briand@tekig4.LEN.TEK.COM (Brian Diehm) (04/25/89)
April 24, 1989
Microsoft Customer Service
16011 NE 36th Way
Box 97017
Redmond, WA 98073-9717
Dear Microsoft:
I have just spent a few hours with Word version 4. From this short exper-
ience, I can only conclude that I will not use this upgrade, even though I
paid for it.
I am not a complainer by nature. When version 3 came out, I was enthus-
iastic about the program, the performance, and the documentation. I was amazed
that it got a bad rap. However, in version 4 I have encountered bugs (some left
over from version 3), dropped features, feature implementations that do not
support the simple specifications I need, and instances where non-standard
implementation leads to inconvenience. Here's the list:
* When the Page Setup... setting for unlimited downloadable fonts (in the
Options button dialog) is checked, documents using downloadable fonts show
major portions in Courier font. This indicates that the LaserWriter is not
getting the downloaded font when requested. Unchecking the unlimited down-
loadable fonts option fixes the problem, but limits you to a very few
downloadable fonts. This bug remains from version 3.
* With page view on, I cannot place the insertion point in the header. The
conditions for this are complex: I have a header that is a table. The
table has one row of cells. The cell where I want to place the insertion
point has three lines of text. Below this cell, on the page and not in the
header, is a positioned paragraph in the right margin area. The vertical
alignment of the positioned paragraph is in line. When I try to put the
insertion point in the bottom of the cell, the cursor is placed in the
positioned paragraph instead. I can get around this by going out of page
view and opening the header. This is simply a bug.
* In version 3, there was a difference between shift-return and command-
return, when they were applied to justified text. Shift-return created an
in-line return, where the last line before the return was justified to
full paragraph width. Command-return also created an in-line return, but
the last line was not justified. Though this was not a documented feature
of version 3, it was well-known enough to be published in magazines such
as MacUser. Version 4 has dropped the command-return feature, and does not
use the command-return sequence for any other purpose.
* I cannot adequately control the vertical placement of positioned para-
graphs. I want to have a side paragraph appear in the margin area, at the
same vertical height it would be placed if it were not a positioned para-
graph. I assumed in line would do that, but it doesn't. Not having that,
I could get by with vertical positioning relative to the top or bottom
margin, just as I can do with horizontal positioning. After a long period
of trying and playing, it appears I cannot do what I need at all. This in-
dicates one of two problems: either the design of the human interface is
too confusing (always a Microsoft weak point), or the feature which is
otherwise fantastic has not been completely implemented.
* The menus have been implemented with a custom font, one that mimics the
standard Chicago font. Many Macintosh users have long since replaced the
standard Chicago font with something more readable. For those users, Word
menus appear as a sudden return to the bad old days. Of course, such a
user is sophisticated enough to perform the same modifications on Word's
fonts as on the System fonts. However, such non-standard implementation
can indicate an attitude orientation within Microsoft that "we don't have
to be standard, we're better." Microsoft should have learned by now,
though the continued existence of such things as non-standard print dialog
boxes indicates otherwise.
* The Print... dialog box provides a series of boxes into which the user can
type numbers. There are the typical boxes for number of copies, and for
page range if a portion of the document is to be printed. There are also
boxes for a range of sections, which is a new and useful feature. However,
the tab ordering of these is non-standard. Usually, a Print... dialog box
comes up with the number of copies selected, and tabs move you successively
to starting and ending page boxes. Word 4.0 tabs you first to the starting
and ending section boxes, and only then to the starting and ending page
boxes. Thus, you have to remember when using Word 4.0 to hit two extra
tabs to get to the normal function (page range), or else you get the
unique feature instead (section range). Simply re-ordering the tab sequence
of this dialog box would make the program standard and friendly.
* The "feature" of having menus that are completely reconfigurable is two-
edged. Version 3 got lots of complaints, many of which indicated that
people were not willing to spend the time to learn to use their tools.
However, version 3 was difficult to learn not only because it was powerful
and feature-rich, but also because of its human interface. In version 4
the human interface problem has not been addressed, it has simply been
thrown back at the user to solve as best he may. Word is the only Mac-
intosh program to resort to this "solution," or to find it necessary to do
so. It is a symptom of greater problems.
