Styles - Seeking Opinions on Style Philosophies for Network Environment
Jean Perkins
I'm looking for some OPINIONS as to set-up of "master" styles for a 300-user
law firm. The users are converting from WordPerfect 8. The development
team is looking for the best way to get users to buy into styles immediately
upon conversion to Word and discourage the use of manual formatting.
We are looking at two vastly different philosophies on styles, and are
interested to know what others find to be workable (both from systems
maintenance and user friendliness perspectives).
First, I should mention that styles for numbered paragraphs are not of
concern to us, as the styling standards for those have already been worked
out; likewise for template-specific styles, such as styles unique to the
Fax Cover sheet. It is the development OF STYLES FOR NON-NUMBERED
PARAGRAPHS TO BE USED AT RANDOM BY THE USERS that we are addressing now.
PHILOSOPHY #1 - Provide many pre-defined global styles defined by PROPERTY
Some team members feel it best to make available, globally, MANY PRE-DEFINED
styles so users don't have to create styles.
- The idea is to DEFINE the styles BY THEIR PROPERTIES, rather than by the
type of text formatted with the style (e.g., name the style "Hang Indent 1",
Double Space") and make them available globally.
- The scheme anticipates training users that global styles are for
application only, and not to be edited. If none of the global styles fits
the bill, the user creates a style or copies a global style and edits the
copy.
- This scheme anticipates styling each and every paragraph in every document
(no manual paragraph formatting), even if the paragraph is unique relative
to the remainder of the document. If the paragraph format needs to change,
the user would apply a different style rather than edit the current style.
- The hope is that if a global style is available for selection, the user
would be more likely to use it than to apply manual formatting ?????
- Some members are concerned that because this type of scheme would result
in numerous global styles that are very SIMILAR, users may select the wrong
one and, as a result, foreclose the ability to change the "based" on style
to quickly make document-wide formatting changes. (Or worse, inadvertently
select a style where a specific property flows with the based on style when
the better selection would be a style with the relevant property fixed.)
- Some team members feel that this scheme may actually invite users to
apply manual formatting because it may take longer to find/select the
required style than it would take to create a style or apply manual
formatting. Some team members also see other problems with this concept,
including the problem that the same style may get applied to multiple units
of text each of which units may serve a different "purpose" in the document
(which then forecloses the ability to automatically reformat text of a
similar "purpose").
- Some team members feel that there are too many styles involved using a
scheme such as this. When you consider all of the combinations of
properties, and consider whether you want properties fixed or to dynamically
change with the based on style, the number of styles to provided is
substantial under this scheme.
PHILOSOPHY #2 - FEWER GLOBAL STYLES, FOCUS ON TRAINING
Some team members prefer to provide fewer "global" styles and focus on
training. Some points to this scheme include:
(Again, I am excluding numbered paragraphs and template-specific styles from
this discussion).
- The global styles would be limited to, say, about 30 styles for specific
text, such as (1) styles to format an indented, italicized quotation for a
legal argument, (2) styles to set off a legal descriptions and addresses
that appear within the body of the text, etc.
- There would also be a handful of global "body text" styles which would be
used throughout the document library. Those styles would carry different
properties depending on document-specific requirements (e.g., "Body Text
Main" might contain a left indent for some documents, but no indent for
other documents).
- Users would be trained to use the global styles consistently, but edit
the properties to suit document-specific needs (e.g., all documents with a
"body" would use the body text style, which would be amended as to
document-specific properties).
- Styles would be named according to the purpose of text formatted, e.g.
"Legal Description", would be a style name.
- There would be a firm-standard version of the "Normal" style which the
users would be trained to leave alone (we don't anticipate use of the
built-in Normal style).
- Every document will contain a custom "Based on Style" that would form the
base for most "global styles". Users will be trained that the based on
style never gets applied to text, but that they edit it to control
document-wide formatting, such as line spacing, justification or font. The
system can be made more fool proof with a small macro to quickly create a
new style so we can be sure that the correct "based on" style is used for
the new style.
-Some team members are concerned that this scheme is not practical because
it will be impossible to train ALL users in the Styles feature to a level
where they can (and WILL), quickly edit or create a style (and get it right
in terms of the relationship between the new/edited style and the based on
style).
- This scheme anticipates that any single paragraphs that are "odd-ball"
relative to the rest of the document, will be formatted with manual
formatting. Some team members feel that manual paragraph formatting should
be avoided completely (and they are particularly concerned about potential
problems with third-party document comparison software and manual
formatting).
- This scheme anticipates developing the system to ensure that the option
to update styles from template always stays unchecked.
