Upgrade from 2000 to 2003

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jane S.
  • Start date Start date
J

Jane S.

Hi,

I just upgraded FP to 2003 but the Table Properties Dialog box is too big
(tall). How can I reduce it? Thanks a bunch!
 
Change your screen resolution to 1024 x 768.

--

==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
WEBMASTER Resources(tm)

FrontPage Resources, Forums, WebCircle,
MS KB Quick Links, etc.
==============================================
 
-----Original Message-----
Hi,
Howdy.

I just upgraded FP to 2003 but the Table Properties
Dialog box is too big (tall). How can I reduce it?
Thanks a bunch!
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you can't. Depending on your desktop theme,
this dialog box is about 616 pixels tall. So, even if you
auto-hide your task bar, you can't display the whole
dialog box on an 800x600 display screen. (Usually, though,
you can get enough of it to click the OK button.)

FWIW, most Web designers use much larger display screens.
This is something you might want to think about. 17" and
even 19" monitors are pretty cheap these days. Laptops, of
course, are a tougher issue.

Jim Buyens
Microsoft FrontPage MVP
http://www.interlacken.com
Author of:
*========----------
|\=========------------
|| Microsoft Office FrontPage 2003 Inside Out
|| Microsoft FrontPage Version 2002 Inside Out
|| Web Database Development Step by Step .NET Edition
|| Troubleshooting Microsoft FrontPage 2002
|| Faster Smarter Beginning Programming
|| (All from Microsoft Press)
|/=========------------
*========----------
 
Thanks for your reply. I like my 800x600 display and don't want to change
the size. I am using a 17" monitor. I priced a "pretty cheap" (your words,
not mine) 19" monitor at Best Buy about a month ago and it was $270. It was
also about 80 lbs. heavier and 18" deeper than the one I have now and will
require more space on my desk (precious real estate). I can't carry it and
so BB wanted an additional $25 to deliver.

Bottom line is, this upgrade will now cost me about $400 to 500 depending on
whether or not there are any other surprises. Why does MS do this? They
never tell anybody about these things, they just do it! How's the Table
Properties Dialog Box in DW MX? While I'm not going to buy DW, and I'm
really not a MS basher normally, this makes me furious!

To take a tiny bit of this edge off, please give some of the reasons than a
designer would want a monitor larger than 17"? Also Jim, since its my money
we're so blithely throwing around here, what is an ideal monitor size for a
designer?
 
It really is not the monitor size, but the screen resolution. Because of
functions contained in the table dialog, the dialog has to be that size. So
the only solution is to change your resolution or switch back to
FP2000/FP2002.

Personally, I use 1280 x 1024 on a 17" monitor, because I want to see as
much of a page as possible when working, without having to scroll.

--

==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
WEBMASTER Resources(tm)

FrontPage Resources, Forums, WebCircle,
MS KB Quick Links, etc.
==============================================
 
Hi Jane,

I appreciate your anger and frustration here so I wanted to jump in.

I'd like to give you a little background on why this decision was made, but
first, just to be clear, buying a larger monitor won't help if you keep it
at 800 x 600 resolution. It's the resolution that causes this issue, not
the monitor size.

This issue arose pretty late in the product cycle (found just after Beta 2
Technical Refresh), a time at which making deep changes in a dialog is scary
and expensive. The reason this happened was because we had to add the
layout tools choices at the top of that dialog, and if you notice the space
in the middle of the dialog, that is reserved for Right to Left language
tools. You can't see them, but if you were creating pages in Hebrew or
Arabic, you'd love them. Then throw in the fact that most of us testers are
running 768x1024 and you get the idea why this issue was not found right
away, and you also get an idea about how scary this would be to fix as well
as how seriously we took the issue.

What it boiled down to was this choice:

1. rearchitect that dialog box very late in the game to make it fit on
800x600
2. remove the layout tools buttons
3. leave it as is

We decided to leave it as is because we are really expecting most people to
use at least 768 x 1024 resolution (all of the designers we talked to in
focus groups are now designing in at least 768 x 1024 (the reason for this
is that you get much better use of monitor real estate and you can fit a lot
more content on your pages)) and we wanted to keep the layout tools
available. Obviously this is making some people angry.

I normally don't post comments like this, I prefer to post links to KB
articles and quick how tos, but this issue is obviously very important to
some and I wanted to let you know what we were thinking (as I've said before
on other posts, this wasn't Microsoft doing this, it was me and two other
people in a meeting looking at all the data we had available to us at the
time). It was a really hard decision, but one we had to make.
 
I too am experiencing this problem of the giant menu....and it is causing me so much frustration that I think I have to go to the hospital. The stress involved is UNBELIEVABLE....I have an MBA in E-Commerce and Technology and none of my 5 friends keeps their resolution on the suggested one this guy says. WE ALL HAVE THIS PROBLEM!!! ****ing please try and come up with some kind of fix to this giant menu issue. Jane, this explanation is awful, hopefully this guy really can't be this much of a moron and work at Microsoft. Trying programs on different screen resolutions is so simple and everyone in software or web design does this.
 
