Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




Knowledge Base
Documentation
Terry's Tips
Darren's Tips

Using Template Families

Got a problem that hopefully someone can shed light on.

Just finished a site that uses two template families: one for HTML pages the other for Printer Friendly pages. I followed the help given in CD, but now that I published, the home page gives the following:

CityDesk published the following variations of this site in subdirectories:

\HTML
\Print


Click on any link to view it.

This is not what I want. I'd like the home page (e.g. www.mysite.com) to be the HTML pages, with links on those pages to the \Print pages, which, in turn, have links back to the HTML pages.

Any suggestions appreciated.

George Illes
Friday, September 03, 2004

You'll need to go into publish locations to get it to work out. CityDesk generates the HTML directory automatically, but you can change it.

I've done it but I don't remember exactly how.

tk
Friday, September 03, 2004

tk,

Initially I had selected the "Publish all template families in subdirectories" option, which resulted in the behavior I described in the OP.

At your suggestion I tried selecting only the "HTML" family, and then alternately only the "Print" family, but in either case only that family is published. Hmmm...maybe I need to do one then the other? I'll give it a whirl. In the meantime, anyone have any other ideas on what I'm doing wrong?

George Illes
Friday, September 03, 2004

Well...publishing first the HTML family and then the Print family didn't work.

If Spolsky or Pryor are out there, please offer guidance.

Thanks.

George Illes
Friday, September 03, 2004

Maybe I need to create different publish locations, one for the HTML location, which would be without a subdirectory, and one for the Print location which would be under a subdirectory???

George Illes
Friday, September 03, 2004

Different publish locations, yes. You can do it.

tk
Friday, September 03, 2004

Different publish locations worked. Now I wonder how the site looks on different browsers. Feedback is appreciated.

http://www.iamdemocrats.org

George Illes
Friday, September 03, 2004

George: “Now I wonder how the site looks on different browsers.”

Well, it doesn’t look good in Firefox. Links to the left are mixed with the main text, and all text is underlined when the cursor is on the page itself. The link to the printer friendly pages is about to disappear to the right.
The printer friendly pages look fine though.

Nice detail with the font size selection. (The resulting pages suffer from the same bug as the default page though.)

Jorgen B.
Saturday, September 04, 2004

Ditto in Mozilla. lays out really badly...

Brian
Saturday, September 04, 2004

George Illes :re Now I wonder how the site looks

Just to let you know that I like the way your site looks [both versions] using IE 6.0 XP/2 -- nicely crafted -- your clients should be pleased.

I for one do not believe it worth while [time and effort] to change 'styles' to accommodate the ‘other’ browsers -- their [geek] market share is utterly insignificant.

David Mozer
Saturday, September 04, 2004

If it looks good in Mozilla and Firefox it also looks good in IE – not the other way around since IE does not follow ”the rules” that strictly. That’s all there is to it. We do not have to start a browser war over it.

Jorgen B.
Saturday, September 04, 2004

Jorgen B. :re If it looks good in Mozilla and Firefox it also looks good in IE

Yes that is true -- on the other hand if you've been coding for IE all along and your stuff always works just great in IE why change your disciplines if the 'other' browsers have insignificant share of the eyes. [rhetorically stated]

The ‘rules’ are important for those that need to appeal to everyone and if you are fortunate enough to have been exposed to those rules from the very beginning your are better off -- however 'the rules' do not a market make -- those that break the rules often make the market.

David Mozer
Saturday, September 04, 2004

Thanks for the feedback. I checked it out in Firefox. Looks awful!! Amazing how different it is from IE. My anal-retentive self wants to make it look perfect in every browser. With that goal maybe I'll get close to 100%. At the very least, I don't want it to look that bad in non-IE browsers.

Anyone have any idea why it looks so bad in non IE browsers? Something in the stylesheet? I must admit the stylesheet is pretty hacked up.

Any thoughts appreciated.

George Illes
Saturday, September 04, 2004

George Illes :re Any thoughts appreciated

http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d

Join this group [link above] and post a message there asking for help and you will get exactly what you need to do to get your stylesheet adjusted so that FireFox etc. will look the way you'd like. :-)

David Mozer
Saturday, September 04, 2004

David, Thanks for the tip. I'll give it a whirl.

George Illes
Saturday, September 04, 2004

The Government (CERT) just issued a report urging users to avoid all use of IE due to security concerns.  The Government has a lot of browsers and lots of folks listen to CERT.

me again
Saturday, September 04, 2004

David, you might target your sites at IE and ignore the rest, but government sites are required to adhere to accessibility laws, so it's not a big leap to expect political sites to do the same (after all, they want to be the government some day). It's not that hard to make these types of sites work happily cross-browser and cross-platform, with good support for disabled visitors, if you state that as a goal from the beginning.

Darren Collins
Sunday, September 05, 2004

Darren Collins :re not that hard to make

That all depends on where your starting point is from a discipline perspective. I just spent a considerable time [7 hours] converting a specific site to enable FireFox [v0.9.3] browsers to view the content in the same way that IE browsers see the content. To my way of thinking the 'other' browsers are quirky as can be -- and now that I know some of the 'tricks' the next time it will not be as much of an effort. Is the effort worth while? I certainly have my doubts -- strictly from a commercial perspective. Accessibility certainly is important by those affected -- and it does always come down to cost in my way of thinking.

David Mozer
Friday, September 10, 2004

I got some feedback from http://www.css-discuss.org and put it to good use.

Since I only have IE and Firefox I'd really appreciate any feedback regarding the site ( http://www.iamdemocrats.org ), on how the site looks in other browsers.

Also, any other feedback (usability, etc) is always welcome.

http://www.iamdemocrats.org

Thanks!

George Illes
Friday, September 10, 2004

Looks fine in Netscape 7. Usually if it looks OK in Firefox it's OK in Netscape 7 too.

tk
Friday, September 10, 2004

George Illes :re Since I only have IE and Firefox

George, you did one fine job converting your site -- and by the looks of things you're a very good student.

BTW, you are going to find out over time that all browsers have their little quirks :-) regardless of their claim to adherence to so called standards.

David Mozer
Friday, September 10, 2004

Thanks for the feedback!

George Illes
Friday, September 10, 2004

forget the template family approach - it potentially doubles your work if you make changes in "view" template you have to do the same/similar in "printer friendly" - when publishing to site you have to publish both families
sounds like you're also sweating two stylesheets - one for each family
i dropped this approach in favour of media-specific style sheets media="screen" and media="print"
"print" - drops navigation and unnecessary content - way simpler

Mike Osborne
Thursday, September 16, 2004

Mike,

You make a good point about the media-specific style sheets. I'll have to check that out. However, the only extra work for my current method is to publish both templates separately. That's it. I only have one version of each article, and CD does the magic itself. True that early on in the development of the site making a change to the "View" template might have affected the "Print" template, but not much. Other than the logo and header at the top and the footer at the bottom, the "Print" template is simply the guts of each article.

George Illes
Thursday, September 16, 2004

Before you worry about how your pages look in this or that browser, it is important to validate the html and the css.  If valid, you have probably removed lots of problems that would show up in different browser renderings. 

I recommend: Start with Opera or Firefox.  They both have plug-ins to easily validate the pages and show results in another tab.

Once you get your code in order, look at it in IE.  For the most part, valid coding will look the same in ie.  There are some quirks, but figuring them out is easier once you know your code is 'correct'

Joel Goldstick
Friday, September 24, 2004

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home