October 2002

There were 4 posts published in October 2002 (this is page 1 of 1).

Vertical Selection

You probably use your mouse to select text in Word all the time, but did you know you can select vertically as well as horizontally? For example, let's take the following text as an example:

Circumstance does not make the man;

it reveals him to himself."

(James Allen, As a Man Thinketh)

You can easily select just the first few words of each line down through the whole quotation, something like this:

Circumstance does

it reveals him to

(James Allen, As

To do so, just hold down the ALT key (PC) or OPTION key (Macintosh) as you select your text with the mouse. After you've made your selection, you can cut, copy, format, and so on.

Please note that if you're going to cut or copy and then *paste* the text somewhere else in your document, you must make enough room for the multiple lines to fit. They won't just go in at the insertion point the way regular text does. If you don't make enough room (by inserting carriage returns), the text will get mixed up with existing lines of text. This is difficult to explain, but if you try it you'll see what I mean.

Selecting text vertically is especially handy if you need to copy or format the first part of a list. I hope you find it useful.

____________________________________________________

DVORAK KEYBOARD UPDATE

Last week's newsletter discussed the Dvorak keyboard (a more efficient layout than the traditional QWERTY keyboard). I've been practicing about half an hour a day for a week now and thought some readers might be interested in my experience. Here's what I've learned so far:

1. Practicing on my own the first couple of days produced uneven results, so I decided I needed a more structured approach. Since then I've been practicing with the MasterMind Typing Tutor, available at no charge from DvortyBoards (check out their keyboards!):

http://www.dvortyboards.com/index.html

A program with more thorough instruction and fancier features is TypingMaster, which you can try and buy here:

http://www.typingmaster.com/

2. At first I had to consciously think about what finger to use on each key, with a fingering chart to help me. After about three days, though, my fingers *mostly* knew where to go on their own, although sometimes I'd have to think about it. At the end of the week, this is still true.

3. I've had trouble learning particular keys, especially I, D, X, and B, all of which require stretching the index fingers outside the home position.

4. I now have considerable accuracy on the Dvorak keyboard if I type *slowly* (about 15 words a minute). As soon as I try to speed up, my fingers revert to their 35 years of QWERTY training.

5. Typing whole words is much more difficult than typing individual letters, because my brain is accustomed to instantly converting words into keystrokes in QWERTY. I'm still on the letter-by-letter level with Dvorak.

6. The Dvorak keyboard is exceedingly easy on the fingers since it doesn't require the constant stretching and moving needed with QWERTY.

Next week, I'll give you a final report with some recommendations about learning the Dvorak keyboard.

_________________________________________

READERS WRITE

David Stacey wrote, "The general public react to the use of different colors when marking their documents. Do you have any recommendations about the choice of colors? (Too much red seems to cause them stress.) I'm now using red for strikethrough and blue for insertions."

I think this is a good question, and I like the idea of using blue for insertions. How about using 25% gray for strikethrough? (You have to scroll down in the list of colors to see this one.) That would help communicate the idea that the text has been deleted because it would be lighter than the surrounding text.

Here's an exchange between subscriber Miriam Bloom and me:

MIRIAM: When comparing (merging) documents in MS Word for Windows XP, is there a way to format different font colors for the "delete" vs. the "add" function? I used to be able to do it in older versions of both Word and WordPerfect, but now I can't figure out how to do it in either.

JACK: As far as I can tell, Microsoft has removed this feature from Word 2002, which makes me very grumpy indeed. In fact, I'm unhappy with nearly all of their "enhancements" having to do with merged documents and tracked changes. If you like, you can read my rant on the subject here:

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1710381892

MIRIAM: Moreover, I can't figure out how to do it after the fact because find-and-replace doesn't seem to work on merged documents.

JACK: That's because "red underlined" (for example) for revision tracking is a different kind of formatting. If you simply format some text as red underlined using the Font dialog, you should be able to find and replace it, even in a merged document.

MIRIAM: Is there an alternative way of searching it--or any way at all of getting around the color problem short of going through documents and redlining them manually?

