teskridg@nmsu.edu (Tom Eskridge) (01/08/91)
Is there any way to fix the position of graphics in a Word 4.0 document rather than having the graphic treated as a floating character? I'm looking to put figures at the bottom or top of a page rather than having them float around the page. tom eskridge computing research laboratory, new mexico state university teskridg@nmsu.edu (505) 646-5427 -- tom eskridge computing research laboratory, new mexico state university teskridg@nmsu.edu (505) 646-5427
dana@are.berkeley.edu (Dana E. Keil) (01/08/91)
teskridg@nmsu.edu (Tom Eskridge) writes: >Is there any way to fix the position of graphics in a Word 4.0 document rather >than having the graphic treated as a floating character? I'm looking to put >figures at the bottom or top of a page rather than having them float around the >page. Certainly, you choose position from the format menu and tell it to position to the top, botom or center using the popup in the dialog box, or type into the popup the exact position in inches (points, cm, or whatever). The graphic should be in a paragraph by itself (otherwise text with it in the same paragraph will also be positioned). -- Dana E. Keil Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics University of California, Berkeley dana@are.berkeley.edu
eric@brewmaster.bnr.ca (Eric Brunelle) (01/08/91)
In article <dana.663292702@are>, dana@are.berkeley.edu (Dana E. Keil) writes: |> teskridg@nmsu.edu (Tom Eskridge) writes: |> |> >Is there any way to fix the position of graphics in a Word 4.0 document rather |> >than having the graphic treated as a floating character? I'm looking to put |> >figures at the bottom or top of a page rather than having them float around the |> >page. |> |> Certainly, you choose position from the format menu and tell it to |> position to the top, botom or center using the popup in the dialog |> box, or type into the popup the exact position in inches (points, cm, |> or whatever). The graphic should be in a paragraph by itself (otherwise |> text with it in the same paragraph will also be positioned). I find the easiest way of positioning anything is in Print Preview mode. Put your graphic in a paragraph by itself. Select that paragraph. Select "Position..." from the Format menu. Adjust the various parameters rapidly. Push the "Preview..." button. This brings you in Print Preview mode, with the second icon already selected, so you can move your graphic around on the page with the mouse. The text will then flow around your graphic. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Brunelle | "C'est la nuit qu'il est beau | de croire a la lumiere" eric%bnrmtl@iro.umontreal.ca | -- Rostand, Chantecler ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
krboyce@athena.mit.edu (Kevin R Boyce) (01/09/91)
dana@are.berkeley.edu (Dana E. Keil) writes: >teskridg@nmsu.edu (Tom Eskridge) writes: > >>Is there any way to fix the position of graphics in a Word 4.0 document rather >>than having the graphic treated as a floating character? I'm looking to put >>figures at the bottom or top of a page rather than having them float around >>the page. > >Certainly, you choose position from the format menu and tell it to >position to the top, botom or center using the popup in the dialog >box, or type into the popup the exact position in inches (points, cm, >or whatever). The graphic should be in a paragraph by itself (otherwise >text with it in the same paragraph will also be positioned). Here's my problem with that, as near as I can figure out: The graphic still remembers its "in-line" position in the text, which is where it was before you turned positioning on, and where it will go if you turn it back off. Now, if the graphic is large enough that it _would have_ caused a page break if it were still at its "in-line" position, it will _still_ cause a page break there, and then be positioned correctly on the next page. Another way of looking at it is that text will flow forward but not backward around a graphic. Yet another is that pagination is done before positioning. Note: I have only tried this with graphics that are the full width of the text area. (That's what I will use mostly in my th*s*s.) The two people I talked to at Microsoft were totally clueless. So... Is there a way around this? (BTW, jOn, if you're listening, Nisus seems to have the same problem. Of course I'm sure one could write a macro...) My plan now is to manually change the in-line position just before print it out (along with formatting the index and TOC and running it through EndNote...). Sheesh. --------- Kevin boyce@amo.mit.edu "And hey, the cross is in the ballpark." -Paul Simon
cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox) (01/11/91)
