Programs

There are 11 posts filed in Programs (this is page 1 of 2).

Add-Ins from Microsoft

By Jack Lyon, the Editorium

I’ve created lots of Microsoft Word add-ins at the Editorium, but did you know that Microsoft also provides add-ins, many of them free? Here’s how to explore and use these add-ins right from within Microsoft Word.

  1. In the search bar at the top of your Word window, enter “add-in.” You’ll then see an option like this:

img

  1. Click “Insert an Add-in” (or just press your ENTER key). Doing so will open the Office Add-ins dialog. On my computer, it looks like this, showing the add-ins I’ve already installed:

img

  1. To explore more add-ins, click the “Store” link under “Office Add-ins.” You’ll be presented with a bunch of add-ins and a helpful list of categories to help you find what what you need:

img

Many of the add-ins are free to use. Those that aren’t say “Additional purchase may be required.”

To learn more about an add-in, click its logo or title. To add it to Word, click the Add button and follow any online prompts. The add-in will then show up on the Home tab of Word’s ribbon interface:

img

I hope you find an add-in that does exactly what you need. If you do, please let me know, and I’ll review it in a future issue of Editorium Update. Thank you!

Writing Down the Chaos

By Jack Lyon, the Editorium

You can't do much carpentry with your bare hands, and you can't do much thinking with your bare brain. —Bo Dahlbom

High school English class. Freshman year. The teacher explained how to:

  1. Come up with a thesis statement.
  2. Create an outline of arguments supporting the thesis statement.
  3. Write a paper based on that outline.

That's actually a terrible way to write! It requires you to organize your thoughts before you know what those thoughts actually are. But there is a better way.

Brainstorm, Organize, Write

What are your thoughts about a particular subject? In the days before computers, you'd find out like this:

  1. Get a package of index cards, something like these.
  2. On each card, write an idea related to your thesis (the fancy word for whatever it is you want to write about). Do not try to do this in any kind of order; you're brainstorming here: good ideas, bad ideas, any ideas—they all go down on the cards. When your brain is empty, stop.
  3. On a big desk or table, spread the cards out in front of you. Keep them messy.
  4. Read the cards and stack those on a certain subject together until you have several stacks. Discard (pardon the pun) those that don't belong anywhere or that now seem irrelevant or stupid.
  5. Put the cards in each stack in some kind of order. Importance? Chronology? You choose.
  6. Put the stacks in some kind of order. Each stack represents a section of your paper.

After you've captured and organized your thoughts, write your paper, starting with the first card and ending with the last. Each stack gets a subheading. Each card gets a paragraph. When you're finished, edit your paper as needed.

Card-Based Writing Programs

But, again, that was in the days before computers. We now have much better ways of doing what I've just described, with new card-based writing programs popping up all the time. Here are some that I recommend for the kind of writing I've explained in this article:

Milanote. $9.99 a month (billed annually).

img

Milanote is the most expensive of the programs listed here, but it's also the slickest. Cards can be created and then placed on the screen in any order you like. After you have them all down, organize them into columns. Finally, export the whole thing as a Word document, a Markdown document, or plain text, ready for editing. Milanote is elegant, a pleasure to use.

Speare. $4.95 a month (billed annually).

img

Speare doesn't support free-form card placement; each paragraph is a card, and all cards must be arranged in a "board." After creating and organizing your cards, "compile" them into a document, copy the document, and paste into Word or another word processor.

SuperNotecard. $19 a year.

img

SuperNotecard includes various kinds of metadata you can use to organize your cards: headings, flags, ratings, categories, references, and much more. If you're writing a novel, SuperNotecard is probably the way to go, as you can create and link to cards for characters, settings, themes, and so on. At just $19 a year, it's ridiculously cheap.

Notebox Disorganizer is one of my favorites. I've written about it before. It's simple but powerful, and best of all, it's free! (Sorry, PC only.)

img

I hope you'll give these programs a try, especially if you're feeling stuck in your writing. Brainstorming, organizing, and then writing can make all the difference. Write down the chaos!

Readers Write

After reading last week's article on listing keyboard shortcuts, macro expert Paul Beverley wrote:

I have a version that spreads the list out a bit and covers more aspects. As you'll see from the attached, it's alphabetic in two ways.
http://www.wordmacrotools.com/macros/K/KeystrokeLister

Thanks to Paul for making this resource available.

