Image "Red x-ing" Out

[John Hoagland]

Greetings,

In FP2003, an image appears on my hosting web page as an image "red x-ing"
out.

Many other images are properly pulled to the page.

The only change seems to be that tech support says I am approaching my
traffic limit (this my preventing full uploads peeviously).

Any suggestions?

John

 

[Thomas A. Rowe]

Right click on the Red-X and the view the properties, does the path to the image actually point to
the image?

--
==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
==============================================
If you feel your current issue is a results of installing
a Service Pack or security update, please contact
Microsoft Product Support Services:
http://support.microsoft.com
If the problem can be shown to have been caused by a
security update, then there is usually no charge for the call.
==============================================

 

[John Hoagland]

Thomas,

Properties shows the proper path, I believe.

However, "not available" is indicated for properties: type, size, created
and modified.

John

 

[Thomas A. Rowe]

If "not available" is shown, then the path is not correct. Can you provide a URL to a page with a
missing image?

--
==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
==============================================
If you feel your current issue is a results of installing
a Service Pack or security update, please contact
Microsoft Product Support Services:
http://support.microsoft.com
If the problem can be shown to have been caused by a
security update, then there is usually no charge for the call.
==============================================

 

[Murray]

Or the image is not there.

 

[Thomas A. Rowe]

Which means (to me) that the is image is not there.

--
==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
==============================================
If you feel your current issue is a results of installing
a Service Pack or security update, please contact
Microsoft Product Support Services:
http://support.microsoft.com
If the problem can be shown to have been caused by a
security update, then there is usually no charge for the call.
==============================================

 

[John Hoagland]

Thomas,

http://www.b-v-i.com/

John

If "not available" is shown, then the path is not correct. Can you provide a URL to a page with a
missing image?

--
==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
==============================================
If you feel your current issue is a results of installing
a Service Pack or security update, please contact
Microsoft Product Support Services:
http://support.microsoft.com
If the problem can be shown to have been caused by a
security update, then there is usually no charge for the call.
==============================================

 

[Thomas A. Rowe]

From within FP, rename (remove the &) the image file from:

Pirates&PrivateersLogoB2.jpg

to

PiratesPrivateersLogoB2.jpg

then re-publish.

--
==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
==============================================
If you feel your current issue is a results of installing
a Service Pack or security update, please contact
Microsoft Product Support Services:
http://support.microsoft.com
If the problem can be shown to have been caused by a
security update, then there is usually no charge for the call.
==============================================

 

[John Hoagland]

Thomas,

Great! That did it.

Thanks,
John

From within FP, rename (remove the &) the image file from:

Pirates&PrivateersLogoB2.jpg

to

PiratesPrivateersLogoB2.jpg

then re-publish.

--
==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
==============================================
If you feel your current issue is a results of installing
a Service Pack or security update, please contact
Microsoft Product Support Services:
http://support.microsoft.com
If the problem can be shown to have been caused by a
security update, then there is usually no charge for the call.
==============================================

 

[Guest]

Frames are not very popular with viewers

 

[Bob Lehmann]

Why do you say that? Do you have a resource you can cite?

I'm guessing that users pretty much don't know, and / or don't care if a
sites done in frames - I know I don't care if a site is done with frames.

Developers, on the other hand, usually hate frames if any scripting is
involved.

Bob Lehmann

 

[Murray]

The reason for using or not using frames should be based on a) your site's
needs, and b) your willingness to accept the potential problems that frames
can create for you as developer and maintainer of the site and for your
visitors as casual users of the site.

I am down on frames because I believe that they create many more problems
than they solve.
Judging from the posts here, and the kinds of problems that are described,
the kind of person most likely to elect to use frames is also the kind of
person most likely ill-prepared fo solve the ensuing problems when they
arise. If you feel a) that you understand the problems and b) that you are
prepared to handle them when they occur, and c) that you have a need to use
frames, then by all means use them.

As far as I know, the most comprehensive discussions of frames and their
potential problems can be found on these two links -

http://apptools.com/rants/framesevil.php
http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/frames/

 

[Bob Lehmann]

I fully understand your views, and agree that more problems are created than
solved by using frames. However, your points are mostly from the perspective
of the developer, not the "viewer".

Dan's claim was that frames are "not popular with viewers". I think most
"viewers" don't have an opinion one way or another.

Bob Lehmann

 

[Murray]

There are two kinds of framed sites -

those made with finesse by those who understand frames
those not made with finesse...

Viewers do not like the latter. They are annoying, puzzling, and
unfriendly. The wrong frame prints. The wrong frame bookmarks (in some
browsers). Scrollbars pop up in unexpected places. Sometimes it is even
impossible to navigate the site because the creator has brilliantly disabled
scrollbars attempting to deal with the previous problem, and forgetting that
some people may need them.

In truth, there are only a limited number of situations where frames can be
justified -

1. To obfuscate the URI
2. To have Flash/sound playing continuously throughout the visit without
resetting on each linked page
3. To have a horizontally and vertically centered letterbox site (although
this is possible with non-framed techniques)
4. To have a master/detail arrangement with a scrolling array of options
and a detail frame for each option clicked

All other 'justifications" (in my opinion) are specious, and either don't
need to be considered, or can be achieved perfectly well on flat pages built
with good methods and techniques.