In article <1991Jan8.173714.581@athena.mit.edu> krboyce@athena.mit.edu (Kevin R Boyce) writes: >dana@are.berkeley.edu (Dana E. Keil) writes: >>teskridg@nmsu.edu (Tom Eskridge) writes: >>>Is there any way to fix the position of graphics in a Word 4.0 document >> >>Certainly, you choose position from the format menu and ... > >Here's my problem with that,... >Now, if the graphic is large enough that it _would have_ >caused a page break if it were still at its "in-line" position, it will >_still_ cause a page break there, and then be positioned correctly on the >next page. I had an extended discussion with one of Word's developers about this very matter. It seems that they decided that reliable figure and footnote handling was a problem for a page layout program, not a problem for Word. If anyone knows of a human-friendly solution in either Word, Nisus, PageMaker or their permutations, please let me know how you do it. The Mac may be wonderful for magazines and newsletters and the like, but it I find it somewhat short of 'insanely wonderful' for writing technical figures with simple figures and footnotes. Grmmpf... -- Brad Cox; cox@stepstone.com; CI$ 71230,647; 203 426 1875 The Stepstone Corporation; 75 Glen Road; Sandy Hook CT 06482
xdab@ellis.uchicago.edu (David Baird) (01/12/91)
In article <6009@stpstn.UUCP> cox@stpstn.UUCP (Brad Cox) writes: >In article <1991Jan8.173714.581@athena.mit.edu> krboyce@athena.mit.edu (Kevin R Boyce) writes: >>dana@are.berkeley.edu (Dana E. Keil) writes: >>>teskridg@nmsu.edu (Tom Eskridge) writes: >>>>Is there any way to fix the position of graphics in a Word 4.0 document >>> >>>Certainly, you choose position from the format menu and ... >> >>Here's my problem with that,... >>Now, if the graphic is large enough that it _would have_ >>caused a page break if it were still at its "in-line" position, it will >>_still_ cause a page break there, and then be positioned correctly on the >>next page. > >I had an extended discussion with one of Word's developers about this very >matter. It seems that they decided that reliable figure and footnote handling >was a problem for a page layout program, not a problem for Word. > Such a decision, if it still stands, is at the least, a poor solution. Any serious academic or professional writing will require footnotes, and probably the palcement of figures/graphics. At the moment, Word does treat footnotes in a tolerable fashion, while PageMaker doesn't have a clue to serious book-length typesetting problems (or even dissertations). If MicroSoft could just get serious about really fine tuning some of the things that already put it heads above most other word processors, they would really be unbeatable. In my experience, footnotes work ok in Word, but try to full justify 11pt text. Many book publishers prefer body text in 11 point size, but one can not use Word to produce the camera ready text, as the program can not handle a font size that is not in the system (usually 10, 12, 14, 18, and 24 point sizes). What happens is that the right margin of text is not justified, but is quite ragged. Utilizing ATM does not overcome this limitation. If Microsoft could just get it right! -- X-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-X X David Baird xdab@midway.uchicago.edu X X University of Chicago d-baird@uchicago.edu X X University Computing Organizations (312) 702-7161 X
tj@pons.cis.ohio-state.edu (Todd R Johnson) (01/13/91)
>> The Mac may be >>wonderful for magazines and newsletters and the like, but it I find it >>somewhat short of 'insanely wonderful' for writing technical figures with >>simple figures and footnotes. Grmmpf... I think this is true of all WYSIWYG word processors on every machine. None of the WYSIWYG WP that I know of, including FrameMaker, can come close to LaTeX and a suitable document style. Word 4.0 doesn't have cross references and can't automatically number lists and headings. The dissertation format that I have to use requires that the last word on the page not be hyphenated. I have to fix this by hand before I print the final document. FrameMaker doesn't have an outliner and has no support for bibliographies. Nisus relies too heavily on macros (which are horribly slow) instead of providing automatic formatting solutions (it also doesn't have a built-in outliner and can't easily do bibliographies.) Fullwrite is just plain brain-damaged in its implementation of many of its features. Perhaps in ten years WYSIWYG will be where TeX and LaTeX are today. For now, you need to decide whether you are willing to put up with the inadequacies of WYSIWYG WP's in return for convenience, or to use TeX and LaTeX for their advanced features and cope with the amazingly complex code required for things that can be done without effort in a good WYSIWYG WP. (For example, to convert a LaTeX document to double space, you have to develop or find a whole new document style.) ---Todd -- Todd R. Johnson tj@cis.ohio-state.edu Laboratory for AI Research The Ohio State University
ps7@prism.gatech.EDU (SRIRAM,P) (01/14/91)
In article <87237@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Todd R Johnson <tj@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: [comparison of WYSWIG and LaTex deleted; I am in general agreement with Todd - I recommend Word or some such for papers but think a dissertation calls for LaTex, with its nice crossrefs etc. however,] >use TeX and LaTeX for their advanced features and cope with the >amazingly complex code required for things that can be done without >effort in a good WYSIWYG WP. (For example, to convert a LaTeX >document to double space, you have to develop or find a whole new >document style.) Unless there have been some radical changes in LaTex since I wrote my dissertation, the above is not a good example. Changing line spacing involves changing the value of an appropriate variable using a single command (\baselinestretch or something like that). Sriram.