The Law of Least Surprise

I wear many hats, but two of my favorites are my editing hat (really just a green-celluloid visor that protects my eyes from the glare of the lightbulb dangling overhead) and my programming hat (a rakish fedora with a feather on the side). I alternate between the two on any given day, but there's one guiding principle that both hats share—the law of least surprise.

The law of least surprise was formulated by computer nerds who wisely realized that "a programmer should try to think of the behavior that will least surprise someone who uses the program, rather than the behavior that is natural from knowing the inner workings of the program." For example, if I'm writing a document in a word processor, and I type "3rd" (meaning "third"), the "rd" should not magically be formatted as superscript. But that's the default setting in Microsoft Word, which frequently violates the law of least surprise, often in very big ways.

One of the most egregious violations occurred with the introduction of the Document Map in Word 97. The feature didn't work unless heading styles were applied to headings in the document text. If it couldn't find any headings, it created them, automatically formatting short lines that looked as though they might be headings.

Another bad one was the universally hated "Clippy," the animated paperclip also introduced in Word 97. (Is there a pattern here?) Clippy would pop up at the most inopportune times, "helpfully" saying things like "It looks as though you're writing a grocery list. Do you need milk?" In 2007 Smithsonian magazine called Clippy "one of the worst software design blunders in the annals of computing." In 2010 Time magazine listed it as one of the 50 worst inventions. Even at Microsoft, Clippy's internal code name was "TFC," which did not stand for "that friendly clip." Nevertheless, I enjoy some of the creative spoofs that Clippy inspired.

The law of least surprise isn't just for programmers, though. It also applies to editors, who should change an author's text as little as possible while still ensuring clarity (and, in some situations, conformity to house style). I've had bad experiences with inept but well-meaning proofreaders who made changes because something I wrote didn't follow the "rules" or because they had a "better" way to express something than I did, even though my way was perfectly clear. This reminds me of a story about Abraham Lincoln:

A Cabinet meeting was called to consider [the United States'] relations with England. . . . One after another of the Cabinet presented his views, and Mr. Seward read an elaborate diplomatic dispatch, which he had prepared.
Finally Mr. Lincoln read what he termed "a few brief remarks upon the subject,'' and asked the opinions of his auditors. They unanimously agreed that our side of the question needed no more argument than was contained in the President's "few brief remarks.''
Mr. Seward said he would be glad to adopt the remarks, and, giving them more of the phraseology usual in diplomatic circles, send them to Lord Palmerston, the British premier.
. . . The President, half wheeling in his seat, threw one leg over the chair-arm, and, holding the letter in his hand, said, "Seward, do you suppose Palmerston will understand our position from that letter, just as it is?"
"Certainly, Mr. President."
"Do you suppose the London Times will?"
"Certainly."
"Do you suppose the average Englishman of affairs will?"
"Certainly; it cannot be mistaken in England."
"Do you suppose that a hackman out on his box (pointing to the street) will understand it?"
"Very readily, Mr. President."
"Very well, Seward, I guess we'll let her slide just as she is."
And the letter did "slide," and settled the whole business in a manner that was effective. (Alexander K. McClure, Yarns and Stories of Abraham Lincoln [Salt Lake City: Waking Lion Press, 2013], 160-61.)

When editors make changes not to ensure clarity but to meet some arbitrary aspect of their own sensibilities, they're doing it wrong. As an editor, I try to keep that in mind. And as an author, I don't like surprises.

New Programs from the Editorium

Wearing my programmer's hat, I've been working hard all summer to create some new Microsoft Word add-ins to help with your work:

IndexLinker creates hyperlinks from index page numbers back to the text to which they refer. If you're creating ebooks or PDFs with indexes, you need this program.

BookMaker automates typesetting and page layout in Microsoft Word. Stop fighting with page breaks, headers, and footers. Let BookMaker do the heavy lifting.

LyXConverter converts Word documents into LyX documents.

A Special Deal: Editor's Toolkit Ultimate!

Editor's ToolKit Ultimate combines three great products:

The three products work together to create a powerful editing package to take you through three separate stages of copyediting.

Editing Documents in LaTeX

Do you ever have to edit a document written in LaTeX? There’s recently been some discussion on Copyediting-L about how to do this. I know of three methods.

