Best to have all one's styles in "Normal Template" ?
Norm
Do the experts recommend also saving any added styles to the Normal
Template so that one Template contains all of one's styles?
Or perhaps, if it is advisable to have one template have them all, it is
best to have that repository be a template other than the Normal
Template?
Thanks for any advice.
--
Norm
John McGhie
I recommend having different templates for the different types of documents
that you create.
In them, I suggest keeping the built-in styles defined for each document
type.
I rarely create a new style: I customise the existing ones for each document
type.
This makes copy/pasting simple, because the same styles are available in
each different document type: but they have the formatting appropriate to
that document type, so when I paste text in, it's automatically formatted
for the document it lands in.
In the Normal.dotm I keep a full set of styles for the most common kind of
document that I create (and all my Macros and toolbars and AutoTexts, in the
versions of Word that support those...)
The entire object of this exercise is to reduce work. For you! So the more
often you use it, the closer you should keep it: and Normal Template is the
"closest" to any document that you can get. Always look to keep things as
simple as possible: don't make a maintenance chore for yourself by trying to
be "correct", there's no advantage in it and you'll waste a lot of time.
Cheers
On 19/12/09 3:17 AM, in article
YPWdnepF68GbNrbW...@speakeasy.net, "Norm"
<NOS...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
--
The email below is my business email -- Please do not email me about forum
matters unless I ask you to; or unless you intend to pay!
John McGhie, Microsoft MVP (Word, Mac Word), Consultant Technical Writer,
McGhie Information Engineering Pty Ltd
Sydney, Australia. | Ph: +61 (0)4 1209 1410
+61 4 1209 1410, mailto:jo...@mcghie.name
Norm
In article <C75232ED.6217%jo...@mcghie.name>,
John McGhie <jo...@mcghie.name> wrote:
> I recommend having different templates for the different types of documents
> that you create.
Is this a different case than your earlier (13-11-09) when you stated:
"I now advise users to keep everything in Normal template, and
effectively
that's what I do myself. Doing this means customisations will
automatically
be accessible to all open documents. Which means you do not need to
bother
creating your own toolbars, because you can simply customise the built-in
set." John McGhie 13-10-09 newsgroup post
>
> In them, I suggest keeping the built-in styles defined for each document
> type.
Lost me. Don't understand what you mean by "built-in styles defined for
each document type."
>
> I rarely create a new style: I customise the existing ones for each document
> type.
As I recall, you and Clive differ on this point.
>
> This makes copy/pasting simple, because the same styles are available in
> each different document type: but they have the formatting appropriate to
> that document type, so when I paste text in, it's automatically formatted
> for the document it lands in.
I'm missing something very basic. If you create a style and save to
Template JM 1, then isn't it only available to docs you create based on
JM 1?
>
> In the Normal.dotm I keep a full set of styles for the most common kind of
> document that I create (and all my Macros and toolbars and AutoTexts, in the
> versions of Word that support those...)
Do you have to copy styles from other templates to Normal?
And do you call the styles for the same purpose (eg Body Text, List
Number, etc) the same name in multiple Templates?
>
> The entire object of this exercise is to reduce work. For you! So the more
> often you use it, the closer you should keep it: and Normal Template is the
> "closest" to any document that you can get. Always look to keep things as
> simple as possible: don't make a maintenance chore for yourself by trying to
> be "correct", there's no advantage in it and you'll waste a lot of time.
Here, here.
Thanks much.
--
Norm
John McGhie
On 19/12/09 9:42 AM, in article
6YidndInXoj6mLHW...@speakeasy.net, "Norm"
<NOS...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>> I recommend having different templates for the different types of documents
>> that you create.
>
> Is this a different case than your earlier (13-11-09) when you stated:
>
> "I now advise users to keep everything in Normal template, and
> effectively
> that's what I do myself. Doing this means customisations will
> automatically
> be accessible to all open documents. Which means you do not need to
> bother
> creating your own toolbars, because you can simply customise the built-in
> set." John McGhie 13-10-09 newsgroup post
Well, yes, of course it is :-) Now we are talking about "multiple document
types". You can have only a single style of each name in a document or
template. The "Heading" series styles I use for "Reports" and for "Books"
are defined differently.
I usually create Reports, so they're all in Normal. But I also have a
series of "Book" templates for different sizes and shapes of books: same
style names, different definitions.
>> In them, I suggest keeping the built-in styles defined for each document
>> type.
>
> Lost me. Don't understand what you mean by "built-in styles defined for
> each document type."
Keep the built-in styles. Define their formatting for the document they are
in.
Step back, Norm. See the big picture. You're looking at everything from
ground-level and getting lost in conflicting detail. Look at it from the
50,000-foot view:
Norm creates documents
Those documents are Letters, Reports, and Books.
The documents Norm most often creates are Reports. So set the Normal
Template up to assist the work-flow he uses when creating a report.
Now, set up a different Template to pre-format Letters. Particularly,
letters to the Tax Man and other impertinent types who become loud and
demanding...
Now, set up another Template for the Great European Novel, which Norm will
eventually get around to writing (after spelling class...)
Step waaaay back, and Bend Word in such a way that you do the least possible
work to create each kind of document.
>> I rarely create a new style: I customise the existing ones for each document
>> type.
>
> As I recall, you and Clive differ on this point.
I doubt it. Clive re-names them, because he's still keystroke-oriented. I
don't, because I am mouse-oriented. Otherwise, no difference. Neither of
us creates styles from scratch unless we HAVE to, because that's work.
Laziness is an important career skill in learning and using Word. The
lazier you are, the better you will use Word.
>> This makes copy/pasting simple, because the same styles are available in
>> each different document type: but they have the formatting appropriate to
>> that document type, so when I paste text in, it's automatically formatted
>> for the document it lands in.
>
> I'm missing something very basic. If you create a style and save to
> Template JM 1, then isn't it only available to docs you create based on
> JM 1?
If you use built-in styles, they will be available in EVERY document,
regardless of its template. So when you paste text from a
correctly-formatted document, it will automatically adopt the formatting of
the document you paste it into. You don't have to consider whether you
might introduce new, non-standard styles to the destination document: you
won't, because you're using only built-in styles that exist in every
document.
Nor will you ever have to consider whether the source document styles are
"correct". It doesn't matter, because the formatting of those styles is
specified in the destination document. When the text comes in, it will
automatically adopt the correct formatting for each style.
>> In the Normal.dotm I keep a full set of styles for the most common kind of
>> document that I create (and all my Macros and toolbars and AutoTexts, in the
>> versions of Word that support those...)
>
> Do you have to copy styles from other templates to Normal?
I don't recall having done so in the past five years or so. If I needed to,
I would. But I always use the built-in styles, so they're always present
already, I don't have to think about it.
> And do you call the styles for the same purpose (eg Body Text, List
> Number, etc) the same name in multiple Templates?
Yes. That's a key part of this strategy. I use the default names of the
built-in styles. It's Clive who re-names styles: I never do.
Cheers
Norm
In article <C752A2C4.6257%jo...@mcghie.name>,
John McGhie <jo...@mcghie.name> wrote:
> Well, yes, of course it is :-)
;) student asking prof if prof is paying attention ;) ;)
> Now we are talking about "multiple document
> types". You can have only a single style of each name in a document or
> template. The "Heading" series styles I use for "Reports" and for "Books"
> are defined differently.
So there is no list that has all the styles for one user since a user
can have multiple definitions of one style if they are in different
templates. Correct?
