Jack Lyon

Disappearing Character Formatting

Part of my editing process is applying paragraph styles (like Heading 1) to a manuscript. As I've done this, I've noticed an annoying bug: Applying the paragraph style often makes character formatting (such as italics) disappear. You can see this for yourself:

1. Create a new document in Word 6, 95, 97, 98, 2000, or 2001.

2. Type the words "This is" at the beginning of the document.

3. Italicize the word "This."

4. Apply the paragraph style for Heading 1.

Ouch! The italic formatting disappears. Word's Help file gives this "explanation":

"Applying a style turns off bold, italic, or underlining.

"The format you apply by using a paragraph style or character style may change the existing character formatting of the text. For example, when you apply a built-in heading style such as Heading 1 to underlined text, the underlining disappears. This will not occur if you format the characters after you apply the style."

If I'm writing, fine. But if I'm editing, this is a nuisance.

Now try this:

1. Create a new document in Word 6, 95, 97, 98, 2000, or 2001 (2002 works a little differently).

2. Type the words "This is a test" at the beginning of the document.

3. Italicize the word "This."

4. Apply the paragraph style for Heading 1.

Well, look at that; the italic formatting is still there. What's going on here, anyway?

I think what's going on is that Word is trying (unsuccessfully) to be helpful, as the italics *sometimes* toggle off or on depending on the formatting of the paragraph style. For example, if you apply an italic Heading 2 to "*This* is" (the asterisks here represent italics), the character formatting of the text changes to "This *is*"--pretty cool! The problem is, the feature doesn't always work. If you try applying an italic Heading 2 to "This *is* a test," for example, the whole line goes italic. Ackk! Then reapplying a roman Heading 1 removes all italics from the line.

There is a way to keep Word from wiping out your character formatting: Use character styles rather than Word's built-in character formatting (such as italic). Here's how:

1. Click the "Tools" menu.

2. Click "Style" (or "Styles and Formatting").

3. Click the button labeled "New" or "New Style."

4. Give your new style a name, such as "Italic."

5. Under "Style Type," specify "Character."

6. If you'd like to add the style to your document's underlying template, put a check in the box labeled "Add to template."

7. To specify a shortcut key combination for your new style, click the "Shortcut Key" button. (If you're using 2002, you'll have to click the "Format" button before "Shortcut Key" is available.) For more information, see the Readers Write column here:

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1707100224

I'd recommend using Word's built-in key combinations for these character styles--CTRL + I for italic, CTRL + B for bold, and so on. Then, whenever you use the key combinations, you'll get your custom character style rather than Word's character formatting. (To remove the style, select the text to which it was applied and press CTRL + SPACEBAR.)

8. Click the "Format" button.

9. Click "Font."

10. Click "Italic" (or whatever formatting you want to use). Please notice that you can also specify an actual italic font if you're interested in quality typesetting.

11. Click the "OK" button.

12. Click the "OK" button.

13. Click the "Close" button.

After you've formatted some text with your new character style, applying a paragraph style will no longer wipe it out. Hooray!

_________________________________________

READERS WRITE

In our December 19 issue, I wrote about resizing drop-down lists:

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1709196044

Tony Dalton wrote to suggest a clarification in the instructions, which say:

__________________________

1. Click the "Tools" menu.

2. Click "Customize." The Customize dialog box will appear.

3. Click inside of the drop-down list you want to resize. A black border

will appear around the list window.

__________________________

At this point you might be tempted to click one of the items in the dialog box itself, which won't work. Instead, click *outside* of the dialog box and inside of the drop-down list (such as the style list on the Formatting toolbar) that you want to resize.

Thanks to Tony for his helpful observation.

_________________________________________

RESOURCES

The Editor's Pen is a useful compilation of editorial resources, including links to various dictionaries, lists of freelancers, editorial challenges, and a FAQ:

http://users.myepath.com/dwlacey/default.htm

I especially like the resources page:

http://users.myepath.com/dwlacey/resource.htm

Finding "Whole Words Only" with Wildcards

If you often use wildcards with Microsoft Word's Find and Replace feature, you probably know that Word won't let you specify "Find whole words only" when the "Use wildcards" option is checked. This is more than an annoyance; sometimes you really *need* to be able to find whole words only while searching with wildcards.

To learn more about wildcard searching, see these back issues of Editorium Update:

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

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1706458823

Last week's Readers Write column offered one solution to the "Find whole words only" problem: Include a space before and after the words you're looking for. Of course, as the column noted, not every word begins or ends with a space. Words are often preceded or followed by quotation marks, dashes, and other characters, which would require multiple searching and replacing.

That suggests another solution: Use a wildcard "group" that includes every possible character that might precede or follow a word. For example, if we were searching for the word "bet," we could use a group like this before the word in the "Find What" box:

[ "-_/]

That group (preceding "bet") would find the following text:

bet [preceded by a space]

"bet

-bet

_bet

/bet

We'd need a similar group after the word:

[ .,;:!"-_/]

That group (following "bet") would find the following text:

bet [followed by a space]

bet.

bet,

bet;

bet:

bet!

bet"

bet-

bet_

bet/

So our entire "Find What" string would look something like this:

[ "-_/]bet[ .,;:!"-_/]

So far so good, but there ought to be an easier way. How about using a group to specify what *not* to find before and after the word we're looking for--like this:

[!A-z]bet[!A-z]

That string tells Word to find the word "bet" preceded and followed by any nonalphabetic character, which would certainly omit "bet" as part of another word. If we wanted to find "bet" both capped and lowercased, we could use this string:

[!A-z][b,B]et[!A-z]

These approaches are clever, and they will certainly work. In some situations, they (or variations of them) may be the best way to go, which is why I've included them here. However, we also need to remember that Microsoft Word includes a wildcard code for "beginning of word" (<) and "end of word (>)."