****
If manual paragraph formatting is to be avoided completely (and we are not
sure that it should be), maybe a combination of the two philosophies might
be best: Use philosophy #2 for repetitive text, and use philosophy #1 for
odd-ball text.
****
Any opinions as to which way to go would be appreciated.
Thank you.
Jean Perkins
Mark Tangard
Jean wrote:
> The idea of using a macro-driven process to generate the pleading and
> simultaneously calculate page length and adjust, etc. is a great one
> but my hands are tied there because the Firm has stated its wish that
> users be less dependent on macros in their Word environment than was
> the case with their WordPerfect environment. Approval to write such
> a macro for one specific document type would not likely be granted.
This does say a little more about your firm, notably that they value
consistency in an extreme way. (That's not necessarily A Bad Thing,
just noteworthy.) If this mindset pervades much of the firm -- i.e.,
isn't held just by the king & queen and high court -- then that might
add considerable weight to the case for Philosophy #1.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall at your meetings this week. The very
idea of seeing a whole roomful of people who can even stand to discuss
it would be a shock in itself. ;)
Mark
Jonathan West
Hi Jean,
Based on your various posts, I'd like to make some contribution to the
debate.
1. I think that naming styles by purpose rather than layout is a more
intuitive way of working. It allows you to have different layouts for
different kinds of documents, without people having to remember different
names in each case. It also allows the firm (if it were ever to choose to)
to "modernise" its documents and completely change the layout and fonts,
without changing the names of the styles, simply by changing the definitions
of the styles. The users can then happily create documents in the new layout
without needing any retraining. I have been in an organisation that did
exactly that.
2. 30 styles is perhaps a bit much for people to swallow. What I would
recommend is that you create a custom toolbar with the styles on it, so that
the standard styles are always available and immediately visible as a
reminder to the users to use them. This will be a powerful supplement to
your training efforts. Limit your standard styles to the number you can fit
on the toolbar. This toolbar should be saved as part of the template of that
the documents are based on. You can of course have additional "standard"
styles that are not used much in the body of the document, such as styles
for page headers, styles to lay out the title page, styles for footnotes
etc, that the users will need in their documents, but would normally not
have any cause to modify.
3. This next point is not directly related to styles, but may also be useful
in search of the holy grail of document consistency. If you have standard
phrases that you repeatedly use, then investigate the use of AutoText to
store them and have them retrieved and inserted into the document with just
a few keystrokes.
4. I would discourage as far as possible the creation of additional styles.
If you have a coherent and well-designed set of basic styles, you are
unlikely to need any extra ones, and so extras should be discouraged, as
they will reduce consistency of layout. Direct application of paragraph
formatting should also be discouraged, for the comprehensive mess that it
can sometimes make. Direct character formatting (bold, italic etc) is in my
opinion OK, though I know of people who go so far as to say that *any*
direct formatting is evil, and that character styles should be defined to
cover this.
5. Also discourage the use of manual page breaks and blank paragraphs. If
you define the paragraph format of your styles properly, the page breaks
will fall naturally in the appropriate places. For instance, make sure your
heading styles are formatted with "Keep lines together" and "Keep with
next", and ensure that the Space Before and Space After settings are such
that you never need a blank paragraph between a heading and its body text.
This way, you can ensure that a page break never falls between a heading and
the body text following. Similarly, if you use tables frequently, define a
special set of styles for use in tables, all which have "Keep lines
together" and "Keep with next". This will ensure that the whole table will
always remain on the same page, and will drop to the next page as a block.
The only occasion where a blank paragraph is appropriate (in my opinion) is
the paragraph immediately following a table. Format that in Normal style,
and you will be able to get the page breaks to fall naturally between
tables.
--
Regards
Jonathan West - Word MVP
MultiLinker - Automated generation of hyperlinks in Word
Conversion to PDF & HTML
http://www.multilinker.com
Word FAQs at http://www.multilinker.com/wordfaq
Please post any follow-up in the newsgroup. I do not reply to Word questions
by email
"Jean Perkins" <m...@mountain-inter.net> wrote in message
news:u$kqiOdF...@cppssbbsa02.microsoft.com...
Suzanne S. Barnhill
has no effect in a table, nor does "Widow/Orphan control." The only control
you have over this is checking or clearing the box for "Allow row to break
across pages." If you allow it to break, you allow it to break anywhere it
wants, even if it creates a widow or orphan.
--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft Word MVP
Words into Type
Fairhope, AL USA
Jonathan West <10077...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:#mNSWTxFAHA.196@cppssbbsa05...
Jonathan West
If you set the styles of all the paragraphs in a table so that Keep With
Next and Keep Lines Together are set everywhere, then page breaks will not
occur within the table itself, unless the table grows to be longer than a
full page. This is a separate issue from the table setting "Allow row to
break across pages" which simply decides (all other things allowing a page
break) whether a page break can occur partway through a cell.