<snip>
>Keep the built-in styles. Define their formatting for the document
>they are
>in.
Are "built-in styles" the same as styles pre-defined by MS Word? That is
the styles one sees when launching Word for the first time?
Do you "Delete" the ones you don't use in a template?
> Step back, Norm. See the big picture. You're looking at everything from
> ground-level and getting lost in conflicting detail. Look at it from the
> 50,000-foot view:
Got it..... not the first time that I've got lost in the trees when I
should have been looking at the forest. I seem to have a liking for the
"trees." ;)
<snip>
> Now, set up another Template for the Great European Novel, which Norm will
> eventually get around to writing (after spelling class...)
I think my spelling coach left while I was learning Word. ;)
> Step waaaay back, and Bend Word in such a way that you do the least possible
> work to create each kind of document.
OK... OK.... :-)
<snip>
> > I'm missing something very basic. If you create a style and save to
> > Template JM 1, then isn't it only available to docs you create based on
> > JM 1?
>
> If you use built-in styles, they will be available in EVERY document,
> regardless of its template. So when you paste text from a
> correctly-formatted document, it will automatically adopt the formatting of
> the document you paste it into. You don't have to consider whether you
> might introduce new, non-standard styles to the destination document: you
> won't, because you're using only built-in styles that exist in every
> document.
But if you redefined a built-in style in JM 1 template it is not going
to be available in JM 2 or in Normal. Is it?
And if you paste from one to another it seems to me they will take on
different formatting if you've defined styles differently.
snip
> >> In the Normal.dotm I keep a full set of styles for the most common kind of
> >> document that I create (and all my Macros and toolbars and AutoTexts, in
> >> the
> >> versions of Word that support those...)
> >
> > Do you have to copy styles from other templates to Normal?
>
> I don't recall having done so in the past five years or so. If I needed to,
> I would. But I always use the built-in styles, so they're always present
> already, I don't have to think about it.
I'm still missing something.
You say you modify built-in styles and they are always present. That
would seem to be mutually exclusive. Confused. :-(
>
> > And do you call the styles for the same purpose (eg Body Text, List
> > Number, etc) the same name in multiple Templates?
>
> Yes. That's a key part of this strategy. I use the default names of the
> built-in styles. It's Clive who re-names styles: I never do.
So your Body Text style in Books is different than Body Text in Reports
or Normal?
Thanks.
--
Norm
Jim Gordon Mac MVP
> The lazier you are, the better you will use Word.
>
This quotation deserves a prominent place in the MVP word site!
--
Jim Gordon
Mac MVP
Co-author of Office 2008 for Mac All-in-One For Dummies
http://tinyurl.com/Office-2008-for-Dummies
John McGhie
On 20/12/09 2:31 AM, in article
c42dnSX31uJbbLHW...@speakeasy.net, "Norm"
<NOS...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> ;) student asking prof if prof is paying attention ;) ;)
If you got to class on time and didn't sit up until all hours carousing, you
would have a better chance of catching me out :-)
> So there is no list that has all the styles for one user since a user
> can have multiple definitions of one style if they are in different
> templates. Correct?
Yes, that's right. If you wanted to prepare such a list, you would have to
start with a list of Templates (i.e. A list of the document types you work
with) and then within each template, you would show the styles that could be
used, and within each style, you would show how the formatting is defined in
that style.
The Production Manager on a large project will compile exactly such a list,
because the interrelationships and inheritances can become complex. Home
users would never bother: just keep a template for each of your common
document types.
> Are "built-in styles" the same as styles pre-defined by MS Word? That is
> the styles one sees when launching Word for the first time?
When Word is running, there are at least 147 styles in it. There can be a
few more, if anyone has created any additional styles in any of the
documents it has open.
>
> Do you "Delete" the ones you don't use in a template?
No: Why bother? Unless they have been applied to text, they're invisible
and empty: they take up practically zero room and it's a chore to go hunting
for them. Out of sight = out of mind.
>>> I'm missing something very basic. If you create a style and save to
>>> Template JM 1, then isn't it only available to docs you create based on
>>> JM 1?
>>
>> If you use built-in styles, they will be available in EVERY document,
>> regardless of its template. So when you paste text from a
>> correctly-formatted document, it will automatically adopt the formatting of
>> the document you paste it into. You don't have to consider whether you
>> might introduce new, non-standard styles to the destination document: you
>> won't, because you're using only built-in styles that exist in every
>> document.
>
> But if you redefined a built-in style in JM 1 template it is not going
> to be available in JM 2 or in Normal. Is it?
The style will be available: it's available in every document or template
that exists. The formatting it contains will be different. You are
confusing the container (the style) with the formatting (the properties)
that it contains. You need to separate the two in your mind: a "Style" is a
can, you can put anything you like in there.
>
> And if you paste from one to another it seems to me they will take on
> different formatting if you've defined styles differently.
Yes: they will. That's the whole point. That's what you want to happen.
Before you began working on the document, you did a few things to ensure
that it was formatted the way you want it. So the document you are working
on, "The Destination Document", is correctly formatted. Text you get from
"somewhere else" may have different formatting. Often, it comes from a
different application and it may not even have styles.
When you paste text in, you neither know nor particularly care how it was
formatted in the source. We can assume that the other guy did an OK job for
what he wanted to do. That has no relation to what you want to do now.
So you want incoming text to adopt the formatting of the destination, which
is correct for what you want to do NOW.
I usually REMOVE all the formatting from text I paste, using Edit>Paste
Special>Unformatted text. Never would I allow someone else to control the
formatting in MY document: pigs might fly! :-)
>> I don't recall having done so in the past five years or so. If I needed to,
>> I would. But I always use the built-in styles, so they're always present
>> already, I don't have to think about it.
>
> I'm still missing something.
>
> You say you modify built-in styles and they are always present. That
> would seem to be mutually exclusive. Confused. :-(
Again, you are confusing the Style with what it contains. The Style is
always present. What it contains will often (usually?) be different between
two documents.
The built-in styles will always be present. User-created styles may not be
present.
If you paste formatted text from one document to another, the formatting of
the styles in the destination is used, for those styles already in the
destination.
For styles not already in the destination, these are copied into to the
document with their formatting, which is imported from the source document.
There is a rich opportunity for conflicts and surprises when that happens,
so I try not to allow it.
> So your Body Text style in Books is different than Body Text in Reports
> or Normal?
Absolutely! That's the whole point of having different templates :-)
Norm
In article <C753B5C1.62C6%jo...@mcghie.name>,
John McGhie <jo...@mcghie.name> wrote:
> Absolutely! That's the whole point of having different templates :-)
OK.... now I think I better understand.
But one other.... do you create a new style when you create a body text
for JM 2 for instance?
Or do you modify the built in style "Body Text" so the number of styles
remains the same but they have different formatting?
I gather you do the latter.
If so, should one leave the original built-in styles alone and only
modify them if you are saving to a new (non-Normal) template so that the
original built-in styles always remain as defined?
Thanks for using your 2 x 4 to get this concept through the thick skull
here.
Appreciate,
Norm
--
Norm
Norm
John McGhie <jo...@mcghie.name> wrote:
> > Do you "Delete" the ones you don't use in a template?
>
> No: Why bother? Unless they have been applied to text, they're invisible
> and empty: they take up practically zero room and it's a chore to go hunting
> for them. Out of sight = out of mind.
But sometimes there seem to be many, maybe all, styles in the drop-down
window in the formatting toolbar. Not very helpful in finding and
selecting the style one wants.