Word version 4 is well-known in the industry as having been tested thoroughly.
The fact that this user has encountered this variety of problems in a short
time is symptomatic of beta-testing that does not rely on a wide-enough range
of users. It might be that testing is being done by people familiar only with
the Macintosh market, and not by people who are familiar with such top-end
publishing tools as Interleaf running on Sun workstations. Without such a depth
of background, testers might not have the experience with such page layout
capabilities to thoroughly understand the usage of the features. I would hope
that testing is being done by a wide range of users, with widely varying
backgrounds.
I would be interested in being such a beta-tester for the bug-fix release of
Word version 4. From what I see, Microsoft needs to begin development im-
mediately.
Sincerely,
Brian Diehm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three additional notes:
First, yes, this is the OFFICIAL, COMMERCIAL release of Word 4.0. I am NOT a
beta site, and yes, I've been waiting for this for a long time too.
Second, the program has crashed on me, for no apparent reason. I realized when
this happended that it has been a LONG time since a commercial program has
done that to me. Like a couple of years. Still, it wouldn't be worth mentioning
on a huge new release except for Bill Gates' arrogant promise.
Third, I realize that Chuq has been a beta-test site for Word 4. Sorry Chuq,
I do not question your capability or depth of experience with desktop publish-
ing tools. But golly, Chuq, how much did you wring this howling dog out, anyway?
--
-Brian Diehm (SDA - Standard Disclaimers Apply)
Tektronix, Inc.
briand@tekig4.TEK.COM or {decvax,cae780,uw-beaver}!tektronix!tekig4!briand chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (04/25/89)
> I have just spent a few hours with Word version 4. From this short exper- >ience, I can only conclude that I will not use this upgrade, even though I >paid for it. > Having spent a few months iwth the product, I think you're being rash. However, that's your right. >* When the Page Setup... setting for unlimited downloadable fonts (in the > Options button dialog) is checked, documents using downloadable fonts show > major portions in Courier font. This isn't a Word problem, it's an Apple System Software problem. Try that in any application. Fixed in Laserwriter version 6.0. >* The "feature" of having menus that are completely reconfigurable is two- > edged. Version 3 got lots of complaints, many of which indicated that > people were not willing to spend the time to learn to use their tools. > However, version 3 was difficult to learn not only because it was powerful > and feature-rich, but also because of its human interface. In version 4 > the human interface problem has not been addressed, it has simply been > thrown back at the user to solve as best he may. Word is the only Mac- > intosh program to resort to this "solution," or to find it necessary to do > so. It is a symptom of greater problems. I disgree with this. First, I personally don't have a problem with the Word user interface. It ins't perfect, but it gets the job done. With Word 3, people screamed because if they didn't like the user interface, they were stuck. Microsoft came up with a way to allow people to change it to fit their needs (which I have on my systems to a good degree) and now you complain because they allow you to customize the system. This complaint is very much a two-edged sword. If Microsoft HAD significantly changed the command and interface structure, they would have been pilloried for giving up compatibilitiy. This is the best of both worlds -- if you like it the way it is you don't need to re-learn the WP. If you want to change it, you can change it. People are going to complain about it no matter *what* they do with the interface -- this seems like the best and most flexible compromise, and one I think *every* program should consider adopting. Why force people to use QuickKeys or Tempo to re-arrange their system -- the program should allow them to do itwithout low-level coercion. >Word version 4 is well-known in the industry as having been tested thoroughly. >The fact that this user has encountered this variety of problems in a short >time is symptomatic of beta-testing that does not rely on a wide-enough range >of users. A good percentage of what you define as problems might be better looked at as disagreements in design philophies. >Third, I realize that Chuq has been a beta-test site for Word 4. Sorry Chuq, >I do not question your capability or depth of experience with desktop publish- >ing tools. But golly, Chuq, how much did you wring this howling dog out, anyway? While I'm not yet working with the 'real' version, I'm really happy with Word 4. I've used it for a number of non-trivial projects since I started testing it, and it's done exactly what I ask of it. It even works just fine on a 512ke I have, which is more than I can say for most programs today. And I happen to really love the menu and key redefinitions. It's really let me turn this into my word processor. Instead of an image of the desiggner's word processor.