So, if we needed to find the whole word "bet" in a wildcard search, we could put this in the "Find What" box:

That string would find "bet" but not "better" or "sorbet"--in other words, it would find "bet" as a whole word only!

Using < and > is probably the most elegant (and the easiest) way to find whole words only while searching with wildcards.

Thanks to Pamela Angulo, Michael C. Coleman for contributing to this article.

_________________________________________

READERS WRITE

After reading last week's article about resizing drop-down lists on toolbars, Steve Hudson wrote:

"I have only one horizontal toolbar which has Style, Font (so I can tell which gallery I am using at the moment), and the file path. I have stretched the file path to its max, which is quite long. I also included undo/redo and highlight on this toolbar as their drop-down nature means they have a non-standard width."

This is a great example of personalizing Word; this toolbar (with its resized lists) sounds most useful. Thanks, Steve.

Pamela Angulo wrote:

"I recently started working in Word 2000. Some things, I like (e.g., I can copy and paste passages with revision marks, and the marks are preserved--yay!). But I got used to working with Draft Font in Word 97, which was a nice sans serif screen font; in Word 2000, the Draft Font appears to be the same as the Default: Times New Roman. (Ick--where's the value added in that?) What's more, in Word 97, italicized text is denoted with an underline; in Word 2000, italicized text is not differentiated in any way. [This is a known "issue" in Word 2000.]

"I'm frustrated. Is there any way to customize the screen font used in Draft Font? If not, is there another way to specify a screen-only font? (My concern is that I often work with files that contain symbols, so a simple Ctrl+A, Format/Font is not an option if I ever want those symbols back.) Is there another option that I haven't thought of?"

Do you, gentle reader, have a solution to Pam's problem? If so, please send it here: mailto:hints [at symbol] editorium.com.

_________________________________________

RESOURCES

The Electric Editors Web site offers macros, email list discussion groups, links to reference tools, and many other resources for editors, especially those who work on the computer. The home page notes, "If you're a professional editor (or anyone with an interest in preparing the written word for publication), the Electric Editors are here to help. On these pages you'll find a comprehensive collection of resources to help you in your work." You can visit the site here:

http://www.electriceditors.net

Resizing Drop-Down Lists

I work a lot with styles in Microsoft Word, and I like being able to look up at the drop-down style list on the formatting toolbar to see the name of the current paragraph style. I also like giving my styles long, descriptive names, such as Normal Text 2, Normal Text 2 No Indent, Normal Text 2 Block Quotation, and so on. The problem is, Word's drop-down style list isn't wide enough to display the entire name of the style, so I usually end up looking at something like this:

Normal Text 2

--even when the name of the style should be displayed like this:

Normal Text 2 Block Quotation

I have the same problem with Word's drop-down font list, especially with font families that have long names and lots of members (Franklin Gothic Book, Franklin Gothic Demi, Franklin Gothic Demi Cond, and so on). Yes, I can click the arrow on the right of the list to see the full name, but I hate reaching for the mouse, especially when all I want to do is display something.

If you, too, have this problem, there's an easy way to fix it. You can resize the drop-down list to show the full name of a style or font:

1. Click the "Tools" menu.

2. Click "Customize." The Customize dialog box will appear.

3. Click inside of the drop-down list you want to resize. A black border will appear around the list window.

4. Move your mouse pointer to the right edge of the list window. Your cursor will change into a vertical bar with arrows sticking out of the sides (indicating that you can resize the window).

5. Click and hold your left mouse button.

6. Move the edge of the list window to the right until the window is the size you'd like it to be. Don't be shy--give yourself plenty of room.

7. Release the mouse button.

8. Click the "Close" button in the Customize dialog box.

Now, isn't that better? You may be surprised at how much frustration this saves from day to day. I know I was.

_________________________________________

READERS WRITE

After reading our article on creating an exclude dictionary, here--

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1709082320

--April Karys wrote:

In creating an exclude dictionary, as I did following your excellent directions, I found out that those of us running on a Mac platform using Word 2001 must save the document not in "text only" or "plain text," but in "speller exclude dictionary." Saving in plain text won't work. [This is also true in Word 98.]

In an article on searching with wildcards--

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

--I mentioned the fact that wildcard searches can't be set to find whole words only. Callie Jordan wrote with a workaround for this problem:

It's true that Word doesn't have "whole word" as an option, but if you include a space before and after the word(s) you're looking for, it won't find butter when you're looking for b?t--it also won't find "bat" [in quotation marks] though, because that word isn't followed by a space. So there's still a limit. But there aren't as many words in quotes as there are just plain whole words. . . . It also won't find words at the end of a sentence, or with any punctuation. You could just run the Find/Replace a second time and don't do a global replace, verifying each find. There wouldn't be as many words to check after most of them had been replaced.

Thanks to April and to Callie for their useful tips.

_________________________________________

RESOURCES

If you're interested in learning the nitty-gritty details of using Microsoft Word, you can't afford to miss the MVP Word site, which includes tutorials and a great FAQ put together by various people associated with Microsoft's Most Valuable Professional program:

http://www.mvps.org/word

To navigate the site, click the items on the menu bar at the top of the Web page.

Exclude Dictionary

You've just sent a freshly edited manuscript back to your client, but you decide to glance through it one last time. Acck! What's this? "Our company has been highly visible in the pubic arena . . ." How did *that* get through?

It got through because you don't have an exclude dictionary in Microsoft Word. An exclude dictionary is a spell-check dictionary with words that are spelled correctly but that you want to verify during a spell check. If you're editing or writing, you *need* one of these. Here's how to set one up:

1. Create a new document.

2. Type the words (like "pubic") that you want to include (that is, that you want to *exclude* from the spell-checker's list of correctly spelled words).