--
Regards
Jonathan West - Word MVP
MultiLinker - Automated generation of hyperlinks in Word
Conversion to PDF & HTML
http://www.multilinker.com
Word FAQs at http://www.multilinker.com/wordfaq
Please post any follow-up in the newsgroup. I do not reply to Word questions
by email
"Suzanne S. Barnhill" <sbar...@zebra.net> wrote in message
news:u3JfWM0FAHA.242@cppssbbsa05...
Suzanne S. Barnhill
My point, however, is that "Keep lines together" is irrelevant. In order to
keep a table on one page, you have to both set "Keep with next" and clear
the check box for "Allow row to break across pages." "Keep with next" is
also irrelevant within a cell--works only between cells.
--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft Word MVP
Words into Type
Fairhope, AL USA
Jonathan West <10077...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:#w##C#0FAHA.246@cppssbbsa05...
Jonathan West
I always work on the principle that if Keep With Next is needed, then I'd
better check Keep Lines together as well. To be honest, I'm not at all sure
what the behaviour of Word would be for a paragraph formatted Keep with Next
only.
However, I can see your point regarding Keep Lines Together in a table with
"Allow row to break across pages." unchecked. he lines can only be together
because they will all be part of the same cell.
--
Regards
Jonathan West - Word MVP
MultiLinker - Automated generation of hyperlinks in Word
Conversion to PDF & HTML
http://www.multilinker.com
Word FAQs at http://www.multilinker.com/wordfaq
Please post any follow-up in the newsgroup. I do not reply to Word questions
by email
"Suzanne S. Barnhill" <sbar...@zebra.net> wrote in message
news:#aCh9U3FAHA.242@cppssbbsa05...
Suzanne S. Barnhill
I think you're right in feeling that there are few applications where "Keep
with next" would be appropriate that "Keep lines together" would not also be
necessary, at least in principle. But it's also true that as a general rule
the things you're keeping together with "Keep with next" are pretty
short--headings, say, or bulleted or numbered items--and anything up to
three lines will be kept together by Widow/Orphan control. And in some cases
I do want to keep two paragraphs together but not necessarily keep them both
intact; for example, where I have a series of questions and answers, I want
at least part and probably all of each question to be kept with at least the
first couple of lines of the answer but not necessarily all of it.
The disappointing thing with regard to tables is that if you have a long
table (multipage) with relatively deep rows (some cells with more than one
paragraph), the table becomes unmanageably long (with unsightly gaps at the
bottoms of pages) if you don't allow rows to break, but you'd prefer that
the rows at least break between paragraphs. But you can't achieve that by
using "Keep lines together" because it has no effect in a table, nor does
"Widow/Orphan control," with the result that if you do allow a row to break,
you can end up with a single line of text in a row at the top or bottom of a
page. Very frustrating.
--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft Word MVP
Words into Type
Fairhope, AL USA
Jonathan West <10077...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:#tBIBQ4FAHA.239@cppssbbsa05...
Jean Perkins
We have the equivalent of "shared" autotext which works around some document
consistency problems. That macro allows the user to enter a code, then it
inserts the selected item into the current document at the insertion point.
Items included are things like signature blocks for various types of
documents, tables already developed with math formulas, etc.
Question: when you discourage use of empty paragraphs, are you discouring
use of them as illustrated in my last post, or do you mean to discourage use
of empty paragraphs as a spacer between paragraphs? I fully agree that
empty paragraphs should not be used as a spacer between paragraphs, but I
remain stuck on the decision as to whether to use empty paragraphs for the
types of structures illustrated in my last post, because incorporating the
paragraph spacing inside the styles in those instances will force the user
to edit the styles when they need to quickly reduce the page length.
Thank you.
Regards,
Jean
"Jonathan West" <10077...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:#mNSWTxFAHA.196@cppssbbsa05...
![Bill Coan [Word MVP]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjUhdXEjFALWloWYIt8VZ06AQwfNmqoTBKdrIiZ_umrlk__Ufw=s40-c)
Bill Coan [Word MVP]
In my experience, users are unwilling to choose from a list of more than
five or six styles. If you ask them to search through a list of 30 or more
styles, they will find some other way to achieve their formatting
objectives.
My solution to this problem is to create what I call Style "Carousels". This
requires a macro but the basic idea is simple to explain. The user presses a
hotkey (or right-clicks and chooses a command) and the current paragraph
automatically changes to the next available style. The user continues to
press the same hotkey (or right-click and choose the same command) until the
paragraph arrives at the desired style.