briand@tekig4.LEN.TEK.COM (Brian Diehm) (04/29/89)
I Posted: >>I have just spent a few hours with Word version 4. From this short exper- >>ience, I can only conclude that I will not use this upgrade, even though I >>paid for it. Chuq replied: > Having spent a few months iwth the product, I think you're being rash. > However, that's your right. That's fine. I do NOT want to appear to be Word-bashing here, but I stand by my original evaluation. Me: >>When the Page Setup... setting for unlimited downloadable fonts (in the >>Options button dialog) is checked, documents using downloadable fonts show >>major portions in Courier font. Chuq: >This isn't a Word problem, it's an Apple System Software problem. Try that >in any application. Fixed in Laserwriter version 6.0. Glad to hear it. I had assumed it was a Word problem, because the feature appeared to work for me in every application but Word 3. I stand corrected on this one. Chuq: >A good percentage of what you define as problems might be better looked at as >disagreements in design philosophies. Well, that's true on one of my comments, where I comment that a completely reconfigurable human interface is an admission of defeat. MY PRIME REASON FOR WRITING WAS THAT THE PROGRAM IS HORRIBLY BUGGY. To that I would now add that the documentation is terrible. But the human interface was a comment I noted in passing. Some examples of bugs: On the Mac II in our department (yes, we have the money in for the official upgrades at work, and yes, I brought in my home copy for people to look at, so sue me Microsoft), the colors under a dialog box are not restored properly when the dialog box is removed. (Yeah, we're using the Kolor CDEV. Microsoft should be compatible.) Also, the program is subject to sudden crashes. Or how about when you are simply typing text with fractional widths on, and the screen suddenly puts a visual break in your line? It turns out that it is simply a screen update problem; if you keep the faith and click the insertion point into the missing right half of the original line, the text below gets selected. It prints OK, and refreshes properly after the print. The documentation? Well, one guy was aware of the feature in Word 3 that lets you see the "ASCII" code of any selected character, or lets you enter a character by "ASCII." He tried the old magic keystroke sequence in Word 4, it didn't work. So, he spent a fair amount of time in the documentation, looking up things like ASCII in the index. Dead ends, at least for that feature. Eventually, he found that Command-Option-Q would do the trick. (It was buried in an Appendix.) So, the question became, what command actually is invoked by Command-Option-Q. (The appendix didn't mention that.) We couldn't find out, either in the book or on line. Eventually, we started to assign Command- Option-Q to some other command, and when it asked if we wanted to remove that keystroke sequence from the "Paste Special Character" command, we had it! Took us ~45 minutes, EVEN AFTER WE KNEW THE FEATURE EXISTED AND HOW TO INVOKE IT! There is no index entry for Paste Special Character, by the way. But, Chuq has accused me of differing in philosophy, implying that if I just accepted Microsoft's philosophy, I would have no trouble. THIS IS NOT TRUE. I have no real problem with the philosophy of reconfigurable menus. However, let me give a couple of examples where Microsoft has fallen short even in their own philosophy. The keypad. Microsoft has annoyed many users by taking over the keypad. If you want to use the keypad, you have to remember to hit "clear" to set it in numeric lock. And then, when you do, you lose the page number notation in your window. Some users are unaware that you can even USE the keypad with Word. Well, with version 4, you can de-assign the keypad keys from those cursor-moving commands, right? Wrong. If you take away the command assignments for the keypad keys, the damn program BEEPS at you when you press one! Another example. I wanted to create a custom configuration that matched Mac- Write. (My wife is not a Mac power user, to put it mildly.) I started with the settings file for MacWrite that MS included. It was kludgey to change, but I could teach it to the wife, so OK. But then I wanted to move the font size list