John,

Thanks for your reply, it does take some of the edge off. I am very
surprised that only two people within MS made a decision that would affect
so many people in the design community. From what I know a 15" to 17"
monitor with 800x600 resolution is still the "standard". By "still the
standard", I am referring to the worldwide visitors who use the Internet
everyday for all sorts of things. Why should we be viewing and designing on
a different platform from those that pay our salaries?

When Flash came out I'm sure some people at MS said "Wow, let's do that!
More importantly, I'll bet we could do it better." But MS didn't. Experience
and wisdom prevailed and Flash became "Flash in a Pan". There are other
examples I could cite.

You mentioned "that most of us testers are running 768x1024" but you never
mentioned the visitors. You also pointed out the expense of
"rearchitect(ing) that dialog box very late in the game" and that "it was a
very hard decision". I'm sure both of you agonized over this decision for a
long time, and based on the facts available at the time, made your decision
taking into consideration MS and their customers.

MS customers are now awakening to the expense and frustration caused by this
decision.

What if the decision was wrong? What will the expense and frustation be to
Microsoft?
 
The Monitor size has nothing to do with this. I have a 21" monitor and still have this problem of the giant menu! The problem with changing the screen resolution to what this guy says is that you need a magnified glass to see half of your screen items. What a disaster.
 
It is true that many readers still use 800 x 600 screens, but they don't
have to deal with the table-properties dialog box. Most designers use at
least 1024 x 768 screens and then check their page at smaller resolutions
with the preview-in-browser window. And most new laptops work best at at
least that resolution. I don't have FP 2003 yet because I am in Asia and it
hasn't gotten here yet (Microsoft in Hong Kong told me they expect it in
December), but if the large dialog box gives added advantges, then why not?
1024 x 768 is not a big deal any more, and you can still make sure that the
page will look good at smaller resolutions. Gotta keep up with the times,
especially in the computer world.

Wally S
 
So far, so good with the upgrade. I kind of like the new
menu, more stuff without clicking thru. I got my larger
moniter, because I got tired of the 15 inch real estate.
Not many programs left that allow 800x600 anyway. I could
only glance at one program at a time. With a 17 and 19
inch monitor, I accomplish much more in a day. I am one
who used a magnifying glass on my 15"
 
THE POINT IS THEY ONLY HAD TO MAKE IT AN INCH SMALLER AND IT WOULD HAVE FIT!!!! Get with the times, get with common sense, buddy! They could have made the font one size smaller or made the dialog wider and fit it on the screen, this is an IMPORTANT dialog box.....unbelievable....is there anyone from Microsoft with any common sense??? Time to finally learn Dreamweaver, I guess....Frontpage 2003 is a MAJOR letdown...and where are the rollover menus promised to us in Microsoft flash demos before the produvt came out?
 
For rollovers, see behaviors

--

==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
WEBMASTER Resources(tm)

FrontPage Resources, Forums, WebCircle,
MS KB Quick Links, etc.
==============================================


THE POINT IS THEY ONLY HAD TO MAKE IT AN INCH SMALLER AND IT WOULD HAVE
Click to expand...
FIT!!!! Get with the times, get with common sense, buddy! They could have
made the font one size smaller or made the dialog wider and fit it on the
screen, this is an IMPORTANT dialog box.....unbelievable....is there anyone
from Microsoft with any common sense??? Time to finally learn Dreamweaver,
I guess....Frontpage 2003 is a MAJOR letdown...and where are the rollover
menus promised to us in Microsoft flash demos before the produvt came out?
 
The rollovers in the behaviors section only work for layers or tables....not for navigation bars....Microsoft promised in this Flash demo, rollovers for navigations bars?!?!?! Am I going crazy here, or did anyone else see this Flash demo Microsoft put out before the release of FP 2003 without knowing any code. They also showed how you can round corners by right clicking and selecting table properties but you can only do this while you are creating the table.....what the heck is going on here????
 
http://www.microsoft.com/office/frontpage/prodinfo/demo.mspx

Looking at the current demo

1. I see nothing that indicate you could create rollovers relating to
navigation bars.

2. I see nothing that indicates you can add rounded corners to a table. The
example shows rounded corners being add to a cell via cell formatting.
--

==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
WEBMASTER Resources(tm)

FrontPage Resources, Forums, WebCircle,
MS KB Quick Links, etc.
==============================================


The rollovers in the behaviors section only work for layers or
Click to expand...
tables....not for navigation bars....Microsoft promised in this Flash demo,
rollovers for navigations bars?!?!?! Am I going crazy here, or did anyone
else see this Flash demo Microsoft put out before the release of FP 2003
without knowing any code. They also showed how you can round corners by
right clicking and selecting table properties but you can only do this while
you are creating the table.....what the heck is going on here????
 
Jane said:
To take a tiny bit of this edge off, please give some of the reasons
than a designer would want a monitor larger than 17"?
Click to expand...

I have a 3 monitor setup, a 21" @ 1856x1392 in the middle of two 19"
1600x1200's. It's nice for having a couple FP windows open at the same
time, as well as Windows Explorer, image editing, and Opera, Netscape and
different versions of IE testing. (Older versions of IE are running on
other machines and visible on mine using remote control software.)