It's kind of like one of those vending machines where you can press and hold
a button to select a ham sandwich, a turkey sandwich, or a carton of yogurt.
The carousel approach can be further refined by allowing the user to choose
a Style "Family" and then using the carousel to view the choices within that
family.
If you decide to support direct formatting, the carousel approach can be
used for changing a paragraph's Space Before property (or any other
property).
The benefit of the carousel approach is that it gives the user lots of
choices within a predefined range of choices.
Bill Coan
New! DataPrompter addin prompts you for data
and inserts it into your documents automatically
Complete details at: http://www.wordsite.com/DataPrompter.html
>
>
"Jean Perkins" <m...@mountain-inter.net> wrote in message
news:OEv4RxqFAHA.299@cppssbbsa04...
> Thank-you to everyone for their valuable replies.
>
> (As a newbie, I am looking forward to the day when I can stop struggling
and
> be helpful to other members of this group!).
>
> I have more questions:...
>
> I failed to lay out clearly in my original post what the objectives for
the
> project are: (1) document formatting consistency WITHIN the firm [an
> objective which most users are not too concerned about!), and (2) user
> friendliness (as to 2, we have the problem that lawyers do their own
editing
> but many of them will not likely take the time to learn the styles feature
> to an adequate level), and (3) document formatting compatibility with the
> outside world, . I find myself flip-flopping between the concepts of
Doors
> #1 and #2 when considering them in light of the aforementioned concerns.
>
> I was particularly interested in Susanne Barnhill's comment .."I
> occasionally receive files from someone else that I must work with . it
> would take more time to figure out what the creator was doing . than just
to
> remove all styles and apply my own.." because compatibility with the
> outside world is a key concern of the firm. At the risk of jeopardizing
my
> objectivity on this whole matter, I would say that that particular concern
> is one of my main reasons for preferring Door #2 to Door #1.
>
> I assume that the rest of the world is more likely to name styles by
> Purpose, not by Properties. QUESTION: IS THAT ASSUMPTION CORRECT?
>
> Unfortunately, the external compatibility objective must be balanced
against
> the internal formatting consistency objective, and the need to defend
> against inappropriate automatic reformatting of documents when a client
> opens a document at their site. (We will control the settings for
> auto-update styles here, but of course, cannot control what a client may
do
> with the document).
>
> The need to defend against auto reformatting when a client works with one
of
> our docs causes us to lean toward using custom styles rather than built-in
> styles for unnumbered paragraphs. The idea is that if a client opens our
> document at their site, we don't have to care if they attach the document
to
> their own template with the styles set to auto-update. We hope that if
our
> docs use our own unique styles, formatting will be preserved because the
> client will not have our unique styles in their templates. QUESTION: IS
> THAT THE WAY TO GO, OR SHOULD WE GIVE MORE CONSIDERATION TO USING THE
> BUILT-IN STYLES?
>
> I fear that the objectives of (1) internal document formatting
consistency,
> and (2) external document formatting compatibility, are at odds, and that
> the external document formatting compatibility may have to be compromised
to
> some degree in favour of internal consistency. We can improve the process
> by providing conversion macros for both incoming and outgoing documents
and
> I don't see there being a way to balance all needs without automating
those
> processes. QUESTION: DO OTHER FIRMS DEVELOP SUCH PROCESSES AS A RULE, OR
> DO USERS SIMPLY SEND OUT DOCUMENTS AS THEY ARE, AND MANUALLY REFORMAT
> INCOMING DOCUMENTS AS REQUIRED?
>
> I was very interested in your comments about how the professionals might
> tend to use word as a "typewriter". That issue is the main reason why
some
> of our team members prefer Door #1 in concept. The firm has a great
number
> of lawyers who are technically inclined and do much of their own document
> editing. Some team members feel that, although Door #1 tends to run
> contrary to the purpose of Styles, that method will produce a higher level
> of document formatting consistency (internally) than Door #2. I tend to
> agree with that argument, although I am a Door #2 proponent. QUESTION: I
> wonder whether the extra training and complexity required to implement a
> style scheme conceptually in line with Door #1 might pay off big dividends
> later if it results in a high degree of document formatting consistency
> throughout the document library. Am I being too hopeful here..I have a
> little voice nagging in my ear saying.."the users are simply not going to
> play that game when manual formatting features are just a few keystrokes
> away"?
>
> I like Bill Foley's idea with the toolbar, and would add that to the
design
> for Door #2 (quickly get a fresh copy of the original style if the user
made
> some edits that are undesirable). I may have been over-estimating at 30
> styles, but the number would be close to that because we have a number of
> definable structures that seem to repeat at random through all types of
> documents, which structures are very suitable for global styles
(quotations,
> addresses within document body, legal descriptions, signatures, some
custom
> headings where the built-in heading styles are not preferred, as well as a
> few varieties of body text styles). They add up quickly!. The templates
> will all be set to read-only, so the toolbar idea is workable.