JACK: You can use Word's Reviewing toolbar to go to each new change, but this won't alter appearance. You could go back to Word 2000, which allows you to use separate colors for insertions and deletions. That's what I've done. 🙂

Thanks to David and Miriam for their questions.

_________________________________________

RESOURCES

Many editors have used the popular CompareRite program to identify and display document revisions. Unfortunately, CompareRite has been "retired" by LexisNexis. You can read about this here:

http://www.lexisnexis.com/custserv/compare.asp

Fortunately, alternatives are available. You can learn more here:

http://www.dqsnet.com/documentcontrol.html

http://www.prestosoft.com/examdiff/examdiff.htm

Editors and Preditors

In our shop, we have several editors (who edit books, natch) and a few editorial assistants (who proofread, check corrections, and so on). We edit in Microsoft Word, and most electronic manuscripts require a lot of cleanup. The editors do much of this themselves--turning multiple spaces into single spaces, changing double hyphens into em dashes, and so on. But I keep thinking that many such tasks could be relegated to someone less expensive than a full-fledged editor--sort of a "pre-editor," or, just for fun, "preditor."

The preditor's job would be to get electronic manuscripts ready for the editors, who could then focus more fully on editing. The preditor could do such things as:

1. Convert files (WordPerfect to Word) as needed. I recommend using a dedicated file-conversion program, such as MacLinkPlus or Conversions Plus:

http://www.dataviz.com/products/maclinkplus/

http://www.dataviz.com/products/conversionsplus/index.html

2. Combine chapter files into one book file or split a book file into chapters, depending on how your editors like to work. Editor's ToolKit can automate this for you:

http://www.editorium.com/14842.htm

3. Rename files to fit your house standard, such as job number_chapter number (3298_0001.doc). If you don't have such a standard, you should create one. It will help streamline the publishing process and simplify archiving.

4. Apply to the files a document template formatted especially for editing:

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1700934923

5. Apply styles (or codes) to specify document structure and typesetting levels:

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1705536230

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1711132842

6. Fix messed-up notes:

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1710307842

7. Find and replace common editorial and typographical problems. FileCleaner can automate much of this:

http://www.editorium.com/14845.htm

8. Use wildcard and other searches to fix inconsistencies in editorial style, consulting with the project editor as needed. MegaReplacer makes this a snap and even includes scripts to fix common editorial problems:

http://www.editorium.com/14843.htm

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1705963026

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1706069286

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1706167662

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1706267069

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1706365638

9. Run a spell check; it won't catch misused words, but it will catch the most elusive of typos:

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1700310413

At this point, those files should be squeaky clean--except for the actual editing, which editors can now do without worrying about such picayune problems as whether or not commas are inside or outside of quotation marks. Yes, I know that editors can't ignore such things, but a preditor can help free up editors' time so they can focus mainly on clarity, meaning, and communication.

_________________________________________

READERS WRITE

Last week I explained how to overstrike characters by condensing character spacing. Karen L. Bojda sent an alternative method:

To overstrike two or more characters (say, the / and e of your example), you can also use an "equation" field with the overstrike switch, O:

{EQ O(/,e)}

which can be inserted with the Insert > Fields... command (at least in my old Word 98 for the Mac). The overstrike field does have the advantage that its formatting can't be accidentally removed, but the overstruck (overstricken?) characters produced this way are more or less centered. Your condensed-text method allows finer control over the extent of overlap. Plus your method allows overstriking a backslash, which mucks up a field.

Karen L. Bojda

Bojda Editorial & Writing Services

kbojda [at symbol] insightbb.com

http://www.bojda.com

Yehuda Yoel Zimmerman also suggested using this method.

Thanks to Karen and Yehuda for the helpful tip.

