copy web pages

[jdk]

Originally posted by ashwken
I don't fully understand why saving to .mht is subsantially different than whatever UR is doing to Store a copy.

A good question -- hopefully we'll get a response from Kinook at some stage.

And I imagine Scrapbook is just doing the equivalent of mht in Firefox: File --> Save as --> complete page. Scrapbook handles page snippets perfectly as well.

Given the number of complex features Kinook have managed to add to UR over the years (to their great credit), I can't imagine why this relatively simple yet important issue has not been addressed. At the risk of repeating myself, if a free Firefox add-on can guarantee perfect web page captures, so can UR.

[kinook]

We'll investigate these pages to see if the fidelity can be improved when importing into UR.

[J-Mac]

Hello all!

Brand new UR user and this is my first post.

Besides being generally lost regarding UR just yet (I'll get there, though!), I just ran into problems capturing part of a web page and it sounds like this very issue being discussed.

I needed to capture an item on Dell's support/accessory pages, so I highlighted the area - including text and a picture - and clicked on the UR Firefox button in Firefox 3. What I got was a fairly nice copy but without the image. Instead there was the familiar red "X" in its place.

So I opened that same page in IE7 and tried the same thing - same area of the same URL, with image and text, using the IE UR button. The capture looked pretty close to the same thing as Firefox 3 captured, red "X" image placeholder included.

Just to check if this was caused by a problem with where Dell was serving up the image from, I made the same capture in both Evernote 2.2 and OneNote 2007. THe clip looks perfect in both of those applications.

I do have "Download Images" selected in Options>Import (More).

I decided to look at the forum and post a question about it, but I searched first and found this thread.

So even as a "newbie" I can confirm that UR Pro is not quite capturing web page selection very well.

Thanks!

Jim

[jdk]

After reading and participating in this thread, I decided to carry out a little test, comparing Ultra Recall to other programs that capture web pages.

I posted the results here:
http://www.donationcoder.com/Forums/...?topic=14027.0

It's only one page, it's not scientific. However, it does underscore what I and others wrote in this thread.

There are programs out there that capture pages with nearly 100 per cent reliability (even difficult pages such as the one I chose for the test).

Therefore there's no reason why programs such as Ultra Recall should not achieve the same standard (and UR is not the only well-known program that has page capture problems as my test shows).

[kinook]

We just released version 3.5a, which correctly captures formatting for these problem pages (and any others that define styles in a similar fashion):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7501066.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pri...ide_%28film%29

http://cambridge.org/us/catalogue/ca...=9780521539371

[quant]

Thank you!

[jdk]

Excellent. That's great to see.

[ashwken]

Just finished downloading, let's go fire up the browser!

EDIT: Also fixed the Title Expression quirks, thanks.

[tfjern]

I installed the upgrade (3.5a), then dragged and dropped a Wikipedia webpage to test it out (to store and not to link), but there are still a few items on the original Wikipedia page that are missing when stored in UR (all in Wikipedia's lefthand column or frame). No big deal, but still ... Maybe this is an IE 7 issue, so I'll have to try it out in Foxfile 3.

Whereas if I File / Import the Wikipedia webpage, it stores perfectly in UR. Magnifico!

Once again we can see that Kinook is exceptionally responsive regarding its customers' needs and suggestions, so let's return the favor and enter the contest to come up with some user-friendly, step-by-step demos that will help this great company attract new customers.

[ashwken]

Running under v.3.5a, IE 6

For the Wiki Princess Bride page

From the browser, via the UR Copy Button, regardless of the setting for Options | More (Import) - use IE cache

The page layout is coming thru as the original, except that images in the body text area are not visible - the "place holders" for the images are present (text is flowing around) and hyperlinks are showing as a cursor change with the path is shown in the UR status bar.

For example, in the "frame" that contains the movie poster, this frame also contains a list of credits. The space that this frame occupies is clearly apparent (white space w/ active urls), but it's contents (nor frame border) are not showing up in the UR viewer area.

If I use Ctrl-A (to select All in the IE browser) then import via the UR Copy Button, the page comes thru exactly as originally displayed.

[tfjern]

Thanks, ashwken, that works well, though it would be nice to be able to avoid the Control + A step. OK, I know -- we are being spoiled by Kinook's constant attentiveness to our suggestions and whinnings.