Method 1: Work in raw LaTeX

LaTeX looks like this:

chapter[On the Origin and Design of Government]{On the Origin and Design of Government in General, with Concise
 Remarks on the English Constitution}
 Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave
 little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only
 different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our
 wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our
 happiness emph{positively} by uniting our affections, the latter
 emph{negatively} by restraining our vices. The one encourages
 intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the
 last a punisher.

As you can see, formatting and document structure are implemented with codes. That's okay; just don't mess with the codes unless you know what you're doing. You can open a LaTeX document in any text editor and start editing. When you're finished, save the file and return it to the authors.

But what if your authors need to see your revisions? In that case, a text editor isn't going to work. But Microsoft Word has revision tracking . . .

Method 2: Edit in Microsoft Word

There are ways to turn a LaTeX file into a Word document, but that's probably not what your authors want. Nevertheless, you can still edit in Word, using revision tracking. Here's how:

  1. Open the LaTeX file (extension .tex) in Word.
  2. Save the file as a Word file (extension .doc or .docx).
  3. Turn on Track Changes.
  4. Edit the text, being careful not to change any of the LaTeX coding.
  5. Don't use any of Word's formatting features (paragraph styles, italic, bold, and so on), which will be lost when the document is changed back to a text file (which, later, it will be).
  6. Save the Word file and send it back to your authors, who should review the file in Word so they can accept or reject your changes.

After all of the changes have been either (1) accepted or (2) rejected (in other words, so that all tracked changes have been taken care of), the authors should do this:

  1. Save the file as a text file (extension .txt).
  2. Change the .txt extension to .tex.

At that point, they should be able to compile the LaTeX file as usual.

Method 3: Edit in LyX

LyX is a graphical user interface for LaTeX, with its own version of revision tracking. Here's the procedure:

  1. You (the editor) install LyX. Unless you're planning to use LyX for typesetting, you just need the simple installer rather than the bundled version.
  2. Import the authors' LaTeX file into LyX (File > Import > LaTeX).
  3. Do your editing in LyX, using its revision-tracking feature (Document > Change Tracking > Track Changes).
  4. Ask your authors to review your changes in LyX and accept or reject as needed.

At that point, your authors can (1) export the file as LaTeX (File > Export > LaTeX) or (2) process the file from within LyX. If you want to use this method, you should do some back-and-forth testing with your authors before starting work on an actual manuscript.

If you find that you like working in LyX (I do), you may sometimes need a way to convert a Word document into a LyX document, which is not an easy task—unless you use my new Microsoft Word add-in, LyXConverter. I do not, however, recommend trying to round-trip a document—that is, convert a Word document into LyX and then back into Word. Again, there are ways to do it (via OpenOffice.org Writer), but how reliable the final conversion might be is open to question.

How about you? Do you get manuscripts in formats other than Word? If so, how do you handle them? Please let me know!

Useful Downloads

Okay, I admit it: I'm a software junkie. I sometimes spend hours finding, downloading, and playing with new programs that I think might increase my productivity. Here are a few of my recent finds:

Office Compatibility Pack for Word, Excel, and PowerPoint 2007 File Formats. If you have Word XP or 2003 and need to save documents in the new 2007 XML format, here's the answer:

http://tinyurl.com/y5w78r

The OpenXML/ODF Translator Add-in makes it possible to open and save in OpenDocument format (ODF)--the format used in OpenOffice.org's office suite (which is free and powerful). The add-in comes with a command line translator that provides batch conversions.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/odf-converter

Office Accounting Express is Microsoft's free accounting package. If you're running a small business, or if you're a freelancer, this may be just what you need to keep your books.

http://tinyurl.com/yyj89z

There's also a tax integration add-in.

http://tinyurl.com/3y29rx

_________________________________________

READERS WRITE

After reading "The Need for Speed" in the June 14 newsletter, Judy Stein wrote:

I seem to work most efficiently using a combination of keyboard and mouse. My main speed trick is the right-click edit menu: I've put my most frequently used menu items and macros on it (and gotten rid of the default items that I don't use often).

Many thanks to Judy.