Does that make sense that all would show?
I thought it would contain those in use and maybe user defined.
Thanks.
--
Norm
Clive Huggan
Hello Norm,
Early on, I added the styles I use most often, and had built "from scratch",
to the Normal template (and they are still there). There were perhaps a
dozen of them: bt, bti (roman and italic body text); s, ss (sub and sub-sub
paragraphs) and their respectively bulleted and dashed equivalents sb and
ssd; cp (comment paragraphs, so I did not have to use Word's "Comments"
feature) and ct as a character style for within-sentence comments; table
text and table headings; quotes and notes. As time went on I made subtle
changes to such things as leading. When I had established the optimum for my
most frequent type of work I no longer needed to amend them; I added a new
style for a new purpose only on a few occasions.
John mentioned earlier that our operating preferences are very similar, and
that the main differences originate in my being more keyboard-oriented and
he more mouse-oriented. That's true: I prefer to key Command-Shift-s
followed by "bt" to apply my body text style, or followed by "3" for a level
3 heading (or "nt3" for a level 3 style that I don't want to appear in the
table of contents, e.g. in a preface).
It's true when John says I rename styles -- as far as headings are
concerned. I add a suffix after the heading style name, such as in "heading
3,3", so that I can invoke it by Command-Shift-s followed by "3". Like John
and everyone else who doesn't want ransom-note typography (or has this
improved in Word 2008??) I have of course heavily re-defined the
characteristics of each heading style. And such definitions may well vary in
each template or type of document.
But for non-heading styles I don't rename Word's pre-existing styles; I
create them from scratch, all based on style "bt" (one of only 5, I think,
styles to which I haven't given a name-plus-suffix, because I use it so
often) -- and "bt" is based on "no style". I abhor having to hit the Shift
key on the occasions (rare, admittedly) when I type a style name rather than
a suffix, so there is no point in my using "Body Text". As you have
observed, I rely quite heavily for some types of documents on being able to
change the appearance of the entire document by simply swapping, say, the
font of "bt" for a different appearance in hard copy from the screen
version. Since all other [non-heading] styles are based on it, they all
change instantaneously. And similarly with the heading styles by re-defining
the font of "heading 1,1".
I used to have a variety of templates reflecting the different types of
documents I work on. But in due course I would make subtle (sometimes not so
subtle) changes in a particular document and I'd forget to amend the
template. When I wanted to refer back to the formatting I had used on that
document I would invariably remember it was "the technical review of
[whatever company]" but I would have to search around somewhat if I wanted
to find the template I had used -- and that, as I said, would not have all
the styles or AutoText items in.
So nowadays I almost always use as my starting point a *document* of the
same type that I need, not a template. This raises eyebrows among some of
m'learned colleagues and friends, because of the possibility of corruption
occurring and seeping into successive generations of documents. I get around
this by keeping a copy of one of the earlier examples which I could return
to -- and indeed if I haven't made many changes to the formatting I would
use the earliest version I could. And since I never experience corruption,
it's a bit academic anyway. (Part of the reason for that is that, like John,
I never add material to my documents from other people other than as
unformatted text: Edit => Paste Special => Unformatted, although I have a
macro to do it via a keyboard shortcut, which will again be available in
Word 2011 for Mac.)
The upshot of all this is that nowadays I have all my styles in the Normal
template, although I also keep a template specifically with all my
formatting in it. I have never needed to use it but, like my quadruple
backup system, it helps me to sleep soundly at night. ;-)
[To anyone watching this thread as Norm and John forensically unravel the
mysteries of styles: if you need the context for the recommendations and
style naming above, do a "Find" for the terms in "Bend Word to Your Will",
which is available as a free download from the Word MVPs' website
(http://word.mvps.org/Mac/Bend/BendWordToYourWill.html).
Note: "Bend Word to your will" is designed to be used electronically and
most subjects are self-contained dictionary-style entries. It's important
to read the front end of the document -- especially pages 3 and 5 -- so you
can select some Word settings that will allow you to use the document
effectively.
Final note: In Word 2008, which I don't use yet, some of this information
may not apply, or may be accessible through a different interface. If that
causes problems, post back and someone will help you further.]
Cheers,
Clive Huggan
Canberra, Australia
(My time zone is 5-11 hours different from the Americas and Europe, so my
follow-on responses to those regions can be delayed)
====================================================
Your post via Mactopia may not be seen by the volunteer experts in the
Word:Mac newsgroup. To make sure, please see
http://word.mvps.org/Mac/AccessNewsgroups.html
====================================================
On 19/12/09 3:17 AM, in article
YPWdnepF68GbNrbW...@speakeasy.net, "Norm"
<NOS...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
John McGhie
On 20/12/09 1:25 PM, in article
gOednYDSW-yfFrDW...@speakeasy.net, "Norm"
<NOS...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> But one other.... do you create a new style when you create a body text
> for JM 2 for instance?
>
> Or do you modify the built in style "Body Text" so the number of styles
> remains the same but they have different formatting?
>
> I gather you do the latter.
Yeah, I do. Having multiple styles for the same kind of paragraph is poor
practice in a template or document you want someone else to work on: you can
bet your "a" that they will choose the wrong one.
Keep it simple: Body Text for Body Text, wherever it goes. So when they
open the document, they don't have to learn anything new: they just use the
"conventional style set everyone uses for Word documents" and they are
automatically correct for that document.
> If so, should one leave the original built-in styles alone and only
> modify them if you are saving to a new (non-Normal) template so that the
> original built-in styles always remain as defined?
No. We keep coming back to this Norm: The "original" styles have NO VALUE.
They are simply containers, and most of them are EMPTY until you put some
properties in them.
There are two ideas you need to let go of:
1) Word has defaults. Basically, in styles, it DOESN'T.
2) The "original styles are valuable". They're not: most of them are
EMPTY. Set them how you want, when you want.
When you come to a new document or template, just jump straight in and
customise the built-in styles to be appropriate to the kind of document you
are creating.
I always start with the Heading Styles. I do this so often, I have a macro
that just runs through and changes every property in every Heading style to
the ones I like. And changes the "Based on" property appropriately.
Then I set up Body Text, Body Text Indent, List Number 1 to 4, List Bullet 1
to 4, Caption, Header, Footer, Page Number.
Fifteen styles, which is about all I use in any document.
Most of which are chains that take very little setting up (The Body Text
chain is one: the Lists are hanging off Body Text, header and Footer are
chained to Heading, blah blah blah...) It's the work of a couple of minutes
(ten minutes, maximum).
I was looking at a template the other day where the Graphics Designer has
set up FOUR sets of Heading styles, and thinking "You idiot! Why are you
making things so difficult for everyone." I know why, of course: he has
Four Levels of Title style that are not, technically, "Headings". He has
numbered headings and non-numbered headings, and within each of those sets
he has TOC and non-TOC styles.
The Title series are used for "labels" in the document parts (this is a huge
document: about 4,000 pages) and are not part of the logical structure.
The Heading series is part of the logical structure, and has numbering.
There's an equivalent set of "Heading Unnumbered" styles for headings he
wants in the TOC that do not have numbers (some volumes of this are not
numbered).
Then there's a set of "Heading non-TOC" styles that do NOT appear in the TOC
but DO have numbering, and a fourth set of "Heading Unnumbered non-TOC"
styles that do NOT appear in the TOC and do NOT have numbering.
