Custom Links Bar titles show filename, not Cosmetic title

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/...s_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


"Joe Cool" wrote in message
news:bsqci7$3nd$

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

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/sitebuilde...groups.asp
_____________________________________________


"MD WebsUnlimited.com" wrote in message news:uqrkyj$
| 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/...s_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
|
|
| "Joe Cool" wrote in message
| news:bsqci7$3nd$
| > 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
| >
| >
|
|

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/...SSMenu.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...reboth.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






"Stefan B Rusynko" wrote in message
news:%

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/sitebuilde...groups.asp
_____________________________________________


"MD WebsUnlimited.com" wrote in message

news:uqrkyj$

| 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/...s_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
|
|
| "Joe Cool" wrote in message
| news:bsqci7$3nd$
| > 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
| >
| >
|
|

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...reboth.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/...oducts.htm in FP (which probably added the <tbody> tags

I just opened http://www.websunlimited.com/order/...oducts.htm in NN4.79 and got no links
Whereas in http://www.websunlimited.com/order/...SSMenu.htm
the links do work but selecting 1st one takes me to http://www.websunlimited.com/order/...nefits.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/sitebuilde...groups.asp
_____________________________________________


"MD WebsUnlimited.com" wrote in message news:%
| 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/...SSMenu.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...reboth.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
|
|
|
|
|
|
| "Stefan B Rusynko" wrote in message
| news:%
| > 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/sitebuilde...groups.asp
| > _____________________________________________
| >
| >
| > "MD WebsUnlimited.com" wrote in message
| news:uqrkyj$
| > | 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/...s_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
| > |
| > |
| > | "Joe Cool" wrote in message
| > | news:bsqci7$3nd$
| > | > 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
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|

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/defaul...-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/...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

"Stefan B Rusynko" wrote in message
news:

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...reboth.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/...oducts.htm in

FP (which probably added the <tbody> tags

I just opened http://www.websunlimited.com/order/...oducts.htm in

NN4.79 and got no links

Whereas in

http://www.websunlimited.com/order/...SSMenu.htm

the links do work but selecting 1st one takes me to

http://www.websunlimited.com/order/...nefits.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/sitebuilde...groups.asp
_____________________________________________


"MD WebsUnlimited.com" wrote in message

news:%

| 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/...SSMenu.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...reboth.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
|
|
|
|
|
|
| "Stefan B Rusynko" wrote in message
| news:%
| > 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/sitebuilde...groups.asp
| > _____________________________________________
| >
| >
| > "MD WebsUnlimited.com" wrote in message
| news:uqrkyj$
| > | 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/...s_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

| > |
| > |
| > | "Joe Cool" wrote in message
| > | news:bsqci7$3nd$
| > | > 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
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|