Lock Background Graphic Position
condomrad
We are graphic designers and keep getting client who want their
letterheads available as Word Docs that they can type in to and email.
Our current solution is as follows...
Export letterhead as suitable image format from Quark/InDesign.
Open in Photshop and save as JPG file (optimised for web, but twice
the physical size required i.e. 420mmx 594mm for A4). Then the image
is inserted into the MS Word doc and using the format picture options
as follows...
Under layout, send to 'behind text' and under advanced set absolute
positions of the image to be 0mm to right of page horizontal and 0mm
below page for vertical. The size is then set to 50%. This ensures the
A4 image its in the correct place and at a sufficient quality that if
the doc is printed the rasterized text of the letterhead image isn't
too soft/fuzzy, but isn't too big that the file size prohibits sending
via email.
I then format the margins so that the overlying auto text box is in
the correct place.
Our problem is that end users are still able to select the background
image and move it accidentaly/deliberately which we don't want them to
be able to do. Is there a way of locking the background image in place
so they can only input text and not mess anything else up? I have
tried using the watermark option but we dont want the grahic elements
of the letterhead 'image' to be 'knocked back' and pale, but at 100%
strength. Also, using the graphic within the header and footer has the
same effect of 'knocking back the image, which is undesirable. I've
created forms before and protected the forms as sections but can't see
how to protect other elements such as graphics.
Can I protect the document so that all the end-user can do is input
text into the predefind text box areas and not mess with the
background graphics that display at full opacity.
Or do i give the client the 'no can do' treatment and give up?
DMC
Elliott Roper
condomrad <in...@pylondesign.co.uk> wrote:
> Could anyone help me out with some advice on whether this is possible.
> We are graphic designers and keep getting client who want their
> letterheads available as Word Docs that they can type in to and email.
> Our current solution is as follows...
First off, you have not said whether your client is on Macintosh. You
have landed in Microsoft's Word for Macintosh newsgroup. There is some
general advice in what follows. I guess you can ignore the clearly
marked Mac specific stuff.
How badly do you need those clients? E-mailing Word docs with
letterheads? That is wa---ay past stupid. You are talking blithering
idiocy with added dribble.
>
> Export letterhead as suitable image format from Quark/InDesign.
> Open in Photshop and save as JPG file (optimised for web, but twice
> the physical size required i.e. 420mmx 594mm for A4). Then the image
> is inserted into the MS Word doc and using the format picture options
> as follows...
Yuk! depends what the letterhead is. Jpg would be a poor choice for
most of the line art letterheads I have seen. I'd go for eps or png
depending on how 'photographic' the letterhead is. I've used eps on all
my letterheads for years and years, printed or PDF'd. Perfect scaling,
small document size.
>
> Under layout, send to 'behind text' and under advanced set absolute
> positions of the image to be 0mm to right of page horizontal and 0mm
> below page for vertical. The size is then set to 50%. This ensures the
> A4 image its in the correct place and at a sufficient quality that if
> the doc is printed the rasterized text of the letterhead image isn't
> too soft/fuzzy, but isn't too big that the file size prohibits sending
> via email.
If you *must* use raster graphics, make it full size and set the dpi to
something suitable, but less than or equal to 300, in Photoshop or
something else outside Word, since Word barfs at anything greater,
dowres-ing to 300 and badly.
>
> I then format the margins so that the overlying auto text box is in
> the correct place.
and so crippling the users' workspace.
>
> Our problem is that end users are still able to select the background
> image and move it accidentaly/deliberately which we don't want them to
> be able to do. Is there a way of locking the background image in place
> so they can only input text and not mess anything else up? I have
> tried using the watermark option but we dont want the grahic elements
> of the letterhead 'image' to be 'knocked back' and pale, but at 100%
> strength. Also, using the graphic within the header and footer has the
> same effect of 'knocking back the image, which is undesirable. I've
> created forms before and protected the forms as sections but can't see
> how to protect other elements such as graphics.