from the Font menu to another menu. Well, you can identify the Font Size: command, and you can assign it to another menu. You can even specify the font size you want to have appear in the menu. BUT. Once you have assigned this command once, you cannot assign it twice. You can still use Option-Command-+ to add font sizes, BUT THESE GO INTO THE FONT MENU, NOT YOUR SELECTED MENU. Feh. So, Chuq, though I don't mind the philosophy, Microsoft has not even implemented it consistently. I don't expect anything to be bug-free, but this program is ridiculous. Compared to Word 3.0 when it first came out, this is much worse. -Brian Diehm (SDA - Standard Disclaimers Apply) Tektronix, Inc. briand@tekig4.TEK.COM or {decvax,cae780,uw-beaver}!tektronix!tekig4!briand -- -Brian Diehm (SDA - Standard Disclaimers Apply) Tektronix, Inc. briand@tekig4.TEK.COM or {decvax,cae780,uw-beaver}!tektronix!tekig4!briand
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (04/29/89)
>Some examples of bugs: On the Mac II in our department >the colors under a dialog box are >not restored properly when the dialog box is removed. (Yeah, we're using the >Kolor CDEV. Microsoft should be compatible.) Hmm. I use Word for on a color IIx at work, use Kolor and never saw this. >Also, the program is subject to >sudden crashes. Or how about when you are simply typing text with fractional >widths on, and the screen suddenly puts a visual break in your line? Double Hmm. I wrote a 30 page business plan on the above IIx. It not only didn't crash, I never saw the redraw problem you mention. Unless Microsoft put a lot of bugs back *into* the final release (which hasn't arrived yet -- my post office is notoriously slow about stuff) I seem to be doing the same things you're doing and not having the problems. Perhaps there's something else going on? >The documentation? Far be it for me to defend Word's documentation. I will say it's better than the travesty they shipped with 3.0. Better is a relative term. I didn't, frankly, spend a lot of time with the beta documentation -- mainly looking for formatting and other gross errors and getting a feel for he program. Nobody with any sense relies on the Microsoft documentation. The Cobb Group has just released their "Word 4 Companion" -- it's a well written, detailed book on the new word. I bought mine last week, so it's available. >There is no index entry for Paste Special Character, by the way. yeah. I ran into this about four days ago when I needed the same thing. Cobb's book clued me in. >But, Chuq has accused me of differing in philosophy, implying that if I just >accepted Microsoft's philosophy, I would have no trouble. THIS IS NOT TRUE. >I have no real problem with the philosophy of reconfigurable menus. However, >let me give a couple of examples where Microsoft has fallen short even in their >own philosophy. >The keypad. Microsoft has annoyed many users by taking over the keypad. Then again, they would have annoyed many users if they hadn't taken over the keypad. Me, for one. You consider it a bug. I use the keypad a fair amountttt and consider it a necessity for my writing. >Some users are unaware that you can even USE the keypad with Word. So? Many others (like me) use it a good deal. >Well, with >version 4, you can de-assign the keypad keys from those cursor-moving commands, >right? Wrong. If you take away the command assignments for the keypad keys, the >damn program BEEPS at you when you press one! Makes sense. You've removed the definition for that key. So you hit it and nothing happens. Removing the definition of the key won't automatically give the keys a new definition, it will give them no defintion. What you want is to redefine the keys to act like a normal keypad. Simply turning off the definitions won't do that. I'm still not convinced that what Brian is seeing are bugs, except those things that he's seeing that I'm not -- why they show up in his environment and not mine I don't know. However, I think I'm going to simply agree to disagree on most of it at this point. chuq Chuq Von Rospach =|= Editor,OtherRealms =|= Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com =|= CI$: 73317,635 =|= AppleLink: CHUQ [This is myself speaking. No company can control my thoughts.] Bookends. What a wonderful thought.