I know what he wants to do; but I also know what kind of person he wants to
use these things. This template is designed for construction engineers to
write their own content. There is going to be a disaster of biblical
proportions: I can feel it in my bones :-)
Construction engineers and managers consider that "Notepad" is too complex
for them to use: they would far prefer to hand-write their contribution and
hand it to a "Typist". Sadly, those days are OVER. Nobody employs
"typists" any more. Managerial-level knowledge workers have to write their
own content, and they are expected to be sufficiently skilled with Word to
get it formatted to the company's required specification.
And that's what I am trying to teach you here: how to set up and use Word so
you can email a document over to someone who does not have your level of
skill, and expect the formatting to come back right when they add content to
it.
Your chances improve dramatically if you stick to the "conventional" or
"usual" way of formatting a document. Which basically means "Use the
built-in styles, and try to use ONLY the built-in styles." That way, a
person who has never met you before or seen your document can open it and
edit it and get it back to you without screwing things up.
Of course, you might find an "exception", in a special kind of document. In
a complex document, you "might" have to add one style that is not built-in.
One I sometimes add is "Code". There is a built-in for "HTML Code" but
that's a character style, I sometimes need a paragraph style for formatting
code samples.
But if I find a document in which I have to add more than two custom styles,
I am having a bad day and hopefully I am being paid in telephone numbers to
put up with this nonsense :-)
Keep it simple, keep it standard; "make the right thing the easy thing".
This is ALL about saving work :-)
The built-in styles are there to try to cover everything ordinary users will
ever need in a document, and they come very close. Microsoft expects you to
use the built-in styles. Other users will expect that too, and often they
will assume that you have. Go with the flow: life gets better :-)
I strongly advise you to get out of the habit of creating lots of custom
styles: otherwise you will shortly get bogged down in the detail of keeping
them all internally consistent, and creating documents will take twice as
long as they need to because you have to do all this style management to get
your formatting to work.
John McGhie
If you have your view set to "All Styles", then you will indeed see them all
:-)
I never look in that list.
The styles I use are on my personal toolbar: I never have to look anywhere
else.
Once you have applied each style you want to use once, change the list view
to "Available styles" and you will see only the ones you have used.
Cheers
On 20/12/09 1:35 PM, in article
f9GdnTinb8kUELDW...@speakeasy.net, "Norm"
<NOS...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
--
The email below is my business email -- Please do not email me about forum
CyberTaz
On 12/19/09 9:35 PM, in article
f9GdnTinb8kUELDW...@speakeasy.net, "Norm"
<NOS...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
It depends on what you have selected in the Styles List of the Formatting
Palette... If "All Styles" that's what shows up in the combo box list on the
Formatting Toolbar as well -- all built-in plus all user-defined. If
"Available Styles", what you get in both lists is just a few standard
built-ins along with any other built-ins that have been applied in the
document. As John had previously said, however, "Available Styles" also
includes all user-defined styles [from the template on which the document is
based] regardless of whether they've been applied in the document.
Regards |:>)
Bob Jones
[MVP] Office:Mac
Norm
John McGhie <jo...@mcghie.name> wrote:
> The styles I use are on my personal toolbar: I never have to look anywhere
> else.
That sounds very simple.
I'll go back to "Bend..." to see if I can figure out how to add each
style.
Is each style in your personal toolbar a separate icon?
>
> Once you have applied each style you want to use once, change the list view
> to "Available styles" and you will see only the ones you have used.
"...applied each style..." does that mean once in Word or once in each
doc.
Thanks much.
--
Norm
Norm
CyberTaz <onlygen...@com.cast.net> wrote:
> It depends on what you have selected in the Styles List of the Formatting
> Palette... If "All Styles" that's what shows up in the combo box list on the
> Formatting Toolbar as well -- all built-in plus all user-defined.
Now I have it. I've tried to stay away from the Palette given
recommendations here. But I must have gone there and changed it to All
Styles at some point. Thanks.
> If
> "Available Styles", what you get in both lists is just a few standard
> built-ins along with any other built-ins that have been applied in the
> document.
So "Available Styles" is always document specific. Now this
style-challenged user is getting it. ;)
> As John had previously said, however, "Available Styles" also
> includes all user-defined styles [from the template on which the document is
> based] regardless of whether they've been applied in the document.
Again, only styles one has defined in the document and saved to that
template.
Think the MS concept of All, Available, User-Defined is starting to
break through to the grey matter. ;)
Thanks much.
--
Norm
John McGhie
On 21/12/09 2:41 AM, in article
29ydnTNh3YEk2LPW...@speakeasy.net, "Norm"
<NOS...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> Is each style in your personal toolbar a separate icon?
Yes. You can just drag them onto the toolbar using Customise.
> "...applied each style..." does that mean once in Word or once in each
> doc.
Document. Styles are local to each document (they are child objects of the
document object).
Contrast this with the List Templates (we haven't discussed them yet, but
they are what you see in Format>Bullets and Numbering). List Templates are
child objects of the application (Word). Which is not a GREAT piece of
design :-)
Cheers
This email is my business email -- Please do not email me about forum
matters unless you intend to pay!
--
Norm
John McGhie <jo...@mcghie.name> wrote:
> Document. Styles are local to each document (they are child objects of the
> document object).
OK. "Think" I've got it.
Thanks.
--
Norm
Norm
Thank you very much for all this info....
In article <C753FDF3.460CF%REMOVETH...@ANDTHISstrategists.com.au>,
Clive Huggan <REMOVETH...@ANDTHISstrategists.com.au> wrote:
>
> It's true when John says I rename styles -- as far as headings are
> concerned. I add a suffix after the heading style name, such as in "heading
> 3,3", so that I can invoke it by Command-Shift-s followed by "3". Like John
> and everyone else who doesn't want ransom-note typography (or has this
> improved in Word 2008??) I have of course heavily re-defined the
> characteristics of each heading style. And such definitions may well vary in
> each template or type of document.
In the way you work, you rename they styles rather than retain the
built-in style names. Correct?
John advocates modifying built-in styles and not changing names if I
understand correctly.
>
> But for non-heading styles I don't rename Word's pre-existing styles; I
> create them from scratch, all based on style "bt" (one of only 5, I think,
> styles to which I haven't given a name-plus-suffix, because I use it so
> often) -- and "bt" is based on "no style".
So the built-in remain or you delete but you don't use their names or
their definitions.
> I abhor having to hit the Shift
> key on the occasions (rare, admittedly) when I type a style name rather than
> a suffix, so there is no point in my using "Body Text".
Not sure what you mean but I'm not accustom to your shortcut. I select
Shift-Cmd-s to get the style window.
<snip>
> The upshot of all this is that nowadays I have all my styles in the Normal
> template, although I also keep a template specifically with all my
> formatting in it.
So you always save a "new" style to Normal?
Not sure what you mean by "also keep a template ........ in it."
> I have never needed to use it but, like my quadruple
> backup system, it helps me to sleep soundly at night. ;-)
Sounds like me. My wife and boys roll their eyes when I tell them the
various backups I run. ;)
Thanks very much,
Norm
--
Norm
Norm
In article <C754148B.62FF%jo...@mcghie.name>,
John McGhie <jo...@mcghie.name> wrote:
>
> There are two ideas you need to let go of:
>
> 1) Word has defaults. Basically, in styles, it DOESN'T.
>
> 2) The "original styles are valuable". They're not: most of them are
> EMPTY. Set them how you want, when you want.
>
Got it!