>
> Under Door #1, there would be too many styles to apply the toolbar
concept.
> For the prototype for Door #1, I have designed the names of the styles so
> that they sort on the style list in a manner that results in a strong
> likelihood that the style the user would want "next" is close to the
current
> style). Despite that, there remains a strong likelihood that the user may
> select the wrong style because there are so many similar styles. I fear
> that by "insulating" the user from the complexities of the styles feature,
> they may select door #1 styles without properly considering the
relationship
> to the based on style when making their selection. I have very cold feet
> about Door #1, but am trying to maintain an open mind! I thought about
> writing a macro to select Door #1 styles to increase the likelihood of the
> user selecting the correct style, but I don't really want to go there
> because I like to avoid macros that simply replicate a Word feature (but
> will go there if I have to!).
>
> QUESTION: The more I consider this issue, the stronger I conclude that
> regardless of the selection of styling concepts, the Internal Document
> Formatting Consistency Objective will never be met unless all users are
> fully trained in the styles feature. Any thoughts on that conclusion?
>
> MANUAL FORMATTING AND EMPTY PARAGRAPHS
>
> I was particularly interested in your comments about manual formatting and
> empty paragraphs. We have differences of opinion on our team as to when
> manual formatting and empty paragraphs are/are not appropriate. I for
one,
> favour the use of empty paragraphs in structures where it can be
reasonably
> anticipated that the user will need to shrink up the page quickly.
>
> Here's an example of one of our dilemmas: facing of a court form, looks
like
> this
>
> No. C123435
>
> Registry City
> >
> >
> In The Supreme Court of British Columbia (centered)
> >
> >
> Between:
> >
> Names of plaintiffs go here (L/R indent 1")
> >
>
> Plaintiffs (flush right)
> >
> And
> >
> Names of Defendants go here (L/R indent 1")
> >
>
> Defendants (flush right)
> >
> >
> >
> PLEADING HEADING CENTERED
>
> [BODY OF PLEADING STARTS HERE, FULLY STYLED]
>
>
> I have two prototypes developed for this structure: (1) One that uses
empty
> paragraphs between the various parts (the styles all contain 0" space
before
> and after), and (2) one that uses styles to control the space
before/after).
> Often these forms exceed the page slightly and the user needs to quickly
> reduce the length of the page.
>
> Some team members want to use the empty paragraph version because they
think
> it would be much easier (and more likely to happen) for "Joe User" to fit
> that pleading on the page simply by deleting some of the empty paragraphs.
> Others disagree and think that the user should have to edit the relevant
> styles if it becomes necessary to shorten the page,.
>
> Here's another, smaller, example: A Corporate Resolution may begin like
> this:
>
>
> HEADING OF RESOLUTION (CENTRED)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> BODY STARTS HERE, 4 LINES DOWN
>
>
> It seems to me that if Joe User wants to shorten that page, it would be
> nicer for Joe if he can do so simply by deleting a couple of the empty
> paragraphs between the heading and the beginning of the body. Agree?
>
> ***
>
> The conceptual use of empty paragraphs illustrated here repeats throughout
> our document library, as many of the "precedents" are prescribed court
forms
> or other prescribed forms.
>
> Any opinions on the use of empty paragraphs in this manner would be
greatly
> appreciated.
>
> As for manual formatting, we have received reports that manual formatting
> causes problems for CompareRite and wonder if there is anyone out there
who
> could comment on that. My research seems to indicate that manual
formatting
> applied to NUMBERED paragraphs causes problems for CompareRite, but I have
> yet to find any information as to whether manual formatting with
UNNUMBERED
> paragraphs causes problems.
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> Regards,
> Jean Perkins
>
>
>
Jonathan West
Hi Jean,
I meant primarily empty paragraphs used as a spacer between paragraphs.
Having these renders useless any measures you might take to automatically
keep paragraphs together on a page through use of Keep With Next.
However, I would also avoid using empty paragraphs to lay out the title
page. I think that the best way to deal with elements laid out on the title
page, as you mentioned in your examples, would be to use textboxes or frames
positioned in the appropriate places. If they are positioned relative to the
page, then as the first textbox fills up, the ones lower down do not scroll
off the page, as the text would if the spacing were achieved by means of
empty paragraphs.