_________________________________________

RESOURCES

Articles by Geoff Hart

Earlier, I mentioned Geoff Hart's new book Effective Onscreen Editing:

http://www.geoff-hart.com/home/onscreen-book.htm

But Geoff has also published numerous articles on editing, publishing, writing, and related topics, and they're all available here:

http://www.geoff-hart.com/resources/bibliography.html

Many thanks to Geoff for providing such a valuable resource.

Author Tools Template

I'm constantly having to clean up files from authors. Most of them have no clue about how a manuscript should be structured or formatted. That's why I've created an Author Tools template--to help authors write, structure, and format their manuscripts in an easy, consistent way. (And, of course, to simplify my life--and possibly yours.) You can download the template (at no charge)--along with complete instructions for using it--here:

http://www.editorium.com/ftp/AuthorTemplate.zip

Like the template? Feel free to share it. Pass it around! Give it away! The main point of the template is to give it to authors who need it. If you can get them to use it, it should help prevent the following problems:

* Inconsistently applied formatting.

* Unstyled text.

* Messed-up footnotes and endnotes.

* Inconsistent chapter (and other) numbering.

And that should make your work easier. It will also make writing easier and more productive for the authors with whom you work. You may even want to use it yourself. I know I'm going to.

Don't like the template? Let me know! I'd love to have any suggestions for improving what I hope will be a useful tool for authors.

mailto:editor [at symbol] editorium.com

Do you have an author template you'd be willing to share with readers of Editorium Update? If so, please email it to me, and I'll make it available in the next newsletter. Thanks!

_________________________________________

READERS WRITE

Eric Fletcher wrote:

Further to your article about displaying function keys (2005-10-27), you can also generate a list of all mapped function keys via the Tools > Macros menu. In the "Macros in" box, choose "Word commands" then scroll down to choose "ListCommands" and click Run. The dialog that comes up lets you select either the current menu and keyboard settings (default) or all Word commands.

The resulting table presents each command alphabetically with the key and modifiers to get at it (as well as the menu where you can access it if applicable). Sort the table by key to see the keyboard mapping for the function keys.

On my system, choosing "all Word commands" generates a 30-page table: more than I care to print, but interesting to browse through to discover commands or keyboard shortcuts you may not have been aware of! (Did you know that Ctrl-Shift-G brings up the Word Count dialog? I didn't.)

Unfortunately, the table doesn't include a description column but if you want to find out what a command does, click on it in the Tools > Macros dialog and read the greyed-out description displayed at the bottom. If you click Run, it will invoke the command--the only way I could see the details for the oddly-named "Options Fuzzy" command!

The table will include any keyboard or menu assignments you may have made as well.

Thanks, Eric!

_________________________________________

RESOURCES

You'll find some other author templates here:

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-862.html

http://books.elsevier.com/authors/guide/template.asp

http://www.witpress.com/author_instruction.html

http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/site/authors.html

http://www.thomsoncustom.com/authors/templates.html

Worth checking out!

From Word 2K to 2003 Part 1–Looking up the Mountain

[Editor's note: This week marks the first installment in a series of reports by Word expert Steve Hudson on Word 2003--installation, features, and much, much more. If you're thinking of upgrading, you won't want to miss it. Next week, we'll return to our regularly scheduled feature articles and include the rest of Steve's installments in his own column as they become available. Many thanks to Steve for making them available!]

I've got a stack of research to do on using all these new Word objects (that's "features," for those who don't understand VBA-speak) that have started appearing so we've all got some idea of what's there. So I organised a free copy of Office 2003 to review. When I say free, I do NOT mean pirated--being a Word guru occasionally has a few tiny advantages.

I thought I could knock this article over in a few days. Fortunately for us, unfortunately for the article, there is a lot of new stuff available. So this is going to be a multi-part series for a little while to come. These articles do NOT go into using the new features all that much; it is more meant to give an overview of the changes to expect and help prepare you for the different ways you can work, or not, in Word 2003.

Installation

Before you can play, you have to build the ballpark. So we spent hours installing the suite of Office products I use or require. The much-anticipated "perfect install" was far from that.

First problem was it does not upgrade Outlook 2000, nor allow its dual existence with Outlook 2003. We stupidly believed the dialog and thought it would be OK to continue with the other stuff--but the install went belly up fairly quickly. Shutdown restart just to be sure to be sure. Back up Outlook PST's just in case of splat or regression. Removed Outlook and reran the install of the Office core components--Word, Excel, Outlook, Access, PowerPoint, InfoPath and Publisher all come bundled in tightly together. This worked OK.