3. Press the "Enter" key after each word, including the last one.

4. Click the "File" menu.

5. Click "Save As."

6. Navigate to the folder that contains the spell-checker's main dictionary.

In Windows 95, 98, or Millennium Edition (Me), the folder is C:WindowsApplication DataMicrosoftProof.

In Windows 95, 98, or Me with profiles enabled, or in Windows NT 4.0, the folder is C:WindowsProfilesUsernameApplication DataMicrosoftProof.

In Windows 2000 or XP, the folder is C:Documents and SettingsUsernameApplication DataMicrosoftProof.

On a Macintosh, the folder is probably HD:Microsoft Office 2001[or whatever]:Shared Applications:Proofing Tools or HD:System Folder:Preferences:Microsoft.

If you don't save the file to the right folder, your exclude dictionary won't work.

7. In the "Save as type" box, click "Text Only" or "Plain Text."

8. In the "File name" box, type the name for your exclude dictionary. This should be the same name as your main language dictionary but with an ".exc" extension. For example, the English (United States) dictionary in Word 2000 and 2002 is Mssp3en.lex, so the exclude dictionary should be Mssp3en.exc. (In Word 97, the dictionary is named Mssp2_en.lex.) Make sure ".txt" isn't appended to the filename extension (you may need to put quotation marks around the filename to be sure).

9. Click "Save."

10. If the File Conversion dialog box appears, select the options you want to use.

11. Click "OK."

12. Close the document.

13. Close and then restart Microsoft Word.

The next time you do a spell check, the words in your exclude dictionary will be flagged as misspelled, allowing you to review them and avoid future embarrassment. If the exclude dictionary doesn't work, see Word's Help file or go here for possible solutions:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;Q211639

So, gentle reader, what words do *you* think need to be included in an exclude dictionary? theater/theatre? honor/honour? Do you know of other nasty little surprises like "pubic"? Please email your nominations here:

mailto:editor [at symbol] editorium.com

I'll include them in a future newsletter for all to share.

_________________________________________

READERS WRITE

Ed Nelson (ednelson1@earthlink.net) asked if a "key map" of Microsoft Word's shortcut key combinations is available somewhere. He wrote, "One of the possible virtues of Word is the capacity to program special keys. I understand, however, that many, many are already assigned to some special function by Microsoft. But I find no source to indicate which keys are already assigned to what."

After a little research, I found the following information on Microsoft's Web site. Enjoy!

For PC:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;Q211982

For Macintosh:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q177184

_________________________________________

RESOURCES

Last week I mentioned Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary and Thesaurus on CD-ROM. If you don't need the CD-ROM product but still want to look up words electronically from time to time, you'll probably like Merriam-Webster's online dictionary and thesaurus, which you can find here:

http://www.m-w.com

Be sure to check out their other free goodies, including word games, a vocabulary builder, and a browser dictionary button.

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary and Thesaurus on CD-ROM

If you haven't yet read the New York Times editorial by Mark Goldblatt on the bowdlerization of Microsoft Word's thesaurus, you owe it to yourself to do so. You can read the piece here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/23/opinion/23GOLD.html

(You may need to register in order to read the article. But it's free!)

Goldblatt chronicles his discovery that Microsoft has, astonishingly, removed "offensive" terms from Microsoft Word 2000's thesaurus--including such words as "fool," "idiot," and "nitwit." So can this milquetoast collection still be called a thesaurus? Nah.

But I don't care, because even before I found out about this idiotic (oops!) turn of events, I bought Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary and Thesaurus on CD-ROM. You can learn more about the program here:

http://www.m-w.com/book/elecprod/elecc10.htm

The Merriam-Webster Web site describes this little marvel as "the complete Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, and Collegiate Thesaurus in a fully searchable electronic format [that] delivers accurate, up-to-date language information." The price? Just $14.95. (I'm not making any money from this, by the way. I just like the product.) The program can be used "while word processing, composing e-mail, preparing presentations, surfing the Web, browsing CD-ROMs, or designing spreadsheets." But to me the most important thing is that it can be used from *inside* Microsoft Word. It comes with a Word macro that you can assign to a menu or key combination. Then you can put your cursor on a word you want to look up and run the macro. The Merriam-Webster dictionary (or thesaurus) will open for your use.

While I was buying the dictionary and thesaurus, I also bought Merriam-Webster's Spell Checker, which is basically a spell-checker dictionary (based on Merriam-Webster's Collegiate) that you can use to replace the one that comes with Word. The price is only $12.95. You can learn more about it here:

http://www.m-w.com/book/elecprod/spell.htm

Amazing! Astonishing! Astounding! Marvelous! Miraculous! Staggering! Stupendous! And not bowdlerized.

_________________________________________

READERS WRITE

Last week, Ned Humphrey asked for a way to disable Word's "automatic titling" feature in the Properties dialog. You can read Ned's comments in the Readers Write column here:

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1708956278

Steve Hudson responded:

Looks like Ned is doomed. There's no way to turn that feature off. About the best bet would be to assign the following mini macro to a key or toolbar:

ActiveDocument.BuiltInDocumentProperties(wdPropertyTitle)=""

as well as intercept the 'send to' command and do likewise before actually doing the send.

Of course, a dangerous way around it is to include it in the autoopen event--but that means ALL documents will be untitled next save . . .

Thanks to Steve for this possible solution to Ned's problem.

_________________________________________

RESOURCES

Jean Hollis Weber's Technical Editors' Eyrie is a Web site where technical editors can:

* Share knowledge, experiences and resources

* Demonstrate to writers, managers, and others the wide range of knowledge and skills technical editors have to offer

The site offers links to other editing resources and an archive of Jean's free newsletter on the ins and outs of technical editing. Why not sign up while you're there?