You can avoid the appearance of using textboxes in the printed document,
simply by formatting the textbox not to have a border (or, you might want a
border to make it clear which part of the title page is which)
If you don't like textboxes or frames, then you can achieve a very similar
effect by using Tables, and defining the cell height to be an appropriate
fixed value. Which of the three techniques you use will depend on which you
think your users will be most comfortable with. There are advantages and
disadvantages to each of them.
If you like, I'll email you a small technical document that illustrates the
textbox/frame approach to the title page, and has a number of named styles
for different document elements. I didn't invent the particular style set
that is in use, but it has been fairly stable for the organisation that
created the document, and has been in continuous use for nearly 10 years
with minor modifications, including going through upgrades from Word 5 for
DOS, through Word 2, Word 6, Word 95 and Word 97 and now moving to Word
2000. The styles are named according to their purpose. The Heading styles
and Normal are used, but almost all the other styles are newly defined. For
instance, B1, B2 & B3 are for first, second & third level list elements
(short for bullet 1, bullet 2 & bullet 3). TAH is bold & centered, for use
in a table header row. TAC is centered for use in tables, TAL is left
aligned etc.
Giving the styles short names like this makes it easy for plenty of styles
to be fitted into a styles toolbar.
By the way, whatever answer you finally come up with, I think you are going
exactly the right way about this. By putting together a coherent set of
proposals and getting input from the users on them, you stand a much better
chance of getting people to implement the final system than if you had just
created a set of templates and issued an ex cathedra instruction to use
them.
--
Regards
Jonathan West - Word MVP
MultiLinker - Automated generation of hyperlinks in Word
Conversion to PDF & HTML
http://www.multilinker.com
Word FAQs at http://www.multilinker.com/wordfaq
Please post any follow-up in the newsgroup. I do not reply to Word questions
by email
"Jean Perkins" <m...@mountain-inter.net> wrote in message
news:OS1MlvA...@cppssbbsa02.microsoft.com...
Jean Perkins
Thanks for the Reply Bill.
I really like the carousel idea: applied to Philosophy #1 from my original
post, the carousel might make that style setup option feasible. I had
planned on giving the users some kind of macro to ease the style selection
process for Philosophy #1, but I hadn't considered actually applying the
style for them. What a great idea! I am going to program it right now and
see how it looks.
Thank you for the wonderful idea!!!
Regards,
Jean
"Bill Coan [Word MVP]" <bill...@wordsite.com> wrote in message
news:eOV$ZwBGAHA.277@cppssbbsa04...
Jean Perkins
Your comments have been very helpful.
Regards,
Jean
Jean
"Jonathan West" <10077...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:O1G2J9BGAHA.239@cppssbbsa05...
Jon Pawley
Dear Jean,
Good morning. You certainly have raised some important questions, and
started off an interesting discussion. For what it's worth, let me add my
opinion.
Your ideals of having document formatting consistency *within* your
organisation and also having formatting compatibility with the Outside World
are very fine ideals, but in my experience these may be mutually exclusive.
Having consistent formatting within your organisation can only improve
clients' perception of the quality of your products. It's one method of
improving the "branding" of your services. A professionally implemented
template (by that, I mean one which has not simply been cobbled together,
one which has been designed, discussed and the needs of the end users, be
they the clients or the authors, or both considered) can bring commonality
and ease of use to all concerned.
Sharing common formatting with the Outside World, I think, is intractable.
Not everyone uses a common base set of styles. Not everyone uses styles for
the same purpose. Not everyone even uses styles at all! My current work
environment has me working with a team preparing contracts for a central
purchasing organisation. We interact not only with external organisations,
but also with various departments within our own. The documents we receive
electronically can--and unfortunately usually are--a complete mess. My
general method for then incorporating these documents into our own is to
remove *all* formatting from the external documents (*all* formatting--I
apply the Normal style to all the text, and then insert into our documents)
and then apply the styles we have defined. This is often a tedious and
frustrating process for my co-workers, but I hope their perception of the
process is improving due to my attempts to provide shortcut keys, toolbar
buttons etc. to assist. I think that you will find it *very* difficult to
provide macros that automatically reformat documents to how you want them--I
certainly have!
I think the assumption you should make in relation to documents from the
Outside World is: assume that the text is OK but that the formatting is
anything but OK.
I would go for consistency within your firm first and foremost.
Once you start getting involved with distributing documents outside your
firm I think you need to start thinking about what you want clients to be
able to do. Do you want to maintain the integrity of the document? What I am
trying to get to is whether you consider a document distributed outside your
firm to be "safe" or not. Once it goes offsite, does it then become one of
the documents of the Outside World, or does it still maintain some of its
trustworthiness? I would consider implementing some kind of document
referencing scheme. By this, I mean assigning a unique reference to each
document, and each *version* of a document. When distributing a document
electronically you can then explicitly state to the recipients that this is
version X of document Y. Keep a copy of that version yourselves. Then, in
the future, when discussion the document with clients, etc., you can refer
back to a common version of the document. Any required changes can then be
made to your copy.