shap@polya.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan S. Shapiro) (04/30/89)
One of the things I have wanted in Word is to be able to define a style that affected only the selected text rather than just the paragraph. For example, it would be useful to have a "Figure Reference" style that could be used within a normal text paragraph, and be able to change all figure reference formatting by just changing the style. At the moment, I don't know of a way to define styles for any unit less than a paragraph, except for specialized cases like footnote-reference. Can someone perhaps tell me if a) there is a way to do this in 3.x and earlier versions, or if not b) is it in 4.0? I haven't received my upgrade yet... Thanx Jon
bmug@garnet.berkeley.edu (BMUG) (05/01/89)
In article <8842@polya.Stanford.EDU> shap@polya.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan S. Shapiro) writes: >One of the things I have wanted in Word is to be able to define a >style that affected only the selected text rather than just the >paragraph. For example, it would be useful to have a "Figure >Reference" style that could be used within a normal text paragraph, >and be able to change all figure reference formatting by just changing >the style. > >Can someone perhaps tell me if a) there is a way to do this in 3.x and >earlier versions, or if not b) is it in 4.0? There is no way to do this in Word 3.0. I don't believe that there is any way to do this in Word 4.0 (I'm sure Chuq will correct me if I'm wrong. However, there IS a way to do this in Nisus (which will read, incidentally, Word 3.0x files which aren't Fast Saved). Nisus has a "user-defined text styles" option on which the user can do searches and formatting changes, just as Jonathan describes. Still waiting for the upgrade which includes footnoting, etc., though... John Heckendorn /\ BMUG ARPA: bmug@garnet.berkeley.EDU A__A 1442A Walnut St., #62 BITNET: bmug@ucbgarnet |()| Berkeley, CA 94709 | | (415) 549-2684 | |
briand@tekig4.LEN.TEK.COM (Brian Diehm) (05/02/89)
>One of the things I have wanted in Word is to be able to define a >style that affected only the selected text rather than just the >paragraph. For example, it would be useful to have a "Figure >Reference" style that could be used within a normal text paragraph, >and be able to change all figure reference formatting by just changing >the style. >Can someone perhaps tell me if a) there is a way to do this in 3.x and >earlier versions, or if not b) is it in 4.0? Word 4.0 appears to have no such facility either. The ONLY publishing system that I know of that has this is Interleaf TPS 4.0. This is the one version beyond the Interleaf that runs on the Mac. Small comfort, I know. -- -Brian Diehm (SDA - Standard Disclaimers Apply) Tektronix, Inc. briand@tekig4.TEK.COM or {decvax,cae780,uw-beaver}!tektronix!tekig4!briand
arie@zippy.eecs.umich.edu (Arie Covrigaru) (05/02/89)
I've been using Word 4.0 for the last few days and didn't have any crashes, but I have the impression that the drawing of menus is much slower than in Word 3.x and other application I use. Did anyone have the same impression? I am using it on a Mac Plus and an SE with 2.5 megs, MultiFinder System 6.0.3. I tried to use Word with the load into memory option on and off but got the same results with the menus. ============================================================================= Arie Covrigaru Cognitive Science and Machine Intelligence Laboratory, University of Michigan =============================================================================
briand@tekig4.LEN.TEK.COM (Brian Diehm) (05/03/89)
I have griped about MS Word 4.0 here before, and I have promised to stop
because I didn't want to be accused of Microsoft bashing.
But. This is simply too much. I am now thoroughly pissed off at these arrogant
jerks.
Microsoft has not even bothered to bring their program into compliance with
the standard usage of the system. WORD 4.0 STILL REMEMBERS FONT ASSIGNMENTS
BY FONT NUMBER INSTEAD OF FONT NAME. There was some excuse in version 3; the
system was still in flux and only far-seeing companies did it right back then.
There is no excuse today. Apple first published Tech Note #191 on April 2,
1988. It was last revised on August 1, 1988. It specifies the use of font names
rather than numbers. It even gives sample code of how to do it right! The
reason is specifically because the Font/DA Mover no longer even attempts to
maintain standardized font numbers. When you install a font now, if there is a
number conflict the Font/DA Mover will simply assign a new number to the font.
How does this affect you? It means that if you take your magnum opus to some-
one else's machine, all your text could lose its font assignment and appear in
Geneva (or whatever the default application font is set to). Or if that system
uses that font number for something else, then your tome might just appear in
something else entirely, like, say, Zapf Dingbats or Carta! The problem is its
most insidious when you send your book off to that nice Linotronic service
bureau to get 2450 dpi film masters at many $ a shot.
Of course, the solution is well-known. PageMaker 3.0, by contrast, has done it
right for a couple of years now. Apparently Microsoft simply couldn't be
bothered. Chuq, where were you? Too busy reconfiguring the menus and having fun?