Header and footer is the only sensible method. Any user that is looking
at that stuff while typing must be the narcissistic ceo of the company.
Be aware that good-looking raster graphics in e-mailed documents is
going to alienate all of the recipients who might be on dial-up or GPRS
mobile data. If I had to pay $10 in connect charges to see your company
logo on a message that should have been plain text, I'd make damn sure
your company never got the opportunity to sell me anything else ever
again.
>
> Can I protect the document so that all the end-user can do is input
> text into the predefind text box areas and not mess with the
> background graphics that display at full opacity.
Gaack! That would render Word all but unusable.
> Or do i give the client the 'no can do' treatment and give up?
If you can steer them toward the dimmed out header footer method, with
eps graphics, they will get the best printed or PDF result and need
make no compromise at all while editing the documents.
As I noted above, they should never deliver final work in Word. It
should be PDF if it can't be plain text.
If a client needs something that looks like a printed letter that you
would have sent in physical mail, without changes in line breaks and
page breaks and guaranteed in the same fonts, then it has to be PDF.
There is far too great a chance that the recipient's printer or printer
driver or font collection will mangle the Word document into something
that does not match what you sent. It is just the way Word is. It was
designed to be a word processor primarily with printed output.
Word on Mac has a foible with eps when printing to PDF. It sends the
preview instead of the eps. The workaround is to print to PDF as ps,
then create the final PDF from that using Preview.app
That could be done with Automator and a watch folder.
Not all vector art software does good previews. Freehand has done
better than Illy for me, but then I'm still pretty rubbish at Illy.
It's something I'll have to get over eventually, now that Adobe has
eaten Macromedia.
If none of that is any good, they are past help. See if they like
Apple's Pages. And run a mile.
--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]
protect some of those sections so that users cannot edit them. If you
ensure that your graphics are placed in (or anchored in...) those protected
sections, the users will not be able to alter them.
If you ensure that the sections where you want the users to type are NOT
protected, the users can then type in them. You do not need to add text
boxes: simply leaving the section unprotected will enable the user to type.
Generally users will find it inconvenient to type in text boxes, and when
they come to "paste" or "insert" text into them, they will find things very
difficult to use.
Right after that, when they "Send" the email, they will find that many users
do not appreciate heavyweight emails that arrive with one line of text and a
hefty graphic :-)
And many spam and virus filters these days dump such emails sight unseen.
So yeah, if it were me, I would go back to the client and say "Guys, this is
not such a good idea. We can do it, but your users will hate using it, and
so will their recipients. The constantly-visible "branding" is unlikely to
convince more people to buy your products. More likely, it will set up a
life-long determination in each recipient to avoid your products for the
rest of their lives. Are you sure you want to do this?"
Cheers
On 7/3/07 7:29 AM, in article
1173281382.1...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com, "condomrad"
<in...@pylondesign.co.uk> wrote:
--
Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.
John McGhie <jo...@mcghie.name>
Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Business Analyst, Consultant
Technical Writer.
Sydney, Australia +61 (0) 4 1209 1410
condomrad
> In article <1173281382.140432.229...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
>
> condomrad <i...@pylondesign.co.uk> wrote:
> > Could anyone help me out with some advice on whether this is possible.
> > We are graphic designers and keep getting client who want their
> > letterheads available as Word Docs that they can type in to and email.
> > Our current solution is as follows...
>
> First off, you have not said whether your client is on Macintosh. You
> have landed in Microsoft's Word for Macintosh newsgroup. There is some
> general advice in what follows. I guess you can ignore the clearly
> marked Mac specific stuff.
>
client requires the Word docs for distribution from and to
predominantly Windows pc's so I have to check compatibility and test
on pc's before sending.
> How badly do you need those clients? E-mailing Word docs with
> letterheads? That is wa---ay past stupid. You are talking blithering
> idiocy with added dribble.
>
>
They are a client of over 15 years so we won't dump them over this
small job. I am only trying to give them the best service and hence
trying to get professional advice on the matter.
