DemDave

just recently purchased the CS upgrade and I'm having some Imageready problems that I don't have with 7. Perhaps I'm overlooking something, but I've gone in to make sure the settings in both versions are the same wherever possible. I'm using XP Pro (fully up to date with service packs) on a P4 2.4Ghz with 512mb RAM and 120GB hard drive.

Here is the basic jist of my main problem:

If I create a sliced image to svae optimized for web as HTML page, and I select just the bottom row of slices and tell it to save "Selected Slices" only, ImageReady CS is still including the HTML table codes for all of the other non-selected slices, and placing spacer.gif files in them. This presents a big problem, because if I try to remove those unwanted table data boxes and spacers it completely garbles the page, and if I leave them in, I end up with a bunch of unwanted blank space in the page.

In Imageready 7 I do not have this problem. I will save and code only the selected slices that I tell it to, and does not insert a bunch of unwanted table coding with spacer images.

I'd really appreciate any help, and I'd be willing to try to explain this better any way I can.

Thanks for ANY help!
Dave

DemDave

I've created a flash video of the problem happening:

http://www.saratogahosting.com/cs/ (less than 2 minutes long)

jackofFinland

Hi,

I have no knowledge of why CS does this, or how to fix the problem in Imageready, since I use PS 7.

Here's how you get rid of the extra table row by editing your HTML though:
Try changing the table height to 200. In your current code you have a table that is 300 pixels high, with 2 rows both 100 pixels high. Apparently the browser adds a third -empty- row between them.

I hope this helps.

jack

Add: i tried making a page with similar code and the browser doesn't add an extra row...the "table height=300" attribute simply makes the browser ignore your "td height=100" attributes and adds extra 50 pixels to both of the rows.

theKeeper

Nice Flash video Dave, how exactly did you go about making that if you don't mind me asking? You can PM me if ya want, so this thread stays pure.

Thanks.

As to your garbled page... just remove the fixed pixel "height" attributes in the TD cells, that should 'relax' the table and allow it to 'hug' your table content.

I haven't had a chance to play with your original html prob though. But i'm going to hazard a guess right now that this is something Adobe changed, and thought it was an improvement. Go figure.

I'll try and run through the scenario later if i can and see what gives. Until then, try the suggestion i gave above. Hope that helps. :B

DemDave

Thanks for the replies guys.

In regard to the simple hand-coding fixes that you've posted - Yes, in the example I created it would be an easy fix, because I created the video to be fast and to the point, but in my more complicated daily work I deal with very complex slices that are numerous and not symmetrical, and they range from daunting to almost impossible to fix by hand. Picture an image sliced into 20 cells with various table rows that contain slices of varying widths, then picture doing 20 of those a day, and you'll see why ImageReady is so important to me and why I don't just hand-code everything (trust me, I can write a web page on a bar room napkin with a pencil in one hand and a beer in the other LOL, been hand-coding a lot of my work since 1996, and I've never used Frontpage or DreamWeaver. My downfall however, is CSS. Guess I'm just old-skool.)

I was able to get an Adobe employee to view videos I made, and it was someone who'd actually worked on ImageReady, and he has indeed (unofficially in private email) confirmed that there is something amiss with IR CS in regard to this issue after seeing my videos. We exchanged a few emails, and the only workaround that we could come up with is to create a Helper shortcut in PS CS to IR 2. Unfortunately the quicklink to IR CS is hard-coded into the PS CS tool palette, but at least creating a helper shortcut to IR2 in the PS CS menu is a better alternative than having to open everything manually in IR2.

The bottom line? Somebody made a boo-boo with IR CS that went overlooked at Adobe, and I was the first to discover it because it is one of my main tools for my daily work. In actuality, they will probably never publicly state that it is a boo-boo, it will probably be called a "feature" instead LOL! As I told the guy from Adobe, I've been a loyal customer for many years with a lot of money invested in their products, but I probably would not have laid down my cash for the CS upgrade had I known about this issue. Now I'm torn between taking the refund or eating it just because I'm finally getting used to PS CS. I have discovered a couple other bugs with IR CS, so I guess it'll depend on how irritated I get with it.

theKeeper

Hey, that sounds pretty much like my story... except for the CSS part. You gotta have that nowadays Dave. I'm old skool too, but it's a big wave'a comin' and there ain't no stoppin' it.

Considering what PS CS has to offer, and that you can at least workaround the issue using IR2, i'd say stick with PS CS. The trade off is more than worth it.