By the way, when in IE 7 and I do the following -- Control + A / Copy of a Wikipedia webpage to Ultra Recall (via the UR taskbar button), the webpage is imported into UR with no problem, as I mentioned above.

However, as a test, if you click on Item / Synchronize for the same page in UR, you will find that the stored page (doc) size is slightly reduced, even though the Wikipedia webpage itself was not updated. In other words, some of the original webpage characters are being dropped when synchronization takes place in UR. For example, the (toggle) word "hide" to the right of the word Contents (in box) is present in IE, but lost in UR after synchronization. This is no big deal, but interesting nonetheless.

On more thing -- when using the UR Copy to UR taskbar button in IE 7, the options in the Import to UR popup window are Link, Move (grayed out), and Copy. Strangely, it doesn't matter if you select link or copy, the size of the file imported in UR is the same (since it is being copied, of course). Why, then, is the link option available if there is no linking going on? I realize the other taskbar button is UR Link to UR is for linking, but it would be less confusing if when copying the link / move options weren't available, and the other way around when linking.

[kinook]

Originally posted by ashwken
Running under v.3.5a, IE 6

For the Wiki Princess Bride page

...

The page layout is coming thru as the original, except that images in the body text area are not visible

This appears to be an IE6 problem. UR does capture the images, and IE7 (and Firefox) displays them properly.

And with more and more web sites no longer supporting IE6, this pushed me over the edge to finally update to IE7 myself.

[kinook]

Originally posted by tfjern
I installed the upgrade (3.5a), then dragged and dropped a Wikipedia webpage to test it out (to store and not to link), but there are still a few items on the original Wikipedia page that are missing when stored in UR (all in Wikipedia's lefthand column or frame).

Nothing is missing that I can see, testing with IE7 on Win XP SP3.

[kinook]

Originally posted by tfjern
Thanks, ashwken, that works well, though it would be nice to be able to avoid the Control + A step. OK, I know -- we are being spoiled by Kinook's constant attentiveness to our suggestions and whinnings.

All import methods for that page capture all the images I can see.

By the way, when in IE 7 and I do the following -- Control + A / Copy of a Wikipedia webpage to Ultra Recall (via the UR taskbar button), the webpage is imported into UR with no problem, as I mentioned above.

However, as a test, if you click on Item / Synchronize for the same page in UR, you will find that the stored page (doc) size is slightly reduced, even though the Wikipedia webpage itself was not updated. In other words, some of the original webpage characters are being dropped when synchronization takes place in UR.

The web content (HTML code) of the original web page (and what UR retrieves on sync) and what IE puts on the clipboard for Ctrl+A/copy are not identical.

For example, the (toggle) word "hide" to the right of the word Contents (in box) is present in IE, but lost in UR after synchronization.

In the original page, some JavaScript is used to conditionally display the text [show] or [hide] and to show/hide that section when clicked. When importing the original page, the script code to display and make that operational will be excluded unless 'Tools | Options | Import (More) | Download scripts' is checked (the default is unchecked, mainly for security purposes).

In the HTML code that IE copies to the clipboard when using Ctrl+A/copy (and processed by UR), the JavaScript that displays [show] or [hide] is replaced with an anchor tag. If the script option above is unchecked when imported this way, the text is captured (since it's no longer defined in script code), but it is not operational (since the script it invokes is not imported). If the import script option is checked when importing, it is operational, although the show / hide text is duplicated (because of the way IE tweaks the HTML).

On more thing -- when using the UR Copy to UR taskbar button in IE 7, the options in the Import to UR popup window are Link, Move (grayed out), and Copy. Strangely, it doesn't matter if you select link or copy, the size of the file imported in UR is the same (since it is being copied, of course). Why, then, is the link option available if there is no linking going on? I realize the other taskbar button is UR Link to UR is for linking, but it would be less confusing if when copying the link / move options weren't available, and the other way around when linking.

Most of the time, linking is a valid option, but if part/all of the page content was selected before initiating the import, UR will prefer that and copy even if link was chosen on the popup dialog (or the toolbar).

[ashwken]

Originally posted by kinook
This appears to be an IE6 problem. UR does capture the images, and IE7 (and Firefox) displays them properly.

And with more and more web sites no longer supporting IE6, this pushed me over the edge to finally update to IE7 myself.

I suspected that might be the case, thanks for the confirmation.

I'll take the plunge and upgrade to IE7.