You can also download (and purchase) Jean's helpful books:

* Taming Microsoft Word

* Editing Online Help

* Electronic Editing

You can visit the site here:

http://www.jeanweber.com/index.htm

Typesetting with Microsoft Word

So, you've got a client (or a boss) who wants you to create a *finished* document in Microsoft Word. In other words, you get to do typesetting--in a program that isn't really designed for typesetting. Here are some tips you might find useful:

1. Consult Word's Help file or, better yet, a good reference book to learn about Word's Page Setup, Section Layout, and Heading features. Then use those features to set up different sections of your document in the way you need them--for example, you can use roman numerals for page numbers in front matter and have different running heads in different chapters.

2. Attach a good-looking template to your document by clicking "Tools > Templates and Add-ins > Attach," being sure to check the box labeled "Automatically update document styles." For this to work, you'll need to format your document with paragraph styles that have the same names as those in the template. You can create your own template, use one of Word's built-in templates, or use a template from one of the sources mentioned here:

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1704952768

3. Turn hyphenation on by clicking the "Tools" menu, clicking "Language," and then clicking "Hyphenation." Put a check in the box labeled "Automatically hyphenate document." Set the hyphenation zone to about half an inch or the equivalent. (You may need to experiment with this.) Limit consecutive hyphens to 3 or 4. (The more consecutive hyphens you allow, the better Word can adjust justified text--but you'll also get more word breaks.)

4. Make sure that styles allow hyphenation to occur. For each paragraph style, click "Format > Style > Modify > Format > Paragraph > Line and Page Breaks" and make sure the box labeled "Don't hyphenate" is empty. Also, make sure the box labeled "Widow/Orphan Control" is checked.

5. Turn on kerning for all text. For each paragraph style, click "Format > Style > Modify > Format > Font > Character Spacing" and make sure the box labeled "Kerning for Fonts" is checked and the box labeled "Points and Above" has a value equal to the smallest point size in the document (usually 8 points). This is probably overkill, but that's okay.

6. Set line spacing to an exact point size. For each paragraph style, click "Format > Style > Modify > Format > Paragraph > Indents and Spacing > Line Spacing" and set line spacing to an "exact" amount. This should be about 120 percent of the character point size. If your character point size is 10, for instance, you should probably set your line spacing to 12 points.

7. Adjust all of your styles to fit your design. This even includes such styles as Footer, Header, Footnote Reference, and Page Number, which should not be left with their default formatting. For example, if you're setting body text in Garamond, you should set your footnote references in Garamond as well.

8. Using "File > Page Setup," set your right and left margins to create an easily readable line length. One rule of thumb is that lines in body text should be roughly as long as an alphabet and a half in the current font and point size, like this:

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijklm

That may not seem long enough, but go look at several of the well-designed books on your shelf. You'll be surprised at how short the lines are. If you want to use a longer line, you should also increase your line spacing so the reader's eye can "track" more easily from the end of one line to the beginning of another.

9. If you're using Word 97 or higher, click the Tools menu (Edit in Word 2001), click "Options" (Preferences on a Macintosh), click the "Compatibility" tab, and put a check next to these options:

* "Do full justification like WordPerfect 6.x for Windows." (Or better yet, use our WordSetter program to adjust word spacing to your own liking.)

* "Don't add extra space for raised/lowered characters."

* "Don't center 'exact line height' lines."

* "Don't expand character spaces on the line ending Shift-Return."

* "Suppress 'Space Before' after a hard page or column break."

* "Use printer metrics to lay out document."

At this point, your text should look pretty good, but you can make it even better by applying the principles described in such books as these:

Desktop Publishing with Word for Windows, by Tom Lichty.

The Printed Word, by David A. Kater and Richard Kater.

The Elements of Typographic Style, by Robert Bringhurst

The Art of Desktop Publishing, by Tony Bove, Cheryl Rhodes, and Wes Thomas.

The Non-Designer's Design Book, by Robin Williams.

The PC Is Not a Typewriter, by Robin Williams (for beginners only).

_________________________________________

READERS WRITE

Ned Humphrey wrote:

Thought you might be interested in another bug report. Actually, it's not so much a bug as one of Word's irritating quirks. I call it:

HOW'D WE GET ONTO THAT SUBJECT?

I'm sure you're familiar with the way Word automatically inserts the first line of any new document in the Title box of the Summary (located in the Properties dialog box). Of course, the first line is often not suitable as a title at all. If that were the whole problem, I could live with it. But it creates further problems down the road.

There are two things wrong with it: First, the "title" persists even after the first line changes. That's not so bad. You can change the title at will, or simply ignore it . . . with one major exception. Which brings me to the second problem: Because I edit multiple documents and then immediately email them on to the graphics department every day using Outlook, I systematically rename files sent to me by my various authors so that the graphics people know what to do with them just by looking at the filenames (saves time in writing email explanations), and so I myself can easily find them in my archives. When I click on the "Send to Mail Recipient (as Attachment)" button, what I want to have happen is for the filename to be inserted as the Subject line in the new Outlook email. That works fine if there's no title entered in Summary. But if Summary contains a Word-generated "title," the email subject head defaults to that instead of using the filename. So I have the extra work, each time, of going to File/Properties/Summary/Title and deleting the (often nonsensical) title. Only then am I able to send the email with the proper subject head automatically inserted.

Of course, if you create all your documents yourself, you can avoid this by checking the "Prompt for document properties" box under Tools/Options/Save and then deleting the suggested title when the Properties dialog box pops up before saving a new document for the first time; but as most of my stuff comes from other people, I have to perform the above routine to get rid of previously created "titles."

What I would like Word to do is give you the option of turning off the "automatic titling" feature altogether.

Do you, gentle reader, know of a way to take care of Ned's problem? If you do, please send your solution here: mailto:hints [at symbol] editorium.com

More Bugs

More bugs this week--just so you'll know what to watch out for while you're editing in Microsoft Word. Thanks to all who contributed to the collection. I've included a couple of my own "favorites" as well.