>
> > Export letterhead as suitableimageformat from Quark/InDesign.
> > Open in Photshop and save as JPG file (optimised for web, but twice
> > the physical size required i.e. 420mmx 594mm for A4). Then theimage
> > is inserted into the MS Word doc and using the format picture options
> > as follows...
>
> Yuk! depends what the letterhead is. Jpg would be a poor choice for
> most of the line art letterheads I have seen. I'd go for eps or png
> depending on how 'photographic' the letterhead is. I've used eps on all
> my letterheads for years and years, printed or PDF'd. Perfect scaling,
> small document size.
Printing is not a major issue here. These docs are a temporary
solution that will be resolved with litho printed letterheads in 6
months. The 'e-letterheads/Word docs' will be received via email and
read on screen. If the end recipient needs to print them they can. Our
client wants these 'e-letterhead templates' to send out to their
clients to complete and send via email. They don't want their clients
to incur a cost for litho printing them when they are going to be
redesigned in 6 months.
I have tried using .eps as image format on Mac/Word in the past and
they look awful when i subsequently view on pc. I've also exported the
graphics (usually all vector) as .wmf files from Illlustrator CS2 on
Mac and these look a bit 'wobbly' under close inspection. Do you know
of a .eps to .wmf coverter that is reliable? Graphic Converter seems
to create rasterized .wmf rather than vector based?
>
>
>
> > Under layout, send to 'behind text' and under advanced set absolute
> > positions of theimageto be 0mm to right of page horizontal and 0mm
> > below page for vertical. The size is then set to 50%. This ensures the
> > A4imageits in the correct place and at a sufficient quality that if
> > the doc is printed the rasterized text of the letterheadimageisn't
> > too soft/fuzzy, but isn't too big that the file size prohibits sending
> > via email.
>
> If you *must* use raster graphics, make it full size and set the dpi to
> something suitable, but less than or equal to 300, in Photoshop or
> something else outside Word, since Word barfs at anything greater,
> dowres-ing to 300 and badly.
OK, I'll go for 150dpi at actual size - I have to try to keep the file
size down as sending via email.
>
> > I then format the margins so that the overlying auto text box is in
> > the correct place.
>
> and so crippling the users' workspace.
In what way? Please explain...
>
>
>
> > Our problem is that end users are still able to select the background
> >imageand move it accidentaly/deliberately which we don't want them to
> > be able to do. Is there a way of locking the backgroundimagein place
> > so they can only input text and not mess anything else up? I have
> > tried using the watermark option but we dont want the grahic elements
> > of the letterhead 'image' to be 'knocked back' and pale, but at 100%
> > strength. Also, using the graphic within the header and footer has the
> > same effect of 'knocking back theimage, which is undesirable. I've
> > created forms before and protected the forms as sections but can't see
> > how to protect other elements such as graphics.
>
> Header and footer is the only sensible method. Any user that is looking
> at that stuff while typing must be the narcissistic ceo of the company.
OK, point taken. You do get worked up about all this don't you! I take
it it's just your way of showing you care...
>
> Be aware that good-looking raster graphics in e-mailed documents is
> going to alienate all of the recipients who might be on dial-up or GPRS
> mobile data. If I had to pay $10 in connect charges to see your company
> logo on a message that should have been plain text, I'd make damn sure
> your company never got the opportunity to sell me anything else ever
> again.
>
Whay do you all assume it's all about 'selling' products. This is just
a client who has requested our services to ensure that her clients use
consistent clearly branded materials when communicating with the
public. They offer a free public service, not a product with cost.
>
>
> > Can I protect the document so that all the end-user can do is input
> > text into the predefind text box areas and not mess with the
> > background graphics that display at full opacity.
>
> Gaack! That would render Word all but unusable.
I assume you mean if you protect a section of the doc, you cant input
text into it?
>
> > Or do i give the client the 'no can do' treatment and give up?