You may want to implement a policy whereby any document not printed in
house is invalid. So, even if clients take your document and edit it, you
take no responsibility for it.
You asked whether you should use the built-in styles vs. styles unique to
your firm. Well, I'm not sure either way. There are certain benefits of
using the built-in styles--for example, Word can do smart things with
Heading X styles, etc. I would probably be tempted to stick with then. If
you are then concerned that on a client's site the formatting may become
inconsistent look at ways of avoiding that--maybe by using a portable
document format file (such as Adobe's PDF file).
You had some other questions, which I am just going to tack my answers to
here. In the Door 1 or Door 2 debate, I would go for Door 2--having styles
defined for a purpose. Give training to all users. Get some management
buy-in that there will be a document standard, and internally these styles
should be used for these purposes. (Don't make this standard too
inflexible--allow for those instances where only direct formatting seems to
do the trick!)
You asked about using empty paragraphs--I would say don't use them! By using
them on the front page you are legitimising the use of empty paragraphs, and
on the whole, I think they are a bad idea. If you want certain layout to the
beginning of your documents I would suggest two approaches:
1) Define the styles to have the "Space before" and "Space after" to be
set as required. Also, assign the "Style for next paragraph" wherever you
can.
2) Use a table, with the rows set to specific heights, to place the text
exactly where you want it to be. Use this in conjunction with styles.
How big an issue is it if the form goes over more than one page? Is it just
the one line that is on the next page? Maybe if it is, it is worth
considering using "Keep with next" or "Keep lines together" formatting
options.
I wish you good luck in determining the best set of approaches for your
firm--it is not also an easy thing to do. Most users just seem to want
things to be sorted now on an ad-hoc, day by day basis. A longer term
outlook is invaluable.
Cheers,
Jon
Jean Perkins wrote in message ...
>Plaintiffs (flush right)
>>
>And
>>
Charles Kenyon
I've preserved this discussion in a Word document in case anyone is
interested. Although these are not Congressional proceedings, the right to
extend and revise remarks is offered.
The document can be found at:
http://www.addbalance.com/word/Styles%20in%20a%20networked%20environment.doc
--
--------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
Charles Kenyon (Balance Check) from the shores of that
inland sea known as Lake Michigan.
Word New User FAQ & Web Directory:
http://www.addbalance.com/word
--------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
This message is posted to a newsgroup. Please post replies
and questions to the newsgroup so that others can learn
from my ignorance and your wisdom.
Apple Man
thought-provoking the second time around.
In looking through the document itself I noticed something I've seen often
before but have never located the formal documentation on: the styles in this
document all have two names, separated by a comma. It was months before I
figured out that a style's second (abbreviated) name could be typed in lieu of
the longer one to apply the style, but beyond that I've never seen a full
explanation of this feature and thus am wondering if there's more to it than
this. Can anyone point me to the help on this? I don't seem to be finding it.
A.M.
Charles Kenyon
So far as I know, that is all there is to it. You can give a style a number
of names, separated by commas. I think they are designated as shortcuts or
aliases. Any of them typed into the style window on the format toolbar will
call up the style. Thus:
Heading 1,h1
Heading 2,h2
Body Text,Body Text 1,bt,bt1
As I'm sure you've noticed, the styles window does not autocomplete or jump
to the next style that would fit with what has been typed so far. Rather, if
it doesn't fit a complete name, it creates a new style from the paragraph as
formatted. I like to have my style names somewhat self-explanatory but don't
like to have to type exact long names when calling on a style using
Ctrl-Shift-S and typing.
This practice can cause problems when using the Organizer if one of the
styles being copied maps to two different styles in the destination. Usually
when that happens to me, though, it means that I goofed and typed the
shortcut when it was not a part of the style name in that template. If I
hadn't found it until then, I can at least correct that error.
Hope this helps.
--
--------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
Charles Kenyon (Balance Check) from the shores of that
inland sea known as Lake Michigan.
Word New User FAQ & Web Directory:
http://www.addbalance.com/word
--------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
This message is posted to a newsgroup. Please post replies
and questions to the newsgroup so that others can learn
from my ignorance and your wisdom.
"Apple Man" <applep...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000919041557...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> Charles, thank you for consolidating the style discussion. I found it even
more
> thought-provoking the second time around.