One bug I particularly dislike is the "no-delete-with-Tracking" bug. When I edit, I usually turn Tracking on so I can see revisions if I need to. But until I need to, I hide tracked changes so they don't appear on my screen. It's this particular combination that causes the bug. You can see it for yourself:

1. Turn on Track Changes (Tools > Track Changes > Highlight Changes) but tell Word not to display the changes on your screen.

2. In some existing text, delete a character with the DELETE key.

3. Use the LEFT ARROW key to move one character to the left.

4. Use the DELETE key to delete the next character.

Now comes the bug:

5. Use the DELETE key to delete the next character.

Aackk! It won't delete. Your cursor just sits there, bumping up against the invisible deleted character. Word 2002 (finally) squashes this little beast. For earlier versions of Word, our Editor's ToolKit program assigns a macro to the DELETE key that usually solves the problem. You can learn more about Editor's ToolKit here:

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

Hilary Powers (hilarypowers@earthlink.net) sent a description of two of her favorites: "The ghost-text bug is the one that leaps to mind--that is, Word's charming habit of reconstructing a copy of deleted text and dropping it into the line if you select text adjacent to the deletion and type over it--followed closely by the mystery invisible character (the one that makes Word report there are no double spaces when you're sitting there staring at one)."

Sam Mills sent another description of the ghost-text bug: "I fly through my edits by switching on revision marks but keeping them turned off onscreen. I always edited that way in Word 6 (Mac), and simply turned on the visuals when I'd finished. Then along came Word 98. Here's what happens: If I delete text (double-clicking a word and dragging to highlight all the text I want deleted) at the beginning of a sentence, and then highlight and replace text elsewhere in the same sentence, the text I first deleted reappears, as if inserted by an occult hand. If I'm moving forward quickly I won't notice the reinserted words behind me. I either must edit with the marks showing as I work, or save each file as a Word 6 document and reopen it in 6 to edit it. This buggy action occurs on all the Macs I've tried it on, including those at places like Kinko's, so it's not peculiar to my computer."

I'm able to replicate this dangerous weirdness in Word 97 but not in Word 2000 or 2002.

Here a really annoying little critter, not related to Tracking, that shows up in Word 2001 for Macintosh:

1. Open Word's Find dialog.

2. In the "Find What" box, enter ^13, which is the numeric code for a carriage return.

3. Put a checkmark in the "Use WildCards" checkbox (you may have to click the MORE button first).

4. Click the FIND button. What happens? You get a message: "The search item was not found." (Grrr.)

The reason this is so serious is that you can't use Word's paragraph code (^p) when searching with wildcards. The alternative is to use ^13. But in Word 2001, the alternative doesn't work, not even after installing Microsoft's service release. There is a workaround, however. Instead of typing ^13 into the "Find What" box, type this instead:

[^13]

In other words, you have to define the carriage return as a wildcard "group" and then "escape" the caret with the backslash. It's weird but it works. (It took considerable fiddling around to figure this out.)

_________________________________________

READERS WRITE

In last week's newsletter, Steve Dobney wrote:

"I can create a table of contents easily but it remains a 'field' which won't import into a page layout program like Quark. The only workaround I can find is to copy it into a new document, save it as Text Only, and then copy it back."

Several readers sent a solution to this problem, which is simply to select the table of contents field and press CTRL + SHIFT + F9. That will convert the field to text (leaving formatting intact!). Then you can Find and Replace the blue Hyperlink character style with Default Paragraph Font character style. Thanks to Kieran Davies, Eric Fletcher, Katherine Pinard, and Hilary Powers for contributing to this solution.

Bug Collection

In the past couple of newsletters, I put out a call for bugs--or just things that bug you--in Microsoft Word. Thanks to everyone who responded. I had some of my own bugs to share, but I'll save those for another day. And now, the bug collection--including some useful advice!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Styles and Fields

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Steve Dobney wrote:

These may not be bugs in the true sense, but they're just three of the things that bug me about Word (97). Any suggestions appreciated!

1. I can print a list of the styles used in a document (using "Print what" in the Print dialog box) but I can't save the list as a Word document.

2. I can view style names next to each paragraph (changing to Normal view, going to Tools - Options - View and setting the Style area width to something other than zero) but I can't print the document like that, with the style names showing.

3. I can create a table of contents easily but it remains a "field" which won't import into a page layout program like Quark. The only workaround I can find is to copy it into a new document, save it as Text Only, and then copy it back.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AutoCorrect and Spell Check "Suggestions"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kathleen Much (kathleen@alumni.rice.edu) wrote:

When Microsoft started shipping Word with "autocorrect on" by default, I saw several horrendous results. My two favorites are its global "correction" of PCs to Pcs (in a long article about personal computers) and Thierry to Theirry in a book of French history. It's also a nuisance to find caps after periods when you're editing something full of abbreviations.

Autocorrect is always off now when I edit.

Spellcheck is also a hazard in documents like mine with hundreds of proper names. I've seen Phallic suggested for Phillip, Jaguar for Jaeger, Plinks (???) for Polinsky, Hominid for Hammond, disease for diSessa, Rabid for Rabin, Macro for Marc, and many, many more nonsense "corrections".

Microsoft's grammar checkers are so bad I won't even consider using one.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Table Incompatibility

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One subscriber (who preferred to remain anonymous) wrote:

Here's an irritating and scandalous bug that cost me a bundle.