tj@pons.cis.ohio-state.edu (Todd R Johnson) (01/15/91)
In article <19622@hydra.gatech.EDU> ps7@prism.gatech.EDU (SRIRAM,P) writes: >>Unless there have been some radical changes in LaTex since I wrote my >>dissertation, the above is not a good example. Changing line spacing >>involves changing the value of an appropriate variable using a single >>command (\baselinestretch or something like that). >> >>Sriram. \baselinestretch is the hacked way to do it. Unfortunately, it ends up doublespacing everything, including things that are already doublespaced and those that should remain single spaced. Any LaTeX guru will tell you that you really need a special double spaced document style. Note that even in Word you can get into trouble with header spacing if you change from single to double spacing unless you have your formats set up correctly. ---Todd -- Todd R. Johnson tj@cis.ohio-state.edu Laboratory for AI Research The Ohio State University
xdab@ellis.uchicago.edu (David Baird) (01/22/91)
In article <1991Jan16.135456.16765@DMI.USherb.CA> mazu@terre.DMI.USherb.CA (Marc Mazuhelli) writes: >In article <1991Jan12.050349.14616@midway.uchicago.edu> xdab@ellis.uchicago.edu (David Baird) writes: >>one can not use Word to produce the camera ready text, as the program >>can not handle a font size that is not in the system (usually 10, 12, >>14, 18, and 24 point sizes). What happens is that the right margin of >>text is not justified, but is quite ragged. Utilizing ATM does not >>overcome this limitation. If Microsoft could just get it right! >> > >I don't know if it would correct this anomaly, but I wonder if >"fractional widths" was ON ... I know it does make a difference with >the precise alignment of text, but I don't specifically know if it >will correct the 11-point justification problem. It should by tried >however... Utilizing the "fractional widths" option does not help in this situation. It will often make it worse. Again, this varies from document to document. In a 30 page document, one or two paragraphs will be affected (i.e., full justified will be 4 to 5 characters will be off), and it can't be predicted which will be effected or fixed. >I added the "fractional widths" option in my File menui to turn it OFF >when I'm editing (editing is a bit harder when it's on), but I always >turn it back ON when I print. I know it helps a lot with bold text, >because Quickdraw makes BOLD text wider than roman text, and the printer >(at least laser printers and DeskWriters with ATM) just make the strokes >that form the letters wider, but the letters themselves. With >fractional widths ON, bold text occupies the same space as roman, as >it should. I also have added "fractional widths" to my menu, but full justification in Word needs some work. From correspondence with Microsoft programmers, they are aware of these anomolies, and are trying to make it work right. -- X-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-X X David Baird xdab@midway.uchicago.edu X X University of Chicago d-baird@uchicago.edu X X University Computing Organizations (312) 702-7161 X
biswa@hoff.berkeley.edu (Biswa Ranjan Ghosh) (01/23/91)
Sorry if this has been discussed already, but I find inaccuracies in my laser printouts of pictures which are pasted into Word from MacDraw. They print out perfectly when printed directly from MacDraw. But when I paste them into my Word document and then print, arrowheads are lopsided, and some lines are too long, running into or out of other objects. Is this something that can be cured? Reference: System is SE/30 running System 6.0.4 and Word 4.0B. Printing is done by generating a postscript file, which is tranferred to our Suns and printed out on an Apple Laserwriter hooked up to them. Would it help to (a) Upgrade to a newer version of the system. (b) Connect the Mac directly to the laserwriter (c) Jump up and down while printing. Comments? Biswa Ghosh 550 Cory Hall arpa: biswa@janus.berkeley.edu U.C. Berkeley uucp: ...ucbvax!janus!biswa Berkeley, CA 94720 tel: (415) 642-0395
johnsone@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Erik A. Johnson) (01/23/91)