>
> If you can steer them toward the dimmed out header footer method, with
> eps graphics, they will get the best printed or PDF result and need
> make no compromise at all while editing the documents.
>
> As I noted above, they should never deliver final work in Word. It
> should be PDF if it can't be plain text.
They are not delivering 'final work' just a branded communication via
email.
>
> If a client needs something that looks like a printed letter that you
> would have sent in physical mail, without changes in line breaks and
> page breaks and guaranteed in the same fonts, then it has to be PDF.
This assumes that all our client's clients can create or edit pdf's
which they can't. But they will all have MS Word.
> There is far too great a chance that the recipient's printer or printer
> driver or font collection will mangle the Word document into something
> that does not match what you sent. It is just the way Word is. It was
> designed to be a word processor primarily with printed output.
I appreciate this and have communicated to the client that they will
have to use Arial to complete the letters.
>
> Word on Mac has a foible with eps when printing to PDF. It sends the
> preview instead of the eps. The workaround is to print to PDF as ps,
> then create the final PDF from that using Preview.app
> That could be done with Automator and a watch folder.
> Not all vector art software does good previews. Freehand has done
> better than Illy for me, but then I'm still pretty rubbish at Illy.
> It's something I'll have to get over eventually, now that Adobe has
> eaten Macromedia.
I'm aware of this but this is for delivery to a PC community
unfortunately
>
> If none of that is any good, they are past help. See if they like
> Apple's Pages. And run a mile.
Hmmm! It's been fun replying and thanks for your time.
condomrad
Thanks for your reply.....
On Mar 8, 1:22 am, "John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]"
<j...@mcghie.name> wrote:
> You can add multiple section breaks to your document. If you do, you can
> protect some of those sections so that users cannot edit them. If you
> ensure that your graphics are placed in (or anchored in...) those protected
> sections, the users will not be able to alter them.
OK, good so far...
>
> If you ensure that the sections where you want the users to type are NOT
> protected, the users can then type in them. You do not need to add text
> boxes: simply leaving the section unprotected will enable the user to type.
> Generally users will find it inconvenient to type in text boxes, and when
> they come to "paste" or "insert" text into them, they will find things very
> difficult to use.
Hmmmm. I just want to protect the lower drawing layer where the
graphic is positioned and allow them to enter/edit text on the text
layer above. It's a letterhead so they need to type in the section
that has the background graphic. I can't therefore protect this
section can I?
>
> Right after that, when they "Send" the email, they will find that many users
> do not appreciate heavyweight emails that arrive with one line of text and a
> hefty graphic :-)
The graphic won't be hefty, I am adressing that (see reply to Elliott
above)
>
> And many spam and virus filters these days dump such emails sight unseen.
What... an email with an attached Word doc that contains a graphic?
Such emails surely make up a large percentage of corporate
communications currently. Do Microsoft know about this?
>
> So yeah, if it were me, I would go back to the client and say "Guys, this is
> not such a good idea. We can do it, but your users will hate using it, and
> so will their recipients. The constantly-visible "branding" is unlikely to
> convince more people to buy your products. More likely, it will set up a
> life-long determination in each recipient to avoid your products for the
> rest of their lives. Are you sure you want to do this?"
Ahhhhh! There you go again assuming it's products, life is'nt all
about buying and selling.
Thanks for your time on this. I was simply trying to deliver the
client a solution but it seems i'll have to tell them that 'Word is
good, but it ain't that good'.
>
> Cheers
>
> On 7/3/07 7:29 AM, in article
> 1173281382.140432.229...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com, "condomrad"
>
>
>
> <i...@pylondesign.co.uk> wrote:
> > Could anyone help me out with some advice on whether this is possible.
> > We are graphic designers and keep getting client who want their
> > letterheads available as Word Docs that they can type in to and email.
> > Our current solution is as follows...
>
> > Export letterhead as suitableimageformat from Quark/InDesign.