Word 2002 is not backwards compatible with Word 2000 as to format or tables. Client sent document in Word 2000. I edited it in Word 2002. I mentioned to client that the tables looked bad and asked if I should fix them. Client said yes, please do. I edited file and fixed the tables and formatting and sent it back to client. Client opened it in Word 2000 and said formatting and tables were a mess and the tables were unreadable. Client fixed both by hand. I gave the client a credit (from my pocket) for Microsoft's outrageous failing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mail Merge Problems

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Evie Allen wrote:

When using Word's Mail Merge feature to create mailing labels, Word adds two extra paragraph marks to the end of every address, one at the end of the last line of an address, and another one at the beginning of the next line, which is blank. If you have a lengthy address list that creates several pages of labels, the alignment of type on the labels gets out of whack due to these extra paragraph marks. Thinking I was doing something wrong somewhere in the process of using Word's Mail Merge Helper, I went to the Microsoft Knowledge Base only to discover that this particular feature in Word is from a third party, namely Avery Dennison. When I clicked on the conveniently provided link to Avery Dennison, I was able to find a means of contacting their "support desk" via e-mail. They never responded to my inquiry.

My work-around to correct this problem is this: Once the label document has been created, I move to the top of the document and use the Find and Replace feature to find ^p^p and replace it with nothing. This action moves the end-of-cell marker up to the end of the last line of each address label and realigns everything so that the addresses are properly placed in the center of each label.

I am currently using Word 97; however, I've checked to see if this problem occurs in Word 2000 and I get the same result. I had higher hopes and great expectations when Office XP was introduced, and, yes, the problem appears to be corrected in Word 2002, but the entire Mail Merge process seems to have become more complicated than it was in the earlier versions. This is a great example of "the cure being worse than the disease."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Using Graphics

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Steve Hudson sent a bunch of helpful information from a chapter of a book he's writing for advanced Word users:

--------

Pictures

--------

~File Bloat~

I'll re-iterate what I know, and I know that therein that smallish scope lies an answer to "Why is my word document so BIIIIG after whackin in a graphic".

1) Word doesn't understand any graphic except .wmf/.emf, .PNG and .bmp.

2) Word will import SOME OTHER graphic formats. When it does so, it must have TWO copies of the graphic. One as the original .whatever file. One as an internal-use only bitmap that word can use to display a representation of the inserted graphic. This can be turned off with a registry entry.

3) When you crop or otherwise adjust a picture using word's built-in controls, it needs at least two copies (both of which CAN be satisfied by point 2 above) - an original and a display copy.

4) BMP is the most inefficient way of storing a picture.

5) Linked pictures should not be stored with the document, but this rule is subordinate to 3).

6) Embedding pictures can cause total nightmares extracting the picture for export to a decent package to change it.

7) Linking pictures enables a source identifier with the picture object - useful for control and developmental labeling purposes.

My personal solution has been to:

Always use linked pictures, of type .jpg (full-color photo-like stuff, usually 79% compression) and .gif (screenshots, 256 color palette, high contrast theme) and perform NO graphic adjustments to the picture inside of Word - excepting scale.

Always use a relative path link, and either store the gfx in the same root as their host document, or in a subdirectory directly underneath same. Use a controlled naming prefix schema to identify picture categories. Run a simple embedding macro (available upon application in writing to me anywhere) to embed all linked pictures when sending the document out, or zip the dir and send the lot to the printers for bigger works.

~Insert Picture~

I link every picture as it's the only way to get the filename associated with the graphic, which is a control and qa issue.

However, I do not embed graphics for one good reason - even if I were to, I would still have to include a link as well to keep some sort of filename easily accessible to identify the picture.

The second good reason is the document loads much faster, as the temp file doesn't needs contain a duplicate of the embedded bitmaps.

I regularly use pictures in table cells. The ANCHOR will stay with the row.

I usually insert the picture into the doc as INLINE, then draw the table, then move the picture in via a select and then drag.

Anchors are shown by selecting Tools > options > view > Print & Web layout options > Object anchors

They usually appear to the left of the left margin, and funnily enough, look like a little boat anchor.

These can be dragged onto any paragraph you like, and the object will appear on the page where that paragraph is placed with the same relative offset twixt anchor and pic's top left cnr.

They are no longer treated anywhere near the same as inline. For a start, inlineshapes is one collection of objects, and shape is another. Secondly, as you have noticed, the field code can no longer appear on the page because it's now part of the drawing layer, not the text layer. It no longer is found in the fields collection. If you want to report on those pictures you need to use VBA.

Also, when I go "Insert picture", it takes me to the last used pic dir. If you have to browse with this to your "relative path" - it will still be set as an absolute path (grrrr).

AND THAT AINT ALL FOLKS.

~Don't Edit Pictures using Word~

"Cropping" in Word isn't really cropping, just the appearance of it. The whole graphic is still there, and can be restored by dragging the cropping handles out again. In other words, using the Word cropping tool doesn't make the picture (and hence the file size) smaller. I like PaintShop Pro when I actually want to trim away extraneous stuff. It also lets me copy just the window object I want, without cropping at all.

I also do grayscaling in PaintShop since, again, Word's grayscale is an illusion. You can put the colors back just by selecting the right color option.

Incidentally, I don't usually save the graphic in any format at all. That is, I capture, clip, and manipulate it in PaintShop, then copy/paste it into Word and do any resizing there. Word turns everything into .wmf anyway, if you're saving the pictures with the file, which I always do.

~Beware of Changing Picture Sizes outside of Word~

To further screw the issue up, Word has a 'nasty' way of dealing with gfx. It saves the frame size, so that it can flow and paginate text before having to fetch the binary image data. This is fine - until you edit the original graphic and reload the document (more applicable to linked gfx than embedded please note). What happens is, Word draws the same frame size as before, then stretches the new graphic to fit that. Kiss your aspect ratio goodbye, and sometimes all legibility.

Sometimes it takes multiple save / open / edits before the new settings stick.

1) Cut n paste all but last paragraph mark into a new doc. If you have lotsa gfx, you have lotsa bad baggage waiting in the wings to trip you up.

2) Re-insert troubled pix into place, then delete their previous incarnation.

3) Use Alt+F9 to reveal field codes, and check you don't have spuriously fully-qualified path names instead of relative.