To be specific, we only asked to keep the old Word 2000 and delete the rest of the old components.

Components

Visio, OneNote and FrontPage all came separately. The new 2003 Outlook features are pretty good, but it's a bit cluttered and reduces the number of messages on screen at once so you have to scroll around more to find stuff. The blurb annoyingly refers to this in the opposite, "Less scrolling with our new Bulldust!" Installing the patches took a fair while--there are quite a few already. Everything worked as planned, and the Office Update site provided the last, only four days old, patch. Started up the different products--you only have to load one from the core set, not each one--and their online activation with the supplied serials worked like a treat--quick, automatic and seamless.

OneNote is quite cool, a post-it note manager with some extra cool features--it is way more than Outlook's notes. I am sure it will creep into the workflow for many users, being more than a clipboard but less than a Word document. But that's enough about Office--these articles are about Word!

Plug-ins

I found a few add-ins available on the Office site already for Word 2003--a remove metadata tool--don't know how far this goes, but it does address some common, difficult metadata problems--and a smart tag add-in for dates and phone numbers.

Duelling versions--but both die at once

The dual running of Word 2000 and 2003 is already painful--the office installer almost re-installs each one when you open a new session. Spell "wait state" for me please. However, do note that I AM currently running both versions at the same time even, with NO problems or conflicts. A huge step forward. As I tend to load up a Word session for many hours, I can live with that. Also, if you don't load the other version in between sessions, the 're-install' doesn't trigger. WHEW!

The only down side I discovered is cascading failure. Crash one Word session, the other comes tumbling down as well. This could be limited to the type of crash, can't tell as yet. It was incredibly satisfying seeing each error report actually loading with Microsoft rather than the quick "OK, we already know about this one" response. Yet again, I manage to stuff things up in new and amazing ways--the power of the guru!

Copyright ? 2004 by Steve Hudson. All rights reserved.

_________________________________________

READERS WRITE

Melissa L. Bogen wrote:

For one client, I have to insert coded text at the top of each file. I want to write a macro (or find some other fast way) to add this big chunk of text. Up until now I have been copying and pasting the chunk of text from an old manuscript and updating it for the ms being edited. I think automating this step will speed things up. I'd like to write a macro that will go to the top of a file and insert the copy. Then using your MultiMacro program, I can run that macro along with some other macros I've written.

I'm a tad rusty on recording macros. I tried to write a macro that searched for a character string (this client always inserts the same character string at the top of every file) and replaced it with the desired basic chunk of text. However, I crashed Word twice now. Maybe MS Word doesn't like that the "insert what" field in my search and replace that I tried to run while recording the macro had a lot of "^p" for hard returns. (The chunk of text includes about 8 lines of text.)

Can you point me to a place where I can find a solution to adding a chunk of text to the top of every file?

I responded:

The number of times you use ^p shouldn't matter. The ^p code should work fine.

Are you really writing the macro, or just recording it? If you're just recording it, you should be able to:

1. Go to start of document (CTRL + HOME). 2. Replace [character string] with [your chunk of text] (CTRL + H).

And then run the macro.

But that reminds me: The longest chunk of text you can have in the Replace With box is 255 characters. So if your chunk of text is longer than that, that could be the problem.

The sneaky way around this is to:

1. Select and copy the chunk of text to the Clipboard. 2. Find [character string]. 3. Replace with ^c (which is the magic code for "whatever is on the Clipboard."

Melissa replied:

Yup, the chunk of text is long. I tried your sneaky way around it (recorded that as a macro) and it worked great. So now I have a macro, but there needs to be something on the clipboard for it to work. Thus I also saved the chunk of text as AutoText, using Brad Hurley's instructions you provided in this week's newsletter. Now I can insert the AutoText into one document, highlight the inserted boilerplate and hit Ctrl + c to add the boilerplate to the clipboard, then run the macro with a bunch of others using your MultiMacro. All the files in a folder have the text inserted.

Many thanks to Melissa for her questions and tips.