>
> I strongly advise you to get out of the habit of creating lots of custom
> styles: otherwise you will shortly get bogged down in the detail of keeping
> them all internally consistent, and creating documents will take twice as
> long as they need to because you have to do all this style management to get
> your formatting to work.
>
So when "we" were doing the list style exercise of creating a list
paragraph style and a list style, we used some made up names. I gather
changing names was just for practice. When you do the real thing you
keep MS's name convention for styles as much as possible. But you may
define that style differently for a specialized purpose and retain that
in a separate template. Correct?
And you don't change the names like Clive does. It seems like you both
start the first step in any linked style from scratch, not linked to
Normal style but Clive changes the names and you don't. Correct?
Clive Huggan
naSdnZyLmYqfLLPW...@speakeasy.net, "Norm"
<NOS...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> Hello Clive:
>
> Thank you very much for all this info....
>
>
> In article <C753FDF3.460CF%REMOVETH...@ANDTHISstrategists.com.au>,
> Clive Huggan <REMOVETH...@ANDTHISstrategists.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> It's true when John says I rename styles -- as far as headings are
>> concerned. I add a suffix after the heading style name, such as in "heading
>> 3,3", so that I can invoke it by Command-Shift-s followed by "3". Like John
>> and everyone else who doesn't want ransom-note typography (or has this
>> improved in Word 2008??) I have of course heavily re-defined the
>> characteristics of each heading style. And such definitions may well vary in
>> each template or type of document.
>
> In the way you work, you rename they styles rather than retain the
> built-in style names. Correct?
Yes, except for Heading styles, to which I simply add a suffix so I can
easily use a keyboard shortcut.
>
> John advocates modifying built-in styles and not changing names if I
> understand correctly.
>
Yes; and he is wary that at some time in the future, Microsoft may wreak
vengeance on those who do not stick to them by doing some vile coding (John,
in his ever-so-gentle way, will wreak vengeance on me if I have
over-simplified him here ;-) It hasn't happened so far, and I don't care if
it does; I'll deal with it then.
The differences between John's and my preferred ways of working are also
explained by our main working environments: he taking on board huge amounts
of material originated from engineers et al, in part for mega-manuals; me
"considering" far smaller amounts of contributed material from senior
managers and scientists in strategic plans and documents that we all fight
to keep brief, and my deciding what I'll include -- and when I do I modify
it considerably.
So I don't care how the contributors have formatted their material. In fact
I have never been able to get my colleagues to use styles other than those
who knew about them already. Unlike John, therefore, who is capable of, er,
gently persuading his people -- which is why he said:
Quote:
Your chances improve dramatically if you stick to the "conventional" or
"usual" way of formatting a document. Which basically means "Use the
built-in styles, and try to use ONLY the built-in styles." That way, a
person who has never met you before or seen your document can open it and
edit it and get it back to you without screwing things up.
:Unquote
When applied to my situation that becomes inapplicable because [almost]
everyone is incapable ("I'm too busy") of doing anything other than applying
direct formatting to 'Normal' style. So I Paste Special => Unformatted (via
macro) either into the document in the case of short pieces of text, or for
longer text I do the same into a blank document, slash it down and change
it, then copy into my larger document.
I use Compare Documents to see where the new material is if it has been
incorporated into my document; I *never* use a document that has come back
from somebody else.
That situation brings different imperatives from John's; and there are
different imperatives again if you don't need to consider anyone else when
developing a Word document (if only!).>
>>
>> But for non-heading styles I don't rename Word's pre-existing styles; I
>> create them from scratch, all based on style "bt" (one of only 5, I think,
>> styles to which I haven't given a name-plus-suffix, because I use it so
>> often) -- and "bt" is based on "no style".
>
> So the built-in remain or you delete
Remain; I never delete them.
> but you don't use their names or their definitions.
Correct, other than Word's default heading styles. Note that "heading"
doesn't include my own "nontoc heading" styles (for anyone else watching
this thread: do a Find command in "Bend Word to Your Will"); they are based
on style "bt").
>
>> I abhor having to hit the Shift
>> key on the occasions (rare, admittedly) when I type a style name rather than
>> a suffix, so there is no point in my using "Body Text".
>
> Not sure what you mean but I'm not accustom to your shortcut. I select
> Shift-Cmd-s to get the style window.
I have the style window visible only in order to visually confirm the style
where the insertion point is or to make a small change to the definition of
a style. I never type anything in there. For example, if I want a level 3
heading I key Command-Shift-s followed by 3 followed by the Return key; body
text Command-Shift-s followed by bt followed by the Return key; a bulleted
sub-paragraph Command-Shift-s followed by sb followed by the Return key; and
so on.
By the way, no huge amount of memorizing is required for all this: all I
need to remember are the abbreviations for my 2 body text styles, 2x2 types
of sub-paragraphs, and headings -- which are just the level number. So doing
this isn't just the territory of industrial-level Word users; it is very
easy for a lightweight user of Word to remember too. And as John put it so
brilliantly, "The lazier you are, the better you will use Word."
>
> <snip>
>
>> The upshot of all this is that nowadays I have all my styles in the Normal
>> template, although I also keep a template specifically with all my
>> formatting in it.
>
> So you always save a "new" style to Normal?
Almost invariably. But I might modify a style slightly in a particular
document (see my earlier remarks on why I don't bother much with different
templates any more) while leaving the Normal template untouched.
>
> Not sure what you mean by "also keep a template ........ in it."
"The upshot of all this is that nowadays I have all my styles in the Normal
template, although I also keep a template specifically with all my
formatting in it."? -- That template is only a backup resource. It's a junk
heap. I transfer any new styles I create into it (naming them slightly
differently if there are more than one used for the same purpose). On *very*
rare occasions I have gone in and rummage around to see if I want to
retrieve one of them. Like rummaging around my workshop. ;-)
This template also contains the modified toolbars that I created in the
Normal template.
>
>
>> I have never needed to use it but, like my quadruple
>> backup system, it helps me to sleep soundly at night. ;-)
>
> Sounds like me. My wife and boys roll their eyes when I tell them the
> various backups I run. ;)
Causing one's spouse and offspring to do that form of exercise brings much
vicarious pleasure, I find. It's a bloke-of-a-certain-age thing... ;-)
Cheers,
Clive
>
> Thanks very much,
>
> Norm
John McGhie
On 21/12/09 10:39 AM, in article
15udnaqbCrtaKLPW...@speakeasy.net, "Norm"
<NOS...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> So when "we" were doing the list style exercise of creating a list
> paragraph style and a list style, we used some made up names. I gather
> changing names was just for practice. When you do the real thing you
> keep MS's name convention for styles as much as possible. But you may
> define that style differently for a specialized purpose and retain that
> in a separate template. Correct?
Yes. Again, you cannot make "rules" that always hold true at this level, or
you will end up with a rulebook twice the size of the London phone book.
And nobody puts their number in the phone book anymore because nobody can
find their number in it: it's too big :-)
1) When I am showing you how to create a style, I will start from scratch
so you know how to create one.
2) When I am showing you how to create a List Style, I have to start from
scratch, because there are no existing List Styles.
3) If I were to show you how to create a Table Style, I could do either,
but I would probably start from scratch because the Microsoft ones are so
horrid and so useless that life is to short to correct the detritus
contained in them.
> And you don't change the names like Clive does. It seems like you both
> start the first step in any linked style from scratch, not linked to
> Normal style but Clive changes the names and you don't. Correct?
I don't change the names of any built-in styles: that's correct. That's
because I want to leave the document with the standard style names, so other
users can find their way around.