>
> In looking through the document itself I noticed something I've seen often
> before but have never located the formal documentation on: the styles in
this
> document all have two names, separated by a comma. It was months before I
> figured out that a style's second (abbreviated) name could be typed in
lieu of
> the longer one to apply the style, but beyond that I've never seen a full
> explanation of this feature and thus am wondering if there's more to it
than
> this. Can anyone point me to the help on this? I don't seem to be finding
it.
>
> A.M.
>
> Charles Kenyon writes:
>
![John McGhie [MVP - Word]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjUUBKAjV8QW66Rah4TWGr_ASZh1CyehMN6s11i8zY3oOiau=s40-c)
John McGhie [MVP - Word]
Hi Jean:
Well, you certainly brought us all out of the woodwork with this one. I am
pleased to see that many of the "heavy hitters" in the newsgroup fronted up.
In microsoft.public.word.docmanagement on Wed, 6 Sep 2000 14:35:05 -0700,
"Jean Perkins" <m...@mountain-inter.net> wrote:
But since this is a pet hobby-horse of mine, I couldn't resist adding my
tuppence worth...
1) I always name styles by purpose, not properties. Document consistency
is not possible with styles named by what they do: people will use whichever
style gets them closest to their personal idea of formatting at the time,
then override them at will. If your styles are named by purpose, people are
more likely to use the appropriate style for the appropriate type of text.
2) Do not expect too much. Many users have no concept of documentation
structure, and it's expensive to teach.
3) As a start, stick as close as you can to the styles defined in HTML.
This will ease your transition to Intraweb working greatly. You do not have
to re-name the Heading... series: Word does it on export.
4) 30 styles only "sounds" a lot. Most of them are in "series" (Heading 1
to 9, Index 1 to 9, TOC 1 to 9...) so the user never has to deal with most
of them.
5) Do not lose the opportunity to severely customise the toolbars. I put
almost all my working styles on toolbar buttons for quick access. I get rid
of almost everything on the Standard and Formatting toolbars to make room
for them. Things like Cut, Paste and the Format Painter just have to go :-)
6) Your numbered list styles will give you endless grief. Stay close to
the newsgroup, and make sure you NAME your list templates as described by
Doug.
7) Make sure you turn off all the AutoFormatting widgets and all the
"Automatically Update" settings on each style otherwise your ransom notes
will persist.
Just my thoughts to add to an already vigorous debate :-)
Please post follow-up questions to the newsgroup so that all may follow the thread.
John McGhie <jo...@mcghie-information.com.au>
Consultant Technical Writer
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Sydney, Australia (GMT +10 hrs) +61 (04) 1209 1410
Marco Groot
Sorry for jumping into the middle of this discussion, but the company I work
for has approximately the same problems. We have a lot of users who do not
*want* to know about styles and previously did their formatting manually,
because of the easy-to-reach formatting buttons.
We've supplied all our templates with the same styles (indeed, in our case
there are almost 30 custom styles too...) but choosing all those from the
style dropdown would not have been a workable situation. In stead, we've
given all the templates an extra styles toolbar (see attached picture) with
a few fast formatting buttons but also a few dropdowns to choose other
styles from the same 'family'; very similar to what Bill Coan wrote. We've
chosen to physically supply all the templates with it's own styles, macro's
and toolbar in stead of using a Global template with all these things
because of external document formatting compatibility. For the same reason,
we do not use any built-in styles.
Hope this will help you make your desicion,
Cheers, Marco Groot
marco...@moh.govt.nz
Bill Coan [Word MVP] <bill...@wordsite.com> wrote in message
news:eOV$ZwBGAHA.277@cppssbbsa04...
Charles Kenyon
It appears that much of this discussion has scrolled off the Microsoft news
server. I have compiled it in Word 97 format (including your remarks) and it
can be downloaded at:
http://www.addbalance.com/word/download/stylesnet.zip
If you don't have the ability to unzip or just want to read it on-line, it
is at:
http://www.addbalance.com/word/Styles%20in%20a%20networked%20environment.doc
(above is all one line)
--
Charles Kenyon
Word New User FAQ & Web Directory:
http://www.addbalance.com/word
Legal Users Guide (modified)
http://www.addbalance.com/usersguide
--------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
This message is posted to a newsgroup. Please post replies
and questions to the newsgroup so that others can learn
from my ignorance and your wisdom.
"Marco Groot" <marco...@hfa.govt.nz> wrote in message
news:u80mPJX...@cppssbbsa02.microsoft.com...
Marco Groot
It seems the "pro's" are thinking along the same lines most of the time.
I've learned a lot just reading trough this discussion, especially about
different options for setting up styles and how to present those to the
management and users.
--
Cheers, Marco 'Macro Polo' Groot
Charles Kenyon <kenyonck.no...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:O00yzPiXAHA.278@cppssbbsa04...