> > Open in Photshop and save as JPG file (optimised for web, but twice
> > the physical size required i.e. 420mmx 594mm for A4). Then theimage
> > is inserted into the MS Word doc and using the format picture options
> > as follows...
>
> > Under layout, send to 'behind text' and under advanced set absolute
> > positions of theimageto be 0mm to right of page horizontal and 0mm
> > below page for vertical. The size is then set to 50%. This ensures the
> > A4imageits in the correct place and at a sufficient quality that if
> > the doc is printed the rasterized text of the letterheadimageisn't
> > too soft/fuzzy, but isn't too big that the file size prohibits sending
> > via email.
>
> > I then format the margins so that the overlying auto text box is in
> > the correct place.
>
> > Our problem is that end users are still able to select the background
> >imageand move it accidentaly/deliberately which we don't want them to
> > be able to do. Is there a way of locking the backgroundimagein place
> > so they can only input text and not mess anything else up? I have
> > tried using the watermark option but we dont want the grahic elements
> > of the letterhead 'image' to be 'knocked back' and pale, but at 100%
> > strength. Also, using the graphic within the header and footer has the
> > same effect of 'knocking back theimage, which is undesirable. I've
> > created forms before and protected the forms as sections but can't see
> > how to protect other elements such as graphics.
>
> > Can I protect the document so that all the end-user can do is input
> > text into the predefind text box areas and not mess with the
> > background graphics that display at full opacity.
>
> > Or do i give the client the 'no can do' treatment and give up?
>
> > DMC
>
> --
>
> Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
> me unless I ask you to.
>
> John McGhie <j...@mcghie.name>
Elliott Roper
condomrad <in...@pylondesign.co.uk> wrote:
> Printing is not a major issue here. These docs are a temporary
> solution that will be resolved with litho printed letterheads in 6
> months. The 'e-letterheads/Word docs' will be received via email and
> read on screen. If the end recipient needs to print them they can. Our
> client wants these 'e-letterhead templates' to send out to their
> clients to complete and send via email. They don't want their clients
> to incur a cost for litho printing them when they are going to be
> redesigned in 6 months.
OK. Since Word makes no attempt to display anything other than the eps
preview on screen, and nobody wants it nicely printed, and it has a 6
month life, I'd push harder on the header/footer & put up with it being
pale route. I'd sink to raster while I was at it. Getting a decent
cross platform raster is a bit of a challenge, but not half the hassle
of dealing with vector formats. I understand that JPG via Word on PC is
strange, TIFF is fine but huge. My experience with PNG on Mac is they
are huge and slow but it is supposed to be good cross platform.
>
> I have tried using .eps as image format on Mac/Word in the past and
> they look awful when i subsequently view on pc.
They should print OK as long as the recipient has a Postscript printer.
The rest of the time it is wonky previews.
> I've also exported the graphics (usually all vector) as .wmf files
> from Illlustrator CS2 on Mac and these look a bit 'wobbly' under
> close inspection. Do you know of a .eps to .wmf coverter that is
> reliable? Graphic Converter seems to create rasterized .wmf rather
> than vector based?
Much as I love GraphicConverter its eps previews are awful. It really
does not deal with vector graphics at all. It is hard to find one that
does anywhere else.
I gave up on wobbly wmf pretty early on for the same reason. It
approximates curves with straight line segments.
> > If you *must* use raster graphics, make it full size and set the dpi to
> > something suitable, but less than or equal to 300, in Photoshop or
> > something else outside Word, since Word barfs at anything greater,
> > dowres-ing to 300 and badly.
>
> OK, I'll go for 150dpi at actual size - I have to try to keep the file
> size down as sending via email.
Yep. About now you are thinking of rocks and hard places?
> >
> > > I then format the margins so that the overlying auto text box is in
> > > the correct place.
> >
> > and so crippling the users' workspace.
>
> In what way? Please explain...
Typing into text boxes cripples the users' layout options more than
somewhat. I'd use them for captions if I were feeling lazy. But that's
it.