Do this test:

1) Link insert a 300x300 pixel picture into your document.

2) Save and close

3) Replace the picture file with another of the same name, but 100x300 in size.

4) Open your word doc - the new picture is stretched out to fit the old frame.

-----------

ScreenShots

-----------

~Moire~

The moire patterns are caused because the Windows standard screen settings use 3D objects for the scroll bars instead of a solid tint. To solve, EITHER

change the Windows color scheme

or

Grab the picture in photoshop, magic wand each colored area and turn it into a solid color.

Always resize or crop the picture using a dedicated graphics program before you insert it into word.

As a reminder, alt+print screen captures the active window only.

_________________________________________

READERS WRITE

Renee DeCarlo wrote:

just found this out yesterday...changing text into text box...hi-lite text and click text box icon at the bottom...pretty cool i thought...was cutting and pasting before...creating text box copy existing text into text box just in case it doesnt work and then delete existing text...im using word 2k...

Two subscribers responded to last week's newsletter on the WordPerfect compatibility setting that enables compressed word spacing. You can read the newsletter here:

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1708754845

Nancy Adess (naedit@earthlink.net) wrote:

Another "Compatibility" item I've found extremely important, at least on the Mac, is to turn on "Use printer metrics to lay out document." Often when I get documents from others they are somehow wired to print double-spaced only, even if I change the spacing to single spaced on the screen. Turning on this compatibility option (tools>preferences>compatibility) restores control of line spacing to me. Even though I've set that option in my default template, that doesn't apply to imported documents and I need to turn it on for each one. Until I found that (I think with the help of a MS tech) I was endlessly frustrated.

Jim Cronin Cronin, wrote:

I heard about this compatibility setting elsewhere and thought it needed some easier method to both apply it and to know whether it was in effect in a document. So, I wrote the following macro and assigned it to a toolbar button. When you click the button, the Office Assistant appears. The checkbox in the balloon is empty if WP Justification is not "on" and it is selected when justification is "on". Give it a shot!

' WordPerfect_Justification Macro

' Macro created 10/22/01 by JimC

'
If Documents.Count < 1 Then GoTo ErrorHandler

With Assistant.NewBalloon

.Heading = "For better spacing in fully justified text..."

.Checkboxes(1).Text = "Make Word justify text like WordPerfect does it."

.Button = msoButtonSetOK

With Assistant

.On = True

.Visible = True

.Animation = msoAnimationCheckingSomething

End With

If ActiveDocument.Compatibility(wdWPJustification) = True Then

.Checkboxes(1).Checked = True

.Show

Else

.Checkboxes(1).Checked = False

.Show

End If

If .Checkboxes(1).Checked Then

ActiveDocument.Compatibility(wdWPJustification) = True

Else

ActiveDocument.Compatibility(wdWPJustification) = False

End If

Assistant.Visible = False

End With

ErrorHandler: Exit Sub

End Sub

Many thanks for the suggestions!

Compressed Word Spacing

[Calling all bugs! Calling all bugs! I'm trying to put together a bug collection for next week's newsletter. If you've discovered a bug (or just something that bugs you) in Microsoft Word, please take a minute and drop me a line.]

If you've tried using Microsoft Word to produce decently justified text, you've seen the problem: Word justifies text by expanding rather than compressing space between words, which leads to "spacey" typesetting. That's why I created our WordSetter program, which lets you adjust word spacing according to your taste:

http://www.editorium.com/14000.htm

However, it turns out that you *can* make Word (97, 98, 2000, 2001, and 2002) compress word spacing (although without adjustment) by changing a deeply buried option. Using this option *greatly* improves typographic quality. Here's how to set it:

1. Click the "Tools" menu ("Edit" in Word 2001).

2. Click "Options" ("Preferences" on a Macintosh).

3. Click the "Compatibility" tab.

4. Put a check next to the option labeled "Do full justification like WordPerfect 6.x for Windows."

Now, as you type in justified text (Format > Paragraph > Alignment > Justified), you'll see the word spacing compress automatically as it would in a dedicated typesetting program (or WordPerfect, of course). What joy! What rapture!

Microsoft's Knowledge Base describes the option like this:

"To achieve full justification, WordPerfect compresses the spaces between words while Word expands them. This often results in different line breaks and leads to different page breaks. To implement the WordPerfect justification method, select 'Do full justification like WordPerfect 6.x for Windows' in the Options list."

This option was created to preserve line formatting when opening a WordPerfect document in Word, but it's far more important than that. It actually makes it possible to do fairly decent typography in Microsoft Word. Evidently Microsoft missed this point (or didn't want to admit WordPerfect's superiority in this regard).

While you're looking at the "Compatibility" tab, put a check next to the option labeled "Don't expand character spaces on the line ending Shift-Return." Then if you break a line with a soft return (SHIFT+ENTER), the line will still be properly justified. Otherwise, the spaces in the first half of the broken line will expand broadly, justifying the line clear to the margin. Bad, bad, bad.

Even after you've set these options, justification may not look quite right on your screen, especially at the ends of lines, since Word doesn't render everything perfectly. When you print your document, however, you'll see the justified text in all its glory.

Word's Compatibility tab includes other options you might want to explore if you're doing typesetting with Word, including:

* Don't center "exact line height" lines

* Don't add extra space for raised/lowered characters

* Suppress "Space Before" after a hard page or column break

You can learn more about these and other options in the Microsoft Knowledge Base article here:

http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q288/7/92.ASP

There are other things you'll need to adjust if you want to do typesetting in Microsoft Word, but we'll leave those for another day.