But I set the formatting of the ones I intend to use, appropriately for each
document or template.
I also do not want to deal with the complexities around which ones you can
rename and which ones won't let you. Word actually has THREE classes of
style in the style table, not two. But it never describes or reveals the
difference in the user interface. In fact, it is difficult to find it when
you are programming also, and if you get it wrong, your code blows up.
There are "Custom Styles" and "Built-in Styles". Within the built-in
styles, there is a subset that doesn't seem to have an official name:
sometimes referred to as "Default" styles. You cannot delete a default
style, Word won't let you. And if you try to re-name it, Word will add the
name you create to the default name. If you try to create a style with the
same name, it will refuse. It's annoying and complex, and you won't see it
until you get into VBA.
Again: Come back to the 50,000-foot-view. What are you trying to DO? You
are trying to save effort. Most importantly, save effort for YOU. Saving
effort for other users is a "nice to have", but you are the one who matters
:-)
You will do a lot less work if you customise the built-in styles, because
their definitions will usually be close to what you will want to specify in
any case.
If you send documents for editing to anyone else, I suggest that you leave
the style names unchanged, otherwise they will probably start doing strange
things in your document, which you will have to fix when you get it back!
Although Clive is quite right: many users out there have yet to find out how
much work they save by using styles, and for them, it will make no
difference. But it's extra work for you to rename things; and try to
remember what you renamed them to! :-)
I have a different constraint: as m'learned colleague from Canberra has
alluded, the possibility of getting engineers and senior business executives
to "do" this stuff is inversely and directly proportional to how difficult
you make it. So I will often do things that involve a lot of work for me,
in order to get the documents being returned closer to what the company
specifies. Because *I* will have to fix them if they are not...
And working backwards and forwards between platforms, trying to learn the
various different keystrokes of each is just too much work, so I don't
bother :-)
Norm
Thanks very much. Tardy in saying so..... we've been back in Minnesota
for some holiday celebration with family. :-)
Now today back to learning Word. :-)
In article <C7556CC4.46148%REMOVETH...@ANDTHISstrategists.com.au>,
Clive Huggan <REMOVETH...@ANDTHISstrategists.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > In the way you work, you rename they styles rather than retain the
> > built-in style names. Correct?
>
> Yes, except for Heading styles, to which I simply add a suffix so I can
> easily use a keyboard shortcut.
Got that. I'm not sure I'm versed at the suffix usage but slowly
understanding some of the shortcuts you pros use.
(Reading on below in yours, I now get it. Thanks.)
> >
> > John advocates modifying built-in styles and not changing names if I
> > understand correctly.
> >
<snip>
> That situation brings different imperatives from John's; and there are
> different imperatives again if you don't need to consider anyone else when
> developing a Word document (if only!).>
The background with rationale is very helpful. My situation, which is
very "vanilla," is more similar to yours.
<snip>
>> but you don't use their names or their definitions.
>
> Correct, other than Word's default heading styles. Note that "heading"
> doesn't include my own "nontoc heading" styles (for anyone else watching
> this thread: do a Find command in "Bend Word to Your Will"); they are based
> on style "bt").
OK... Now I get it.
<snip>
>
> By the way, no huge amount of memorizing is required for all this: all I
> need to remember are the abbreviations for my 2 body text styles, 2x2 types
> of sub-paragraphs, and headings -- which are just the level number. So doing
> this isn't just the territory of industrial-level Word users; it is very
> easy for a lightweight user of Word to remember too.
An Aha moment for me. Thanks for going back over that for the
Word-challenged.
> And as John put it so
> brilliantly, "The lazier you are, the better you will use Word."
:-)
<snip>
> > So you always save a "new" style to Normal?
>
> Almost invariably. But I might modify a style slightly in a particular
> document (see my earlier remarks on why I don't bother much with different
> templates any more) while leaving the Normal template untouched.
When you say "while leaving the Normal template untouched" does that
mean untouched from your saved Style definitions?
> >
> > Not sure what you mean by "also keep a template ........ in it."
>
> "The upshot of all this is that nowadays I have all my styles in the Normal
> template, although I also keep a template specifically with all my
> formatting in it."? -- That template is only a backup resource. It's a junk
> heap. I transfer any new styles I create into it (naming them slightly
> differently if there are more than one used for the same purpose). On *very*
> rare occasions I have gone in and rummage around to see if I want to
> retrieve one of them. Like rummaging around my workshop. ;-)
Does this mean you would save a new to be used style in the Normal
template and then save that same new style to our "backup resource"
template?
<snip>
> > Sounds like me. My wife and boys roll their eyes when I tell them the
> > various backups I run. ;)
>
> Causing one's spouse and offspring to do that form of exercise brings much
> vicarious pleasure, I find. It's a bloke-of-a-certain-age thing... ;-)
;-) ;-)
Thanks very much.
Cheers and Happy New Year,
Norm
--
Norm
Norm
Happy New Year.
Back from a vacation to the Midwest.... we were trying to find colder
and snowier weather ;) ..... and now back in Cambridge.
In article <C7558D12.6389%jo...@mcghie.name>,
John McGhie <jo...@mcghie.name> wrote:
<snip>
>
> I don't change the names of any built-in styles: that's correct. That's
> because I want to leave the document with the standard style names, so other
> users can find their way around.
>
> But I set the formatting of the ones I intend to use, appropriately for each
> document or template.
Do you have a template that contains just the ones you use on a regular
basis?
>
> I also do not want to deal with the complexities around which ones you can
> rename and which ones won't let you. Word actually has THREE classes of
> style in the style table, not two. But it never describes or reveals the
> difference in the user interface. In fact, it is difficult to find it when
> you are programming also, and if you get it wrong, your code blows up.
MS does want to make it complicated for seemingly no reason. :-(
<snip>
>
> Again: Come back to the 50,000-foot-view. What are you trying to DO? You
> are trying to save effort. Most importantly, save effort for YOU. Saving
> effort for other users is a "nice to have", but you are the one who matters
> :-)
Learning Word at the feet of Clive and John may get me to 50,000 for
other projects as well. A nice plus. :-)
>
> You will do a lot less work if you customise the built-in styles, because
> their definitions will usually be close to what you will want to specify in
> any case.
Lazy is good! :-)
Thanks much,
Norm H
Cambridge, MA
--
Norm
John McGhie
Well, I am pleased that you are not perspiring in the heat and listening to
the bushfire helicopters thundering overhead like we are :-)
Cheers
On 4/01/10 4:58 AM, in article
P-SdnfiktN9GR93W...@speakeasy.net, "Norm"
<NOS...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
This email is my business email -- Please do not email me about forum
matters unless you intend to pay!
--
John McGhie, Microsoft MVP (Word, Mac Word), Consultant Technical Writer,
Norm
In article <C76748DA.3FE0%jo...@mcghie.name>,
John McGhie <jo...@mcghie.name> wrote:
> Hi Norm:
>
> Well, I am pleased that you are not perspiring in the heat and listening to
> the bushfire helicopters thundering overhead like we are :-)
>
I hope that your heat and drought end soon.... I guess that is a
"needless to say" at this point.
Maybe the Copenhagen meetings should have been held in AUS.
<snip>
> >> But I set the formatting of the ones I intend to use, appropriately for
> >> each
> >> document or template.
> >
> > Do you have a template that contains just the ones you use on a regular
> > basis?
Did you have any comments/recommendations on that question?