> > > Our problem is that end users are still able to select the background
> > >imageand move it accidentaly/deliberately which we don't want them to
> > > be able to do. Is there a way of locking the backgroundimagein place
> > > so they can only input text and not mess anything else up? I have
> > > tried using the watermark option but we dont want the grahic elements
> > > of the letterhead 'image' to be 'knocked back' and pale, but at 100%
> > > strength. Also, using the graphic within the header and footer has the
> > > same effect of 'knocking back theimage, which is undesirable. I've
> > > created forms before and protected the forms as sections but can't see
> > > how to protect other elements such as graphics.
John McGhie's suggestions might help. They'd set my teeth on edge, but
if the user does not want pale, they might wear it.
> > Header and footer is the only sensible method. Any user that is looking
> > at that stuff while typing must be the narcissistic ceo of the company.
>
> OK, point taken. You do get worked up about all this don't you! I take
> it it's just your way of showing you care...
Heh! I see now that in your case it screws up the recipient's customary
on-screen view of it as well.
> >
> > Be aware that good-looking raster graphics in e-mailed documents is
> > going to alienate all of the recipients who might be on dial-up or GPRS
> > mobile data. If I had to pay $10 in connect charges to see your company
> > logo on a message that should have been plain text, I'd make damn sure
> > your company never got the opportunity to sell me anything else ever
> > again.
> >
> Whay do you all assume it's all about 'selling' products. This is just
> a client who has requested our services to ensure that her clients use
> consistent clearly branded materials when communicating with the
> public. They offer a free public service, not a product with cost.
I do come over as touchy huh? I'd assumed that only someone
commercially concerned with branding to exclusion of client /recipient
convenience would have to be heavily into selling something overpriced.
;-)
> > > Can I protect the document so that all the end-user can do is input
> > > text into the predefind text box areas and not mess with the
> > > background graphics that display at full opacity.
> >
> > Gaack! That would render Word all but unusable.
>
> I assume you mean if you protect a section of the doc, you cant input
> text into it?
Kind of. McGhie has a way.
> >
> > > Or do i give the client the 'no can do' treatment and give up?
> >
> > If you can steer them toward the dimmed out header footer method, with
> > eps graphics, they will get the best printed or PDF result and need
> > make no compromise at all while editing the documents.
> >
> > As I noted above, they should never deliver final work in Word. It
> > should be PDF if it can't be plain text.
>
> They are not delivering 'final work' just a branded communication via
> email.
> >
> > If a client needs something that looks like a printed letter that you
> > would have sent in physical mail, without changes in line breaks and
> > page breaks and guaranteed in the same fonts, then it has to be PDF.
>
> This assumes that all our client's clients can create or edit pdf's
> which they can't. But they will all have MS Word.
Dunno how far down the chain the editing goes, but surely all the
recipient needs is the free Acrobat reader? Even people without Word
have that. We are spoiled in Mac land with "Print to PDF" aren't we?
>
> > There is far too great a chance that the recipient's printer or printer
> > driver or font collection will mangle the Word document into something
> > that does not match what you sent. It is just the way Word is. It was
> > designed to be a word processor primarily with printed output.
>
> I appreciate this and have communicated to the client that they will
> have to use Arial to complete the letters.
That's not the half of it. Seriously. It *is* possible to deliver Word
docs that don't mess up too much, but they are the exception in
unskilled hands.
> Hmmm! It's been fun replying and thanks for your time.
I'm glad you didn't take offence.
Looking back, I was a bit rude about your clients. ;-)
John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]
I just sent you a sample which does what you want (the benefit of using a
live email address in your posting is that you can get answers :-))
The protected section needs to be only one character in size: just large
enough to hold the anchor for your background graphic.
Yes, spam filters are now getting smart enough to look inside the .doc
attachment to see what is in there.
Cheers
On 8/3/07 4:57 AM, in article
1173358673....@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com, "condomrad"
<in...@pylondesign.co.uk> wrote:
--
John McGhie <jo...@mcghie.name>