_________________________________________

RESOURCES

Last week, I mentioned the Microsoft Word Legal User's Guide for Word 97 and 2000, but there's also a version for Word 2002! Donna Payne wrote:

On the Legal User Guide, the link for Office XP/Word 2002 is:

http://office.microsoft.com/downloads/2002/wdLegalG.aspx

Our company was a member of the Microsoft Legal Advisory Council and authored both the Word 97/2000 and Word 2002 versions of the Legal User guide for Microsoft. Your readers may want to take a look at our books, Word 97 for Law Firms, Word 2000 for Law Firms, and Word 2002 for Law Firms for more detailed information.

Sincerely,

Donna Payne

President

Payne Consulting Group, Inc.

www.payneconsulting.com

Thanks to Donna for this valuable information.

Superscript Ordinals

In many of the manuscripts I edit, the author has used superscript for ordinal numbers, entering 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th (and so on) as 1^st^, 2^nd^, 3^rd^, and 4^th^ (the carets represent superscript here). Why? Because Microsoft Word by default inserts ordinal numbers using superscript--one of its many "helpful" features, which I explain how to turn off here:

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1700237543

But if the superscript ordinals are already in the manuscript, you can't just turn them off. You have to figure out another way to get rid of that superscript. One way is to find and replace it (Edit > Replace) with "not superscript" (as Word phrases it). That will work fine unless the manuscript has superscript formatting you want to keep, in which case you have to find and replace each superscript item individually. Even that isn't so bad--unless the manuscript has footnotes or endnotes, in which case you might have to check hundreds of superscript reference numbers during your search. Ugh.

Faced with that very problem in the past few weeks, I figured out a simple way around it:

1. Make a backup copy of your document (always, always, always).

2. Click "Edit > Replace" to display the Replace dialog.

3. In the "Find What" box, enter the following wildcard string:

[!^02]

4. Format the "Find What" box as Superscript. The easy way to do this is to press CTRL + SHIFT + = (on a Macintosh, click the "Format" button, then "Font," and put a check in the "Superscript" checkbox; you may first need to click the "More" button).

5. Format the "Replace With" box as Not Superscript/Subscript. The easy way to do this is to press CTRL + SHIFT + = two times in a row (on a Macintosh, click the "Format" button, then "Font," and clear the "Superscript" checkbox).

6. Put a check in the "Use Wildcards" checkbox. (You may need to click the "More" button to make the checkbox available.)

7. Click "Replace All" (or "Find Next" and "Replace" if you want to try a few manually).

That will get rid of all superscript *except* on note reference numbers. The secret, of course, is that [!^02] code, which tells Word not to include note reference numbers in its search. You can learn more about searching with codes and wildcards here:

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1704081834 http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1705963026

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1706069286

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1706167662

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1706267069

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1706365638

_________________________________________

READERS WRITE

Code Clarification

Amanda Lucas wrote to ask about using raw codes in Microsoft Word (as discussed in last week's newsletter) as opposed to the Reveal Codes feature in WordPerfect. Thinking that others might also be wondering about this, I offer the following clarification:

Working with raw codes in Word is a completely different thing than working with Reveal Codes in WordPerfect. You might think of them as equivalents, as in this diagram:

Codes in Microsoft Word <---> WordPerfect Reveal Codes

But they're not. A better way to think about using codes in Microsoft Word is like this:

Coding systems (XML, XPressTags, TeX tags, Ventura tags, etc.)

|
|

v
Rendering systems (Web browsers, QuarkXPress, TeX, Ventura, etc.)

Quite a few publishers, especially in academic and technical settings, work directly with codes (using basic text editors such as emacs) and then render their files into presentation documents (typeset docs, PDFs, etc.) using a separate program. I was trying to explain that Microsoft Word, too, could be used in that way. WordPerfect's Reveal Codes feature merely shows the coding underneath the program's WYSIWYG text. Working with raw codes, on the other hand, is a way to get specific about document levels and structure. It's not a substitute for Reveal Codes, which Word doesn't need if used correctly (in other words, if formatting is done with styles rather than applied directly to text).