biswa@hoff.berkeley.edu (Biswa Ranjan Ghosh) writes: >Sorry if this has been discussed already, but I find inaccuracies in my >laser printouts of pictures which are pasted into Word from MacDraw. >They print out perfectly when printed directly from MacDraw. But when I >paste them into my Word document and then print, arrowheads are lopsided, >and some lines are too long, running into or out of other objects. Do you mean MacDrawII? If so, read on... This is a very frustrating problem! If I remember correctly, it was discussed on c.s.m sometime back, but I don't remember ever seeing any satisfying answer. I think the problem is that somewhere along the way from leaving MacDrawII (with the desired graphics on the clipboard), entering MSWord, and pasting into a Word document, the graphics info (with high precision) gets converted to PICT format, which, I think, can only have 1/72-inch (1-pt) accuracy. If that is so, either MacDrawII or MSWord (or both) must be changed to keep the higher-precision data. Does this sound right? > Would it help to > (c) Jump up and down while printing. One never knows :-) ! Erik A. Johnson, Graduate Student \ Internet: johnsone@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu Aeronautical & Astronautical Engineering \ University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign \ AmericaOnline: ErikAJ
peirce@outpost.UUCP (Michael Peirce) (01/23/91)
In article <1991Jan23.081259.17025@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, johnsone@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Erik A. Johnson) writes: > > biswa@hoff.berkeley.edu (Biswa Ranjan Ghosh) writes: > >Sorry if this has been discussed already, but I find inaccuracies in my > >laser printouts of pictures which are pasted into Word from MacDraw. > >They print out perfectly when printed directly from MacDraw. But when I > >paste them into my Word document and then print, arrowheads are lopsided, > >and some lines are too long, running into or out of other objects. > > Do you mean MacDrawII? If so, read on... > > This is a very frustrating problem! If I remember correctly, it was > discussed on c.s.m sometime back, but I don't remember ever seeing any > satisfying answer. The solution is to use EPS files. MacDraw Pro (announced at MacWorld Expo) will support this format. It can represent figures at higher precision than can PICT. -- michael -- Michael Peirce -- outpost!peirce@claris.com -- Peirce Software -- Suite 301, 719 Hibiscus Place -- Macintosh Programming -- San Jose, California 95117 -- & Consulting -- (408) 244-6554, AppleLink: PEIRCE
biswa@janus.Berkeley.EDU (Biswa Ghosh) (01/24/91)
In article <0B010004.nzeiah@outpost.UUCP> peirce@outpost.UUCP writes: > >In article <1991Jan23.081259.17025@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, johnsone@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Erik A. Johnson) writes: >> >> biswa@hoff.berkeley.edu (Biswa Ranjan Ghosh) writes: >> >Sorry if this has been discussed already, but I find inaccuracies in my >> >laser printouts of pictures which are pasted into Word from MacDraw. >> >> Do you mean MacDrawII? If so, read on... >> >> [Explanation follows that MacDrawII picts are pasted in 72dpi resolution] > >The solution is to use EPS files. MacDraw Pro (announced at MacWorld >Expo) will support this format. It can represent figures at higher >precision than can PICT. Yep, it was MacDraw II all right. Sound's like there's no way to get around it. Limiting myself to currently available software (is MacDraw Pro out yet?), would Canvas be a good alternative, i.e., does it use EPS format for Cut and Paste operations? I'm surprised software companies haven't addressed this problem earlier, considering that laserprinters have been out for so long, and the 72dpi limitation is very obvious on laserprinter output. I've noticed that kaleidagraph always asks me when I do a copy operation, if I want to copy to Clipboard in high resolution Postscript format. I guess this is EPS (?). Anyway, I then paste this into my Word document, and my graphs look really sharp. Second comment, even though the graphics from MacDraw don't look very good, the text in it looks perfect. Someone asked about having both letter and landscape format in the same document. I have a couple of figures that are so wide, they must be in landscape mode. So what I do is draw them in MacDraw horizontally with the figure captions below the figures. Then I rotate it 90 degrees, then cut and paste into my Word document. Prints out fine, that is, the graphics have the inaccuracies that I complained about, but the text is just fine, including the captions rotated 90 degrees. Wonder why the captions don't look ugly. (they are 10 point size, would expect bimaps to be obvious at that size). -Biswa