_________________________________________

RESOURCES

Want to see Microsoft's overview of Word 2003? You'll find the official party line here:

http://www.microsoft.com/office/word/prodinfo/default.mspx

Razzmatag

I'm excited to announce the release of our new program, RazzmaTag! Cute name, but what does it do?

Well, do you need to tag characters and formatting in Microsoft Word so your documents can be imported into a typesetting program?

Do you ever need to turn typesetting tags into formatting in Word?

What? You never work with tags? Then how would you like to turn directly applied formatting (such as Baskerville 26-point bold centered) into a Word style (such as Heading 1)?

If you need to do any of those things, you need RazzmaTag. RazzmaTag is a universal tagging utility that finds formatting in Microsoft Word and marks it with tags for use in QuarkXPress, Ventura, PageMaker, TeX, or pretty much any other typesetting program. As an extremely simple example, RazzmaTag can find text in italics and mark it with italic tags, like this: [I]italics[I].

RazzmaTag can also do the reverse, finding tags and changing them to formatting, so if you have old proprietary typesetting files, you can now convert them to Microsoft Word documents. That's also the key to converting directly applied formatting into styles: tag the formatting, then turn the tags into styles.

In addition, RazzmaTag can find and tag special characters. For example, you could have it find em dashes and replace them with tags. RazzmaTag can do all of this in a single document, all open documents, or all documents in a folder.

To use RazzmaTag, you prepare a "master list" that tells the program what formatting or characters to find and how to tag them, which means you're always in control. It also means you're not limited to certain tags but can use anything you need. For example, let's say you want to import a document into QuarkXPress. A simple master list might look like this (consult your Quark manual for the tags you need):

Body|@Body:^&+P

Emphasis|<@Emphasis>^&<@$p>+A

it|^&+F

The first line tells RazzmaTag to find text formatted with the Body paragraph style (+P) and replace it with the Quark tag @Body: followed by whatever text was found (^&).

The second line tells RazzmaTag to find text formatted with a character style (+A) named Emphasis and surround it with the Quark tags <@Emphasis> and <@$p>.

The third line tells RazzmaTag to find text in italic character formatting (+F) and surround it with Quark italic tags, and .

After you run RazzmaTag using that list, your document text will look something like this:

@Body:This is some text tagged <@Emphasis>beautifully <@$p> by the Editorium's new program, RazzmaTag!

Other kinds of tagging (or untagging) work in much the same way.

I'm particularly excited that I can now take an author's unstyled document, tag directly applied formatting, and then convert those tags to styles. RazzmaTag will save hours of applying styles by hand.

If you're using our QuarkConverter program, you know how handy it is, but it's limited to tagging files for QuarkXPress. RazzmaTag will do much more. If you're one of those Ventura users who keep asking for help, here's the program you've been wanting. I hope you enjoy RazzmaTag!

You can learn more about RazzmaTag and try it free of charge here:

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

_________________________________________

READERS WRITE

Last week's article about what the ideal editing software might look like brought some interesting responses.

Jeanne Pinault wrote:

Hi--great question!

I'd like the software to use publishing terms, like flush left, recto & verso, etc., and not make me translate computer language into my language.

I'd like Word to have something like WordPerfect's Reveal Codes, on demand--when you can't undo something because you don't know how you did it.

I'd like to have software that would undo authors' fancy formatting and give me plain text at a keystroke (Quark coded, of course, since we're dreaming, for ital, en dashes, etc.), as required for some publishers. (For all others, there's Editor's ToolKit!)

That said, I am devoted to Word 97 and do not intend to upgrade EVER. But I might start over with something perfect.

Steve Hudson wrote:

ME! ME! PICK ME SIR!!!!

RIGHT. Fourth division, sweep left. 21st division, cover that hill. Light armored . . . CHARGE!!!

First--C M Y friggin K. I will not harp, I will sit back as the cannons roar and you immediately agree you showed MASSIVE oversight in NOT including this. Consider thyself SPANK-ED! 🙂

Next--custom text run-around-paths.

The ability to create/modify GRAMMAR rules.

A proper, unlimited, compressed user spelling dictionary with decent tools.

Base file format is XML--not some unreadable binary behemoth.

More comprehensive document statistics--such as list hyperlinks/index entries/any field type/any metadata.

Built-in batch processing for documents from the facade.

Reveal ALL codes.

