Html/Images (w/ image
preloads)
> | for any navigation is Fair and true,
> | > But it is a problem and trade off in all HTML web design, not just FP
> | > (since adding multiple images for different states will be always
generate
> | larger downloads)
> | >
> | > For your sample page (main page plus 29 links),
> | > - if you replace your sample nav bar (on the left) w/ 2 state images
using
> | FP2003 Interactive Buttons
> | >
> | > The initial page to preload all the images will be an ~320% total
larger
> | download (15KB vs. 50KB),
> | > But the penalty is only about 21% (or 3KB) for all remaining pages,
since
> | the preloaded images are cached and not reloaded again
> | > - so the "net" penalty of using 2 state Images vs. CSS is only about
30%
> | (~4KB) for all 30 pages
> | > For a comparison see
http://sbrenjoy.bizland.com/sample/ and the 2
linked
> | pages
> | >
> | > The up side is the Images & Hyperlinks will work in all browsers
> | > (w/ only the rollover effects lost in NN4.7x),
> | > But w/ CSS (using the styles in your template) in NN4.7x you not only
lose
> | the rollovers,
> | > but All Hyperlinks are lost (and it definitely causes NN4.7x some
"pain"
> | in loading the page)
> | > (I also suspect that may be the case in MAC browsers)
> | >
> | > CSS is a valid approach as an alternative to Images for navigation,
but
> | users should also be aware of the relative size comparisons
> | > and potential consequences (like loss of navigation in some browsers
due
> | to lack or CSS support)
> | >
> | > --
> | >
> | > _____________________________________________
> | > SBR @ ENJOY (-: [ Microsoft MVP - FrontPage ]
> | > "Warning - Using the F1 Key will not break anything!" (-;
> | > To find the best Newsgroup for FrontPage support see:
> | >
http://www.net-sites.com/sitebuilder/newsgroups.asp
> | > _____________________________________________
> | >
> | >
> | > "MD WebsUnlimited.com" <none@none.com> wrote in message
> | news:uqrkyj$zDHA.3468@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> | > | Hi Joe Cool,
> | > |
> | > | FP link bars using images are extremely slow. You may wish to take a
> | look at
> | > | J-Bots CSS Link Bar Maker
> | > |
http://www.websunlimited.com/order/Product/CssMenu/css_menu.htm
> | > | --
> | > | Mike -- FrontPage MVP '97-'02
> | > |
http://www.websunlimited.com
> | > | FrontPage Add-ins Since '97 2003 / 2002 / 2000 Compatible
> | >
> |
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> | --
> | > | --------------------
> | > | If you think I'm doing a good job, let MS know at
mvpga@microsoft.com
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | "Joe Cool" <Joe@cool.com> wrote in message
> | > | news:bsqci7$3nd$1@daisy.noc.ucla.edu...
> | > | > I've created a new linkbar in a shared border.
> | > | > I've "added links" by browsing for the htm files.
> | > | > The buttons are titled with the file names (service_new.htm)
rather
> | than
> | > | the
> | > | > cosmetic Page Propery Name (Services). When using a default
linkbar
> | the
> | > | > buttons show the Page Property name of the file.
> | > | > Any thoughts on how to get these custom links to display the
cosmetic
> | file
> | > | > name.
> | > | >
> | > | > MB
> | > | >
> | > | >
> | > |
> | > |
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
>
>