<snip>
Thanks,
Norm
--
Norm
John McGhie
On 5/01/10 7:48 AM, in article
MNKdnW_OD7WTyd_W...@speakeasy.net, "Norm"
<NOS...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> Maybe the Copenhagen meetings should have been held in AUS.
That would have made no difference. Combating climate change requires us to
undergo pain now in order to have an effect in 50 years. Democracy cannot
do this job, because politicians will do only what will win an election in
three year's time.
>>> Do you have a template that contains just the ones you use on a regular
>>> basis?
>
> Did you have any comments/recommendations on that question?
No. The object, remember, is to "Bend Word to YOUR will."
I have several templates, each configured with styles, macros, toolbars and
autotexts appropriate to the various document types that I frequently work
on.
Producing a document is a "workflow" that contains a number of defined steps
(whether formally defined or just in your head makes no difference: the
steps must all happen, in the required sequence, or the document does not
happen.)
I almost completely wipe the Word user interface and the built-in styles and
start again to get things exactly the way I want them. When dealing with a
4,000 page document (as I currently am) that makes the difference between
two days spent on "formatting" and (literally) two months.
You can make a "smaller" response than that, because you have a different
problem :-) The question you constantly need to ask is "What saves me
effort?"
You always have to do the work "somewhere".
For a school project, the degree of similarity between it and the next one
is low, and the ability to re-use the work is almost absent. Doing the work
in the document is easier, so that's where you do it.
I have been doing documents such as the one I am currently working on for 30
years. I am using tools and definitions in the current document that I made
25 years ago. Back then, I adopted the theory of "Do the whole job, and get
it right the first time; then you will never have to do it again." I
customised a template for that kind of document 25 years ago. Two years
ago, I changed the font specifications to Calibri and Cambria. Three years
ago, I upgraded the template to a .dotm. I set up the leading in the styles
in 1986 and I have not changed it since.
Cheers
Norm
In article <C76B40D0.4113%jo...@mcghie.name>,
John McGhie <jo...@mcghie.name> wrote:
> > Maybe the Copenhagen meetings should have been held in AUS.
>
> That would have made no difference. Combating climate change requires us to
> undergo pain now in order to have an effect in 50 years. Democracy cannot
> do this job, because politicians will do only what will win an election in
> three year's time.
Correct. I agree. Some advantages of a constitutional monarchy....
depending on who he/she is. ;)
>
> >>> Do you have a template that contains just the ones you use on a regular
> >>> basis?
> >
> > Did you have any comments/recommendations on that question?
>
> No. The object, remember, is to "Bend Word to YOUR will."
>
> I have several templates, each configured with styles, macros, toolbars and
> autotexts appropriate to the various document types that I frequently work
> on.
<snip>
Thank you for the above and the additional explanation. I now see how
that "flows."
If you were to look at All Styles in one of your templates or the Normal
template would it show all these styles that you've defined over the
years and would it be evident which are "yours" ?
Thanks again,
Norm
--
Norm
John McGhie
On 8/01/10 5:04 AM, in article
0bydnXsaEq_cv9vW...@speakeasy.net, "Norm"
<NOS...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> If you were to look at All Styles in one of your templates or the Normal
> template would it show all these styles that you've defined over the
> years and would it be evident which are "yours" ?
They are ALL mine. All the styles in any template I own have been
customised to do the job for which the template has been defined.
I bend Word to MY will, and I suggest that you do likewise. Body Text is a
built-in style, but in most of my templates it is set to either 10 pts Arial
or 11 pts Calibri, depending on the customer's requirement.
I rarely create a style from scratch: I use the default set: that's what
it's there for, and that avoids me having to re-train my staff for each kind
of document we do.
Currently I am working on a project where the Document Designer has not
understood this, and has created a majority of the styles required from
scratch, ignoring the default set.
He is "getting" an unholy mess. With 150 contributors to the document, he
now doesn't have time to re-train everyone. With 4,000 controlled documents
in play, he now does not have time to put them right.
Because he departed from "the normal way people use Word" he now has a
crisis on his hands. We are going to have to build some very serious
automation to put this right, and we may not have time.
Fortunately none of this is likely to concern you, because you are unlikely
to have to create 4,000-page tender documents in 12 weeks, which is about
average for major commercial bids. But anyone in here who is likely to have
to do this should learn from this lesson: in commercial and professional
service, small and seemingly insignificant departures from industry standard
practice can result in a disaster of crisis proportions. This is not a
space into which you introduce people who "think they know what they are
doing". Engage only staff with a track record of proving it under fire :-)
Cheers
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Norm
Norm
In article <C76C90A3.41AC%jo...@mcghie.name>,
John McGhie <jo...@mcghie.name> wrote:
> > If you were to look at All Styles in one of your templates or the Normal
> > template would it show all these styles that you've defined over the
> > years and would it be evident which are "yours" ?
>
> They are ALL mine. All the styles in any template I own have been
> customised to do the job for which the template has been defined.
Does that mean that only the styles you use are in the All Styles list
of a specific template and not all the original ones predefined by MS?
>
> I bend Word to MY will, and I suggest that you do likewise. Body Text is a
> built-in style, but in most of my templates it is set to either 10 pts Arial
> or 11 pts Calibri, depending on the customer's requirement.
I need to go back to your info on the "built-in" type of styles but I
gather from the above you can modify but not delete.
Thanks,
Norm
--
Norm
John McGhie
On 9/01/10 1:43 AM, in article
o_SdnUslWZYy2drW...@speakeasy.net, "Norm"
<NOS...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>> If you were to look at All Styles in one of your templates or the Normal
>>> template would it show all these styles that you've defined over the
>>> years and would it be evident which are "yours" ?
>>
>> They are ALL mine. All the styles in any template I own have been
>> customised to do the job for which the template has been defined.
>
> Does that mean that only the styles you use are in the All Styles list
> of a specific template and not all the original ones predefined by MS?
All styles in the document are in the All Styles list. It makes no
difference who created them, or who modified them.
The Microsoft Styles are simply a list of "Suggested Names". Microsoft
suggests that you use those names for your styles. If you follow that
recommendation (and use those styles in the correct places) any person
familiar with a Microsoft Word document will know how to edit and format the
document without breaking it.
So I use the Microsoft styles. Except in rare (very rare...) occasions, all
the style names I use are the names Microsoft suggests. In one document out
of a hundred, I may add one. Sometimes two.
But the content of those styles is what I say it will be. In a blank
document, they're empty, as we already know. I add the properties that will
format things according to my purposes.
Again: Come up out of the detail and look at the overarching picture.
Every document must have a style table: without it, the document is corrupt
and cannot be opened. That style table must contain some styles, or you
can't format the document at all. All formatting is a style in Word,
whether you know the name of that style or not. The style table will always
contain the default style set: Word will put them there. Might as well use
them: so you need to do a lot less work when setting up the formatting for
the document.
>
>>
>> I bend Word to MY will, and I suggest that you do likewise. Body Text is a
>> built-in style, but in most of my templates it is set to either 10 pts Arial
>> or 11 pts Calibri, depending on the customer's requirement.
>
> I need to go back to your info on the "built-in" type of styles but I
> gather from the above you can modify but not delete.
You can delete "some" but not "all" the default styles. The list of which
ones you can and which you can't keeps changing.
I suggest "Don't attempt to delete any!" Might as well use them: they're
already there, and it will save you work. If you start deleting styles,
then you have to deal with all the complexities of which ones to delete,
whether Word will allow you to delete them, what will happen to the
inheritance chains if you delete some, and whether or not Word will put them
back in.