I can't take credit for "discovering" the option to "Do full justification like WordPerfect 6.x for Windows." I learned about it from Woody's Office Watch, a great email newsletter about the quirks of Microsoft Office. Woody and friends can't take credit for it either, though; they learned about it from one of their subscribers, Dermod Quirke, to whom we are now all indebted. You can read their article (and sign up for the newsletter) here:

http://www.woodyswatch.com/office/archtemplate.asp?v6-n40

Go2Text vs. Find

Last week's newsletter featured a macro (Go2Text) designed to take you to specified text without using cursor keys or the mouse. You can learn about it here:

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1708547575

A couple of readers have asked (much more nicely than this), "Why the heck should I use Go2Text when Word's Find feature will do the same thing?" It's a fair question, and it's something I should have explained last week. Here's my answer:

The differences between Go2Text and Find are small (for the purpose of going to text), but to me they're significant, which is why I created the macro. Yes, Word's Find feature will take you to the text you wanted to find. But notice: after finding something, the Find dialog remains *open.* To work on the text you've found, you'll have to press the ESC key (or click the Cancel button) to get rid of the dialog. With Go2Text, that isn't the case. As soon as you press ENTER, the dialog goes away, saving you the annoyance of having to put it away manually.

Now notice this: After using the Find dialog, the text that was found is *selected,* which means you have to press the LEFT ARROW key to get in front of it--another unnecessary keystroke. Go2Text simply takes you to the beginning of the text without selecting it (unless you specify that it should be selected). This is also true when you press CTRL + R to repeat the macro, while pressing SHIFT + F4 to repeat a Find selects the text.

In summary, when text is found:

Go2Text: Find:

Closes the dialog Leaves the dialog open

Goes to the start of the text Selects the text

To some people, these differences may not be important. But in my experience, those extra keystrokes add up fast in both time and frustration. If I can avoid them, I do. And if I have a dozen small macros for specific editing tasks, with each one saving me a couple of keystrokes, the effect on my work can be dramatic.

[Clarification: I don't mean to imply that Go2Text *replaces* Find or that it should always be used *instead* of Find. Find is a useful feature all on its own. Go2Text is for those times when you just want to jump quickly to some specific text without reaching for the mouse or cursor keys.]

I'm a big believer in exploiting the power of the computer to its fullest and in finding as many ways as possible to make work easier. Eventually, I hope to do all of my work with no effort. I'm kidding, of course, but that's sort of the idea. R. Buckminster Fuller, inventor of the geodesic dome, had a word for this: ephemeralization. He believed that with technological progress, we would continue to do more and more with less and less until we were basically doing everything with nothing. That sentence is a simplification of Bucky's philosophy, but I think it's true to his vision of the world.

I love this statement from Dan A. Wilson, proprietor of The Editor's DeskTop (http://www.editorsdesktop.com/):

"The principal difference between the amateur e-editor and the real professional, in my opinion, is in the difference in their in-depth knowledge of the macro system and Find and Replace system. The amateurs use the computer as an electric typewriter and continue to do all of the slogging work as though they were still editing on paper. The pros seize the power of the computer's systems and exploit it ever more fully with each passing project."

Here's your assignment: Learn one thing this week that will make your life easier. Want some suggestions?

You can learn about macros here:

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1706651129

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1706748016

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1706832239

You can learn about Find and Replace here:

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

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1706458823

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1706553959

And you can learn about Buckminster Fuller here:

http://www.bfi.org/introduction_to_bmf.htm

_________________________________________

READERS WRITE

MACRO SECURITY MESSAGE

Mark Pool (mark913@earthlink.net) wrote:

From your most recent issue of Editorium I downloaded the Go2Text. When I tried to open the template, I got the following message:

"The macros in this project are disabled. Please refer to the online help or documentation of the host application to determine how to enable macros."

Can you tell me what I need to do to activate this template?

Thanks for your question, Mark. I'm sure others have encountered the same problem. This message means that Microsoft Word's macro virus protection is enabled or set to a high level of security. To change this:

In Word 2002 (XP):

1. Click the "Tools" menu.

2. Click "Options".

3. Click the "Security" tab.

4. Click the "Macro Security" button (on the lower right).

5. Click the "Security Level" tab if it's not already active.

6. Set your security level to medium and click the OK button.

7. Click the next OK button to close the Options dialog.

In Word 2000 or 2001:

1. Click the "Tools" menu.

2. Click "Macro."

3. Click "Security."

4. Click the "Security Level" tab if it's not already active.

5. Set your security level to medium and click the OK button.

In Word 97 or 98:

1. Click the "Tools" menu.

2. Click "Options".

3. Click the "General" tab.

4. Uncheck the box labeled "Macro virus protection."

5. Click the "OK" button.

In Word 95:

1. Click the "Tools" menu.

2. Click "Options."

3. Click the "General" tab.

4. Uncheck the box labeled "Enable Macro Virus Protection."

5. Click the "OK" button.

Now, in Word 2000 or higher, any time you open a document or load a template that includes macros, Word will give you the choice of whether to disable or enable macros. If the document or template isn't *supposed* to have macros in it, you should click the "Disable Macros" button, because the macros could be a virus. If the document or template *is* supposed to have macros and comes from a source you know is reliable, click the "Enable Macros" button so you can run the macros.

In Word 95, 97, or 98, you don't have these options. Macro virus protection is either on or off. Before turning it off permanently you may want to read more about it in Word's Help file or check with your system administrator.

MORE SEMIAUTOMATIC CORRECTIONS

Nancy Adess (naedit@earthlink.net) sent some additional semiautomatic corrections. Thanks, Nancy!

"is in the process of..."

Attempt to kill this.

"grow your skills" "grow your organization" anything but grow your food!

Substitute: improve, expand.

"To better serve" "to better market" "to better any verb"

Substitute: To verb more effectively/more efficiently/more successfully

"Impact" used as a verb.

Change to "affect."

To learn more about automatic and semiautomatic corrections, see these past issues of Editorium Update:

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1708048908

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1708127357

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1708293844

http://www.topica.com/lists/editorium/read/message.html?mid=1708382808