It's much easier & faster to glance somewhere else than to Alt-Tab. For
testing on another computer I don't have to get up and go somewhere else.

-- Mark
 
Are you kidding me?!?!?! Look at this sample site WINGTIP Toys again. Half of this site and demo is boasting rollover menus. A rational person would assume that you would have some tools to create these menus and effects. But the only way you are saying that you can now do this is by spending hours making multiple layers and what not. This demo makes all of this appear to be fairly simple to do and an advantage of upgrading to FP 2003....when this method of making rollovers you are saying takes FOREVER. Xara menu builder and similar tools get much better results in 1/100 of the time. Does Microsoft give me some kind of discount on the new version of Xara since my current one 3.0 doesn't work with FP 2003???? This kind of false marketing is illegal...as there are countless legal cases supporting what I am saying. You don't push the simplicity of making an example when, in comparison to expectations, the process is a tedious one. I think I will talk to my legal department about this one......
 
No i am not kidding!

However I guest you didn't read all of the notes below each example, such
as:

"Drop-down menus, built using new tools such as Layers and Behaviors, with
some CUSTOM Javascript/Jscript"

"CUSTOM navigation elements ... combining professional design features with
Javascript/Jscript to add interactivity to the site."

"And pages based on CUSTOM Web templates."

It not any software company's responsibility to ensure that a new or update
release of an application works with a 3rd Party's current or future
applications, that is that 3rd Party responsibility and they are the ones
that determine the cost of any upgrades, etc.

--

==============================================
Thomas A. Rowe (Microsoft MVP - FrontPage)
WEBMASTER Resources(tm)

FrontPage Resources, Forums, WebCircle,
MS KB Quick Links, etc.
==============================================


Are you kidding me?!?!?! Look at this sample site WINGTIP Toys again.
Click to expand...
Half of this site and demo is boasting rollover menus. A rational person
would assume that you would have some tools to create these menus and
effects. But the only way you are saying that you can now do this is by
spending hours making multiple layers and what not. This demo makes all of
this appear to be fairly simple to do and an advantage of upgrading to FP
2003....when this method of making rollovers you are saying takes FOREVER.
Xara menu builder and similar tools get much better results in 1/100 of the
time. Does Microsoft give me some kind of discount on the new version of
Xara since my current one 3.0 doesn't work with FP 2003???? This kind of
false marketing is illegal...as there are countless legal cases supporting
what I am saying. You don't push the simplicity of making an example when,
in comparison to expectations, the process is a tedious one. I think I will
talk to my legal department about this one......
 
Have you looked at interactive buttons for navigation "rollovers"?

--




| The rollovers in the behaviors section only work for layers or tables....not for navigation bars....Microsoft promised in this
Flash demo, rollovers for navigations bars?!?!?! Am I going crazy here, or did anyone else see this Flash demo Microsoft put out
before the release of FP 2003 without knowing any code. They also showed how you can round corners by right clicking and selecting
table properties but you can only do this while you are creating the table.....what the heck is going on here????
 
Jane said:
Why should we be viewing and designing on a different
platform from those that pay our salaries?
Click to expand...

Because it's more productive. You actually *owe* it to them and the
shareholders. ;-)

In general, for maximum ROI:
- Carpenters use tools the average "Homeowner Harry" doesn't have and
can't justify.
- Health care workers use tools and supplies not found in the average
medicine cabinet.
- Software developers should have equipment that exceeds the base
requirements of "average" users.

It is necessary to test early and often on user-class machines, of course.
Using remote control software from my 3 monitor desktop, it takes me just
*four* (4) mouse clicks to test a changed web page in
- IE5 @ 800x600
- IE6 @ 1024x768
- Netscape @ 800x600
- Opera @ 1024x768
How long would it take the "average resourced" developer to do the same?
Would it even get done?

If you can't tell I feel quite strongly about this. <g> In my consulting
work I consider it "management cluelessness" if developers are working on a
single 17" monitor. Those managers should give sales personnel rotary
phones too -- after all, it doesn't take that much longer to dial, does it?

A year ago I worked on a project with about 10 other developers in 3
countries. My part was the UI and a comm piece. I used VB6. With my
screen space (and VB6's excellent SDI mode <g>) I was able to debug all
three programs of the comm piece at the same time in non-overlapping
windows. Absolutely wonderful, and wonderfully productive! At the
project's end, writing the user documentation, I could have used even more
screen space: Screen shot program, image editor, help file writer,
www.dictionary.com, .txt file of the context numbers, VB6 for adding in the
context numbers, testing, remote testing, and Visual SourceSafe. I wasted a
lot of time uncovering windows.

Make any sense? ;-)

*This* is how developers' screen space should be resourced. <g>

http://www.realtimesoft.com/multimon/gallery_browse.asp?ID=402
http://www.realtimesoft.com/multimon/gallery_browse.asp?ID=145
http://www.realtimesoft.com/multimon/gallery_browse.asp?ID=168
http://www.realtimesoft.com/multimon/gallery_browse.asp?ID=387

-- Mark
 
Back
Top