--
-Brian Diehm (SDA - Standard Disclaimers Apply)
Tektronix, Inc.
briand@tekig4.TEK.COM or {decvax,cae780,uw-beaver}!tektronix!tekig4!briand hammen@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Robert J. Hammen) (05/03/89)
In article <3950@tekig4.LEN.TEK.COM> briand@tekig4.LEN.TEK.COM (Brian Diehm) writes: >>One of the things I have wanted in Word is to be able to define a >>style that affected only the selected text rather than just the >>paragraph. For example, it would be useful to have a "Figure > >Word 4.0 appears to have no such facility either. The ONLY publishing system >that I know of that has this is Interleaf TPS 4.0. This is the one version Actually, QuarkXPress 2.x has this feature; it's very easy to simply select what you want to change and apply the style, as opposed to the paragraph-based styles like Word and PM3 use... /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// / Robert Hammen | hammen@csd4.milw.wisc.edu | uwmcsd1!uwmcsd4!hammen / / Delphi: HAMMEN | GEnie: R.Hammen | CI$: 70701,2104 | MacNet: HAMMEN / / Bulfin Printers | 1887 N. Water | Milwaukee WI 53202 | (414) 271-1887 / / 3839 N. Humboldt #204 | Milwaukee WI 53212 | (414) 961-0715 (h) / ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) (05/03/89)
In article <23846@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> bmug@garnet.berkeley.edu (BMUG) writes: <In article <8842@polya.Stanford.EDU> shap@polya.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan S. Shapiro) writes: <>One of the things I have wanted in Word is to be able to define a <>style that affected only the selected text rather than just the <>paragraph. For example, it would be useful to have a "Figure <>Reference" style that could be used within a normal text paragraph, <>and be able to change all figure reference formatting by just changing <>the style. <> <>Can someone perhaps tell me if a) there is a way to do this in 3.x and <>earlier versions, or if not b) is it in 4.0? < <There is no way to do this in Word 3.0. < <I don't believe that there is any way to do this in Word 4.0 (I'm sure <Chuq will correct me if I'm wrong. < <However, there IS a way to do this in Nisus (which will read, incidentally, <Word 3.0x files which aren't Fast Saved). Nisus has a "user-defined text <styles" option on which the user can do searches and formatting changes, <just as Jonathan describes. < <Still waiting for the upgrade which includes footnoting, etc., though... < <John Heckendorn < /\ <BMUG ARPA: bmug@garnet.berkeley.EDU A__A <1442A Walnut St., #62 BITNET: bmug@ucbgarnet |()| <Berkeley, CA 94709 | | <(415) 549-2684 | | There is a way to do it in the PC version of Word too. They have character styles. I've always wondered if Microsoft was running an experiment with stylesheet implementation. "Should we let them assign a stylesheet as a separate entity to any document or should we keep a stylesheet automatically attached to a document?" I got elected to head up the style guide committee in our writing group. As I set up the stylesheet and try to bring the existing documents into conformity, I could have really used the ability to copy separate styles from one document to another. Another thing that is really irritating is the hoops you have to jump through to clean up a stylesheet. In deleting the obsolete styles, you can select only one at a time and each time you cut it the list jumps back to the beginning. Now scroll down to the next one to be deleted and go through this process all over again. Really fun when you have to delete up to 20 styles from up to 20 documents and still meet production deadlines! I doubt if more convenience in this area is a big enough issue for most people to put it high on the list of fixes, but Microsoft should realize that we can't just create the perfect stylesheet once. Updating a style- sheet after you decide on some different conventions takes a lot of determination and patience, especially since every manual has many chapters each of which is a different document. Shirley Kehr
davidlu@microsoft.UUCP (David Luebbert) (05/04/89)
>How does this affect you? It means that if you take your magnum opus to some- >one else's machine, all your text could lose its font assignment and appear in >Geneva (or whatever the default application font is set to). Or if that system >uses that font number for something else, then your tome might just appear in >something else entirely, like, say, Zapf Dingbats or Carta! The problem is its >most insidious when you send your book off to that nice Linotronic service >bureau to get 2450 dpi film masters at many $ a shot. In Word 4.0 (also Word 3.0) if you save a document in RTF format and read it with Word on another system, font assignments will be mapped by name. Since the RTF file encodes all of the properties stored in a Word binary file, you can ship the RTF to the service bureau confident that they will be able to print exactly what you sent them, provided they have loaded on their system all the fonts you used in your document. I guess I was far-seeing back then. ;-) Best regards, Dave Luebbert Microsoft Corp.