Life is too short: use the default style set and bend it to your will...
Cheers
--
The email below is my business email -- Please do not email me about forum
matters unless I ask you to; or unless you intend to pay!
Norm
In article <C76E3A67.6AFB%jo...@mcghie.name>,
John McGhie <jo...@mcghie.name> wrote:
> All styles in the document are in the All Styles list. It makes no
> difference who created them, or who modified them.
If the styles are not defined (are "empty") are they in the list?
Thanks,
Norm
--
Norm
John McGhie
The truck contains no drinks, but the boxes the drinks came in are clearly
visible on the truck. They are also listed in the driver's cargo manifest
:-)
Cheers
On 9/01/10 2:48 PM, in article
MtOdnRr3bZHjYdrW...@speakeasy.net, "Norm"
<NOS...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
--
The email below is my business email -- Please do not email me about forum
Norm
In article <C76F46FE.6B6C%jo...@mcghie.name>,
John McGhie <jo...@mcghie.name> wrote:
> Yes. Read my dissertation on "empty" soft drink trucks.
Did again. I have it when reading that but....
I think I found, looking back on this thread, why I'm so confused on
this. I think I'm misreading what you posted a while back..
You said a long time ago ;) :
> If you do not choose a different template, then the entire style table
> comes
> from the Normal template if you have customised any of the styles in
> Normal.
> If you have not customised any styles in Normal, the Normal style set is
> all
> "empty" and it is not copied to the document.
I read this as meaning if I open a New Document then I will not have any
styles since they are empty.
> The truck contains no drinks, but the boxes the drinks came in are clearly
> visible on the truck. They are also listed in the driver's cargo manifest
> :-)
;)
Thanks.
--
Norm
John McGhie
On 10/01/10 9:50 AM, in article
dIqdne_-febSldTW...@speakeasy.net, "Norm"
<NOS...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> I read this as meaning if I open a New Document then I will not have any
> styles since they are empty.
Oh, it's not all your fault. Word goes out of its way to give the wrong
impression here.
Word 2007 has the whole Styles Control dialog, and in Word 2007 you can see
that by default, most style names have their "visibility" set to "Hide until
used".
Mac Word 2008 has a cut-down version of that mechanism, which lacks the
ability to set visibility. So when you first create a document, it appears
that there are only four styles in it.
The rest don't become visible until you apply them to text.
It's like a letter from your bank...
Cheers
This email is my business email -- Please do not email me about forum
matters unless you intend to pay!
--
John McGhie, Microsoft MVP (Word, Mac Word), Consultant Technical Writer,
Norm
In article <C770889F.42D7%jo...@mcghie.name>,
John McGhie <jo...@mcghie.name> wrote:
> Mac Word 2008 has a cut-down version of that mechanism, which lacks the
> ability to set visibility. So when you first create a document, it appears
> that there are only four styles in it.
I open Word 2008. It opens a new document. I go to the Style dialog
window and count..... I got 278 styles and I may have 3 or 4 test ones.
So those are all visible at the outset and if I understand you, many are
empty.
Does that make sense?
> The rest don't become visible until you apply them to text.
Are there more?
Thanks.
--
Norm
John McGhie
That means that at least one style in your Normal template has been
customised, so the entire style table is being copied from Normal template,
and the visibility settings will come in with them.
If I drop down the "Styles" drop-down in a fresh blank document on this Mac,
I see seven styles. That simply means that I don't usually use this machine
for production , so I haven't throw the Normal template on the blacksmith's
anvil and bent it severely out of shape :-)
It's also an indication that my working processes rely more often on
attached templates, and that's where most of my customisations are.
Celebrate individuality: ruthlessly bend Word to YOUR will :-)
Cheers
On 12/01/10 1:29 AM, in article
Z-2dnbchVYxIqNbW...@speakeasy.net, "Norm"
<NOS...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
This email is my business email -- Please do not email me about forum
Norm
In article <C771CE8A.435A%jo...@mcghie.name>,
John McGhie <jo...@mcghie.name> wrote:
> That means that at least one style in your Normal template has been
> customised, so the entire style table is being copied from Normal template,
> and the visibility settings will come in with them.
In order to see all those I opened the Format/Style window and selected
All Styles.
Why such a difference from the 147 styles that you always reference?
>
> If I drop down the "Styles" drop-down in a fresh blank document on this Mac,
> I see seven styles.
I have nine styles on the docs drop-down window. They are made up of 4
customized, 3 heading styles, 1 for Clear Formatting, and then Normal.
Yup.... adds to 9. :-)
Thanks,
Norm
PS.....
> On 12/01/10 1:29 AM, in article
> Z-2dnbchVYxIqNbW...@speakeasy.net, "Norm"
> <NOS...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>
> > I got 278 styles
That is not the Queen's english! She will have me tarred and feathered!
--
Norm
John McGhie
On 13/01/10 9:00 AM, in article
Cc6dneWSMPmdbNHW...@speakeasy.net, "Norm"
<NOS...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> In order to see all those I opened the Format/Style window and selected
> All Styles.
>
> Why such a difference from the 147 styles that you always reference?
To answer that question, you would need to open each style and inspect all
of its properties :-)
It's about ten years since I counted the default styles in Word (and I am
not going to do it right now...) it's probably more than 147 by now, because
they have added a heap of useless Table styles :-)
If it will make you happy, I shall henceforth refer to "More than 150" :-)
What is the principle we are looking for here? Does a document have default
styles? Yes. Are there enough for our needs? Yes. Do some appear before
they are used? Yes. Do any not appear if they are used? No. What causes
them to appear? The settings of their properties. You see where I am going
with this? The thing that matters is the mechanism, not the number.
The number of possible combinations is of the order of 3 to the power 200 to
the power 1,000. Apple's calculator gives up and tells me the result is
"Infinity". Your documents will be different from mine. Two documents I
create ten minutes apart are likely (almost certain...) to be different.
Let's just re-state the principle: "You will get more than 150 default
styles in a document. Any you have customised, plus any others you create,
will be visible." Others will appear automatically if Word needs them.
>>> I got 278 styles
>
> That is not the Queen's english! She will have me tarred and feathered!
So will your wife, and due to her closer association with you, it is to she
whom my petition for your demise will be directed in the first instance!
Cheers
Norm
In article <C7747F16.4453%jo...@mcghie.name>,
John McGhie <jo...@mcghie.name> wrote:
> On 13/01/10 9:00 AM, in article
> Cc6dneWSMPmdbNHW...@speakeasy.net, "Norm"
> <NOS...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>
> To answer that question, you would need to open each style and inspect all
> of its properties :-)
When my wife asks what I'm doing tabulating, my answer will confirm her
opinion of my sanity arrived at (in the most recent instance) as a
result of the time I've spent learning Word. ;)
> If it will make you happy, I shall henceforth refer to "More than 150" :-)
I shall be overjoyed. ;)
<snip>
> The thing that matters is the mechanism, not the number.
Understood.
<snip>
> Let's just re-state the principle: "You will get more than 150 default
> styles in a document. Any you have customised, plus any others you create,
> will be visible." Others will appear automatically if Word needs them.
Think it pierced the thick stuff.
Thanks,
Norm
--
Norm
John McGhie
imperatives. It is our lot in life to struggle on in the face of constant
opposition.
Cheers
On 15/01/10 1:09 AM, in article
boSdndh9zbIsuNLW...@speakeasy.net, "Norm"
<NOS...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
This email is my business email -- Please do not email me about forum