Rajesh Haldipur wrote:

I work with a typesetting service provider, and also provide typesetting and other services using Word. Some case studies of what we have done are available here (http://www.newgenimaging.com/datasheets/word.pdf) and here (http://www.newgenimaging.com/casestudies/xml.pdf) for download. I am also a confirmed user of Word, and a regular reader of the Editorium Update. I haven't purchased the Editorium product because, by the time I did discover the Editorium, I had developed most of the utilities in-house. I thought I would burden you with my tuppence-worth of comments on the wish list, with the backdrop of my experience in this area:

1. Word completion based on previous entries--do you mean something like the "AutoComplete" feature in Excel? That can be used in case tabular matter with large amount of repetitive content is to be keyed in, and the result taken to Word.

2. Re Export to XML We have developed for in-house use (customised for every DTD) the ability to convert XML into a styled, nearly paginated Word files, including loading of figures and formatting of tables. Separately, I have also developed a program to convert a styled Word file to XML based on a DTD, as long as the document is styled using a special template meant for that DTD. I have also built a utility to parse the resultant Word file and get the resultant error log entries hyperlink to the location of the error.

3. Real-time display of the Index We have developed a utility which converts an Excel List of Text of Index Entries (2,3 or 4 levels) and the relevant page number/ paragraph numbers into an Index in Word by a single click of a button. It also appropriately handles special characters, forcing particular Index Entries to appear in an order other than natural alphabetical order, and page ranges. This also generates an XML Index Entry list which verbosely lists every paragraph referenced as separate entries, where paragraph ranges are referenced by the index entry.

4. Some other features we could add to the wish list are:

? Search and Replace facility to allow searching for Widows or Orphans

? Style definition flexibility to allow for

? different specification for Widows and for Orphans

? specifying how many characters permissible before and after hyphen, in addition to hyphenation zone

? many more styles of underlining

? font in embossed and engraved effects besides shadow

? placing special emphasis characters above or below each character of style

? superscript and subscript sizes and positions to be varied as percentage of normal font sizes

? creation of decimal aligned tab to align at a comma or any other character by treating it as the decimal character

? setting a grid for a Reference style and for the base line of another style to snap to the grid of the reference style

? alignment of characters of para to base or top where a few characters in a paragraph are in significantly larger font than others.

? Allow part of a document to be designated at Read Only

? Allow hyperlinking of document content to a particular e-mail

? Support for CMYK as well as RGB colour

? Ability to define a user-definable hierarchy (classification) of styles in a template to classify styles for easier access and maintenance

? Ability to anchor objects to even a character or page and not just a paragraph

? Ability to enter References directly into a built-in bibliographic database and call them in a document (now separately available as third party plug-ins to MS Word)

What might interest you is that these features were not all needs felt and documented by me, but are a partial list of features which I have noticed are available with Open Office, which is a free 50MB download from here. In addition to almost everything that Word has to offer, it supports not one, but two programming languages (its own version of Basic in addition to Java) and hence is arguably more programmable and customisable than Word is with VBA.

David Parton (david.parton@abbeyfield-nottingham.org.uk) wrote:

Great list.

Can I add: Columns that don't rely on sections. I have a document that is in 8 real sections and would like to be able use these sections as references and to print and navigate using these sections, but the document also uses columns and therefore there are actually over 30 Word section breaks making cross referencing very difficult.

Martin Fitch wrote:

If you want to see what a real publishing program can do, check out Interleaf. After working with Interleaf for many years, trying to do half as much in Word with four times the effort is just sickening. Interleaf Corp. was bought out by Broadvision a few years ago, and the product is now called Quicksilver. Here's a link to their datasheet:

Click to access quicksilver.pdf

Thanks to one and all for their excellent insights and ideas!

_________________________________________

RESOURCES

Wordmeister Steve Hudson sent a terrific tip for serious Word users:

As a lot of your newsletter specifically deals with Microsoft Word, I thought the following resource might be of interest. It's www.kbAlertz.com; one of the best features is a regular mailout of the new Knowledge Base articles posted by Microsoft. I am trying to keep a running commentary on the Word 2000 ones via my "daily" entries in my blog for those folk who don't want to have to wade through MS guff to decipher what's the latest info.

You can check out Steve's blog here:

http://blog.tdfa.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!