But, whatever validates your code, so to speak....

 

[Rob Giordano \(Crash\)]

My personal viewer viewpoint: If they done correctly I don't mind, but if I
can't bookmark a page or navigate properly I'm outta there.


|I fully understand your views, and agree that more problems are created
than
| solved by using frames. However, your points are mostly from the
perspective
| of the developer, not the "viewer".
|
| Dan's claim was that frames are "not popular with viewers". I think most
| "viewers" don't have an opinion one way or another.
|
| Bob Lehmann
|
| | > The reason for using or not using frames should be based on a) your
site's
| > needs, and b) your willingness to accept the potential problems that
| frames
| > can create for you as developer and maintainer of the site and for your
| > visitors as casual users of the site.
| >
| > I am down on frames because I believe that they create many more
problems
| > than they solve.
| > Judging from the posts here, and the kinds of problems that are
described,
| > the kind of person most likely to elect to use frames is also the kind
of
| > person most likely ill-prepared fo solve the ensuing problems when they
| > arise. If you feel a) that you understand the problems and b) that you
| are
| > prepared to handle them when they occur, and c) that you have a need to
| use
| > frames, then by all means use them.
| >
| > As far as I know, the most comprehensive discussions of frames and their
| > potential problems can be found on these two links -
| >
| > http://apptools.com/rants/framesevil.php
| > http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/frames/
| >
| >
| > --
| > Murray
| > ============
| >
| > | > > Why do you say that? Do you have a resource you can cite?
| > >
| > > I'm guessing that users pretty much don't know, and / or don't care if
a
| > > sites done in frames - I know I don't care if a site is done with
| frames.
| > >
| > > Developers, on the other hand, usually hate frames if any scripting is
| > > involved.
| > >
| > > Bob Lehmann
| > >
| > > | > >> Frames are not very popular with viewers
| > >> --
| > >> I hope this helps you,
| > >>
| > >> Dan
| > >>
| > >>
| > >> "John Hoagland" wrote:
| > >>
| > >> > Greetings,
| > >> >
| > >> > In FP2003, an image appears on my hosting web page as an image "red
| > > x-ing"
| > >> > out.
| > >> >
| > >> > Many other images are properly pulled to the page.
| > >> >
| > >> > The only change seems to be that tech support says I am approaching
| my
| > >> > traffic limit (this my preventing full uploads peeviously).
| > >> >
| > >> > Any suggestions?
| > >> >
| > >> > John
| > >> >
| > >> >
| > >> >
| > >
| > >
| >
| >
|
|

 

[Trevor L.]

There are two kinds of framed sites -

those made with finesse by those who understand frames
those not made with finesse...

Viewers do not like the latter. They are annoying, puzzling, and
unfriendly. The wrong frame prints. The wrong frame bookmarks (in
some browsers). Scrollbars pop up in unexpected places. Sometimes it
is even impossible to navigate the site because the creator has
brilliantly disabled scrollbars attempting to deal with the previous
problem, and forgetting that some people may need them.

In truth, there are only a limited number of situations where frames
can be justified -

1. To obfuscate the URI
2. To have Flash/sound playing continuously throughout the visit
without resetting on each linked page
3. To have a horizontally and vertically centered letterbox site
(although this is possible with non-framed techniques)
4. To have a master/detail arrangement with a scrolling array of
options and a detail frame for each option clicked

All other 'justifications" (in my opinion) are specious, and either
don't need to be considered, or can be achieved perfectly well on
flat pages built with good methods and techniques.

But, whatever validates your code, so to speak....

I wonder which type of site mine is ?

When I have asked questions in this newsgroup I have often had the reply:
Why do you use frames?

Can the experts find any problems with my site?

If not, maybe mine is one of "those made with finesse by those who
understand frames"

)

 

[Murray]

Trevor, forgive me. It is not. It is a site that uses frames when none are
required by the basic layout, and it will have (at one time or another) all
of the problems that an ordinary framed site would have.

 

[Trevor L.]

Thanks, Murray.
That is the info. I wanted.

I can't use #includes, or any ASP or similar server-side software as my web
provider does not have any installed. It is a free website associated with
an email address.

So what is the way to go about changing the site?
Is the trick to use absolutely positioned <div>'s to retain my heading and
sidebar throughout all pages?

 

[Murray]

sidebar throughout all pages?

Definitely not.

Read about "the normal flow" by googling it. Then understand about block
tags and inline tags and how they both behave in the normal flow of the code
on the page.

If you understand that, you will begin to understand that the 'position' in
"CSS-P" and the position in "position:absolute" are two entirely different
things.

I'll hold your hand if you want to step into this merry-go-round. I think
you're ready.... 8)

 

[Trevor L.]

Wow, thanks for that offer.

I think I understand block and inline, except that have used block and none.

I don't know about CSS-P. I have read a little about the different
"standards" (if that 's the right word) of CSS (CSS2, etc.) I'll do a bit of
research.

I'll give it a try myself and get back to you when I know a bit more.