Overstriking Characters

David M Varner wrote:

"In the course of organizing some recent revisions, some text in one of the documents required a strikethrough. It occurred to me that strikethroughs other than a horizontal line would be handy, slashes perhaps, depending on the situation. My question is this: Is there a way in MS Word to overstrike any character with any other character? This is one thing you can do using a typewriter that you can't, as far as I know, do on a computer."

There is a way to overstrike characters. You can condense the spacing between the characters to the point that the characters overlap. Here's how:

1. Type the two characters, such as "/e".

2. Select the two characters.

3. Click "Format > Font."

4. Click the "Character Spacing" tab.

5. In the "Spacing" list, select "Condensed."

6. In the "By" list, click the arrows until you've got the characters the way you want them. You can see a preview at the bottom of the dialog box.

7. Click the "OK" button.

Thanks to Amanda and David for their questions.

_________________________________________

RESOURCES

The Microsoft Word Legal User's Guide contains "step-by-step instructions to help legal users accomplish the tasks necessary to build robust legal documents in Microsoft Word 97 or Microsoft Word 2000," but much of the information here will be useful for other Word users as well:

http://www.addbalance.com/usersguide/

Raw Codes

@Body:You probably think my email program has gone wacko, inserting codes rather than applying formatting. But it hasn't. I'm just trying the technique described in this article--marking formatting with raw codes. Why would anyone want to do that? Consider this:

@ListFirst:1.Text formatting is misleading. It may look nice, but it comes with a price--the sacrifice of structure and control to appearance. Is your heading formatted with Heading 2 paragraph style, or is it formatted directly as Arial 14-point bold? The difference may not be immediately apparent. With codes, you know.

@ListMiddle:2.Using codes forces you to resist the "easy fix" of directly applied formatting. Come on, admit it: You sometimes center a heading with CTRL + e rather than modifying the paragraph style as you should. I know I do. But if I use raw codes, I don't even have to think about it. I just enter "@Heading 3:" and start typing away. My guilty feelings are gone (sob!).

3.Using codes is just plain easier than mucking about with styles and fonts and formats all the time. It's a simpler way to live. Try it! You might be surprised at how much you like it. If you're really going to make the attempt, you might want to record macros that insert your most common codes and then assign those macros to toolbar buttons or keyboard combinations.

4.Using codes for special characters means there's no more worrying about conversion problems from platform to platform.

5.Using codes ensures greater consistency from document to document--at least it does if you keep using the same codes. Ensuring consistency of styles is more difficult. Which ones are yours? Which ones did Word sneak in when you weren't looking? BodyTextUgly? Where did that come from?

6.Using codes makes it easy to tag your text by function and structure rather than by appearance. For example, instead of using a Heading 1 style, you can tag your text as @ChapterHead:, which actually says what your text is being used for.

7.Using codes means you can work in a simple text processor when you don't have access to Microsoft Word.

8.Using codes makes your formatting human readable! That's pretty remarkable, when you consider all of the hidden, proprietary formatting systems in the world.

@ListLast:9.Using codes makes it easy to translate your formatting into a variety of other formats: HTML. XML. Even Microsoft Word.

@Body:"And how," you ask, "can I turn codes into Microsoft Word formatting?" With our RazzmaTag program, which you can learn more about here:

http://www.editorium.com/razzmatag.htm

One of the most popular academic typesetting programs, TeX, is built around the concept of working directly with codes and then applying formatting based on those codes. Other programs, too, can import coded documents, including QuarkXPress, PageMaker, and FrameMaker, and many publishers take advantage of that fact, asking their editors to work directly with codes. If you've never considered this possibility, now you can add it to your bag of tricks.

_________________________________________

RESOURCES

Allin Cottrell provides an excellent and informative rant on the whole subject of separating content from presentation. You'll find it here:

http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/wp.html

A good place to learn more about TeX (which, by the way, is *free*) is the TeX User Group Home Page:

http://www.tug.org/

Yes, it is possible to "reveal codes" in Microsoft Word. Interested? Check out CrossEyes, from Levit & James:

http://www.levitjames.com/crosseyes/crosseyes3.htm?lid=google