john@trigraph.UUCP (John Chew) (05/04/89)
In an unattributed article someone wrote: # One of the things I have wanted in Word is to be able to define a # style that affected only the selected text rather than just the # paragraph. For example, it would be useful to have a "Figure # Reference" style that could be used within a normal text paragraph, # and be able to change all figure reference formatting by just changing # the style. To which Brian Diehm <briand@tekig4.LEN.TEK.COM> replied in article <3950@tekig4.LEN.TEK.COM>: >Word 4.0 appears to have no such facility either. The ONLY publishing system >that I know of that has this is Interleaf TPS 4.0. This is the one version >beyond the Interleaf that runs on the Mac. Small comfort, I know. As much as I hate to promote the use of IBM PCs, I feel obligated to point out that MS Word for the PC has had this feature since version 4 (the last version I had to use -- I've no idea what the current version is). Its style sheets supported Character, Paragraph and Section styles, and many are the times when I have gnashed my teeth sitting at my mac, manually re-applying Section formatting changes to large numbers of similarly formatted documents, or threatened grave bodily harm against someone who happened to change their mind about how some bullet was incorrectly styled. Yes I know there are work-arounds (mostly having to do with saving in RTF format and mucking around in it before returning to normalcy), but for some reason I had hoped that a new version of MS Word for the Mac would include all the nifty features that MS Word for the PC had. Guess I'll just wait for MS Word (Mac) 5.0... [ Just in case you think I'm anti-MS Word, let me point out that my text tools of preference are, in order of document complexity, vi, Word, and hand-tooled PostScript ] John -- john j. chew, iii phone: +1 416 425 3818 AppleLink: CDA0329 trigraph, inc., toronto, canada {uunet!utai!utcsri,utgpu,utzoo}!trigraph!john dept. of math., u. of toronto poslfit@{utorgpu.bitnet,gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca}
clye@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Christopher Lye) (05/05/89)
In article <2357@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> hammen@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Robert J. Hammen) writes: >In article <3950@tekig4.LEN.TEK.COM> briand@tekig4.LEN.TEK.COM (Brian Diehm) writes: >>Word 4.0 appears to have no such facility either. The ONLY publishing system >>that I know of that has this is Interleaf TPS 4.0. This is the one version > >Actually, QuarkXPress 2.x has this feature; it's very easy to simply select >what you want to change and apply the style, as opposed to the paragraph-based >styles like Word and PM3 use... Another fine program that has selected text style sheets is Nisus. As soon as the patch fixing a couple of bugs and the footnote feature is added I will be able to say with confidence that it is my WP of choice.
briand@tekig4.LEN.TEK.COM (Brian Diehm) (05/05/89)
> In Word 4.0 (also Word 3.0) if you save a document in RTF format and read it >with Word on another system, font assignments will be mapped by name. Since >the RTF file encodes all of the properties stored in a Word binary file, you >can ship the RTF to the service bureau confident that they will be able to >print exactly what you sent them, provided they have loaded on their system >all the fonts you used in your document. > I guess I was far-seeing back then. ;-) > >Best regards, > >Dave Luebbert >Microsoft Corp. Dave, thank you for your response. I was under the impression that RTF was supposed to assist in moving things between platforms, not back to the same program. It's nice to know that this loop-the-loop solution is there (at least the problem can be gotten around), but the problem solution was specified over a year ago by Apple. WHY HAVE YOU PEOPLE IGNORED IT? I mean no disrespect, but if I were in your shoes, I would be embarrassed to make this "solution" public. Why not just fix the program, especially during an upgrade cycle? ---------- Brian Diehm (SDA - Standard Disclaimers Apply) Tektronix, Inc. briand@tekig4.LEN.TEK.COM -- ---------- Brian Diehm (SDA - Standard Disclaimers Apply) Tektronix, Inc. briand@tekig4.LEN.TEK.COM
gergely@cs.dal.ca (Peter J Gergely) (05/06/89)
About copying separate styles from one document to another:
Word 3.0 and 4.0 have always had the ability of copying one or more
separate styles from one document to another.
The procedure is simple, open the document from which you want to copy
the styles as a normal document. Select one or more paragraphs that
have the styles you want to copy. Copy them to the clipboard, and
paste them into the document you want the new styles in.
There is a caveat though. If there is a style in the new document
with the same name, its formatting is replaced by the one pasted in.
This also presents a bug if there are paragraphs having modifications
based on that style, as they default back to the raw style. For
example, a normal paragraph with different indents may revert back to
being normal.
The Word 4.0 User's Guide describes the procedure rather explicitely.
- Peter
--
Peter J. Gergely (DREA, P.O. Box 1012, Dartmouth, NS B2Y 3Z7 Canada)
ARPANET: gergely@XX.DREA.DND.CA or, Peter@GRIFFIN.DREA.DND.CA
DIALNET: Peter@DIAL|DREA-BALROG UUCP: gergely@dalcs.UUCP
CSNET: gergely%cs.dal.cdn@ubc.csnet GENIE: GERGELYbernard@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Bernie Bernstein) (05/08/89)
In article <3266@cs.dal.ca> gergely@xx.drea.dnd.ca (Peter J Gergely) writes: > >About copying separate styles from one document to another: > >Word 3.0 and 4.0 have always had the ability of copying one or more >separate styles from one document to another. > >The procedure is simple, open the document from which you want to copy >the styles as a normal document. Select one or more paragraphs that >have the styles you want to copy. Copy them to the clipboard, and >paste them into the document you want the new styles in. It's even simpler than that: Just open the document that you want to import the styles to and do a Define Styles command. When you are in the Style Definition mode, you can Open... any other files. The files that you load from this mode don't actually Open the file, but rather load the styles into the current context. I use this all the time. I created a set of "template" documents which contain no text, just sets of styles. When I write a new report, I first import the styles by getting into the definition mode and Open... my styles from the desired template. >There is a caveat though. If there is a style in the new document >with the same name, its formatting is replaced by the one pasted in. >This also presents a bug if there are paragraphs having modifications >based on that style, as they default back to the raw style. For >example, a normal paragraph with different indents may revert back to >being normal. I haven't looked into what happens with my method, but it probably is the same. o, ,, , | Bernie Bernstein | , ,, L>O/ \,/ \ ,| University of Colorado at boulder |/ \,,/ \ O./ ' / . `, / | office: (303) 492-1218 | / ` \ ,. ,/ / , ' | email: bernard@boulder.colorado.edu | / '' \
zeller@ethz.UUCP (Lukas Zeller) (05/12/89)
In article <3266@cs.dal.ca> gergely@xx.drea.dnd.ca (Peter J Gergely) writes: > >About copying separate styles from one document to another: > >The procedure is simple, open the document from which you want to copy >the styles as a normal document. Select one or more paragraphs that >have the styles you want to copy. Copy them to the clipboard, and >paste them into the document you want the new styles in. > >There is a caveat though. If there is a style in the new document >with the same name, its formatting is replaced by the one pasted in. >This also presents a bug if there are paragraphs having modifications >based on that style, as they default back to the raw style. For >example, a normal paragraph with different indents may revert back to >being normal. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >^^^^^^^^^^^^ In my opinion, this is one of the most dangerous bugs in Word 3.xx. The problem can be generalized as follows: If *any* style in a document is deleted, replaced or merged with another style, *all* extra paragraph formatting based on *any* style may be deleted, and not only those paragraphs formatted using the style being modified. I write "may be deleted" because often it happens but sometimes it does not. However, if it happens with a certain document/style configuration once, the error can be reproduced. To be sure, I just tried it again: I deleted a *completely unused* style (no paragraph formatted with, no other style based on it) and all the extra paragraph formatting (tabs, borders, margins etc.) disappeared. No way to get it back, if you don't have a backup copy of the document. I considered this as UGLY in 3.02 and I'll consider it even UGLIER if they did not fix in 4.0. I can only *hope* they did, because I didn't get my update yet. Any comments from you lucky (?) 4.0 users out there ? ========================== +---------------------------+ ***************** Lukas Zeller |\ E-Mail: /| * Never trust a * ETH Zurich, Switzerland | \_______________________/ | * computer * (SFIT, Swiss Federal | / zeller@ethz.UUCP \ | * bigger than * Institute of Technology) | / ..cernvax!ethz!zeller \ | * you can lift * ========================== +---------------------------+ *****************