FYI: Here's how to number list items using SEQ. I've documented my process.
Lilla Slater
==================================
I use Word97 SR-2. Auto numbering is buggy as documented in this newsgroup
and www.tech-tav.com
Having recently experienced this bug personally, I am now a believer and I
too am now using SEQ as recommended by seasoned Word users who post in this
newsgroup. The problem is explained in the newsletters on documentation
writing provided by tech-tav on their web site at www.tech-tav.com
My problems with auto numbering surfaced when I moved the document to
another computer. The numbers were all messed up when viewed on the other
machine. This is a common/universal problem with Word 97 and earlier
versions too as I understand it. And the prefered method is SEQ which I am
now using. I experimented with LISTNUM, but it has problems too. Namely with
LISTNUM I could not control the format. The same coding would resolve to (1)
or 1) or (a) or a) depending upon how the wind was blowing. SEQ is said to
be solid.
I've documented by process of using SEQ in the hopes that it will help
others.
Example of a list numbered using SEQ field code:
{ SEQ item \r 0 \h }
{ SEQ item \# #0. \* MERGEFORMAT } In large mixing bowl ...
{ SEQ item \# #0. \* MERGEFORMAT } Stir in melted ...
{ SEQ item \# #0. \* MERGEFORMAT } Knead on floured ...
Results:
1. In large mixing bowl ...
2. Stir in melted ...
3. Knead on floured ...
...
10.
11.
Press Ctrl+F9 to insert the field code brackets {}, then type in field info.
Or, use Insert | Field.
Select the entire document and press F9 to update all item numbers. Or,
select the set of items you've just entered and press F9 to update just
those item numbers you selected.
Press Alt+F9 to toggle field codes between visable/invisable to see your
codes or to see the result of your codes.
Explanation:
\r 0 = reset numbering
\h = hide item value
\# #0. = aligns item numbers 1-99 on the decimal point.
(optional) Create a style named "Numbered Items". Format the paragraph with
Hanging Indent of .3" and space before as 3pt. Apply this style to items
formatted with SEQ item.
(optional) Create two macros: 1) insert_item_next 2)insert_item_reset
You can put a button on the toolbar to use run these macros. Or, you can
assign shortcut keys.
-------------
If you need two level numbering, this is explained at www.tech-tav.com in
one of their newsletters. Example, of two level numbering.
1. This it item one.
a. sub item one
b. sub item two
2. This is item two.
a. sub item one
b. sub item two
-------------
Hope this little write-up finds its way to help others.
Lilla
ajr
I went to www.tech-tav.com, read what they had to say about Word 97
autonumbering, but was not totally convinced. If what they say about Word
autonumbering is true (that the numbering scheme is not tied to the document
itself but resides instead as a number from 0-7 in the computer's registry)
then how in the world does Word 97 work at all in a networked environment?
They claim that it is totally useless. I beg to differ.
I work in the wp center of a large lawfirm with hundreds of users and
computers. We use elaborate multilevel numbering schemes which you could
not begin to effect using SEQ fields. (Do people actually expect users to
insert "hidden" numbers and manually restart levels? You might as well just
type the numbers in and forget about autonumbering completely). Yet, I have
never heard of one single instance of someone opening up a firm document (at
work or at home on their own computer) and having the numbering scheme
spontaneously change from what the previous user had set. As long as you
tie the numbering scheme to a STYLE, the information appears to be portable.
Now perhaps there is some absurdly elaborate macro running in the background
that (upon a user exiting a document) copies the local computer registry
entries to a shared system directly and then (upon the next user opening the
document) copies them back to the local computer -- but I highly doubt it.
And that still wouldn't explain why people can open firm documents on their
home machines and have them display correctly.
SEQ fields are useful when there are multiple unrelated lists going on in a
document (although, again, tying a numbering sheme to a style is even
easier). However, if you need to link a number to the previous level, or
use "legal style" numbering where a roman number becomes an arabic number
when linking to another level, SEQ fields are not the solution. You need to
use Bullets and Numbering and I have yet to encounter a reasonable scheme
that couldn't be implemented if you use the feature correctly.
Margaret Aldis
<nos...@spamless.com> writes
Although I would agree that using bullets and numbering 'correctly'
(i.e. not making any of the mistakes that the UI lures people into) and
linking list formats to styles makes autonumbering work better than it
might appear from some postings to this group, I'm afraid you can't put
it all down to user error.
There are at least two ways in which you will still get an autonumbering
'failure':
1. If you have to restart a numbered list using the Bullets and
Numbering dialog, Word creates a new List object and applies the
numbering as 'direct' formatting. If you then have to copy or cut and
paste list items between these different lists, the numbering will often
surprise you. (I was going to state categorically that the numbering of
the list item is based on its position in the List it started out in,
but when I tested before I posted I found it can be much weirder than
that ;-) )
Of course, you won't see this if you can use a single 'List' in your
documents, for the entire legal numbering system, but believe me it's a
genuine problem if you write large, changeable, documents that contain
many separate numbered procedural steps, for example.
2. Using customised List Gallery list formats linked to styles, I (and a
number of other experienced Word users and newsgroup contributors) have
consistently had problems when attaching templates and updating styles,
and when copying styles between documents. Styles that were linked to
one List Template become linked to another, corrupting the format of the
style. (I personally have never seen the problem when documents are
moved between machines, so perhaps that does only relate to direct use
of the List Gallery.)
In addition to these repeatable problems, there are also 'occasional'
peculiarities - for instance, when working with both document map and
track changes on, some numbered headings show up as having changed (from
a phantom number back to the right one). This has been reported by at
least 3 people in this newsgroup, and it isn't anything 'obvious' like
direct formatting or wrong list template, but only shows up on some
headings in some documents.
Probably perversely, given the fact that nine out of ten MVPs recommend
it, I've not gone over to SEQ (mainly because I have users who just
wouldn't accept having to update the field manually, however well I
package up the insertion of the field). After many months, I now have
apparently rock-solid linking between List Templates and Styles, and can
move list items at will. But to get here I have had to:
a) use VBA to create new List Template objects linked to styles (not
List Gallery positions)
b) make sure numbered styles are not 'based on' other numbered styles -
even if the styles share the same multi-level List Template.
c) build my own method of restarting numbered lists, by using a 'dummy'
top level style and a macro to insert it before a 'first' list item.
IMHO, much as I've 'enjoyed' the challenge, autonumbering isn't a
feature that is ready or safe to use 'out of the box'.
--
Margaret Aldis, Syntagma, e-mail marg...@syntagma.demon.co.uk
"Civilisation advances by extending the number of important
operations which we can perform without thinking about them.
Operations of thought are like cavalry charges in battle - they are
strictly limited in number, they require fresh horses, and must
only be made at decisive moments." A N Whitehead
Hank Roberts
>then how in the world does Word 97 work at all in a networked environment?
>They claim that it is totally useless. I beg to differ.
>I work in the wp center of a large lawfirm with hundreds of users and
>computers. We use elaborate multilevel numbering schemes which you could
>not begin to effect using SEQ fields. (Do people actually expect users to
>insert "hidden" numbers and manually restart levels? You might as well just
>type the numbers in and forget about autonumbering completely). Yet, I have
>never heard of one single instance of someone opening up a firm document (at
>work or at home on their own computer) and having the numbering scheme
>spontaneously change from what the previous user had set. As long as you
>tie the numbering scheme to a STYLE, the information appears to be portable.
Are you at SR-1, or at SR-2?
Did your docs come in by people opening Word 95 docs in Word 97 and saving?
Or opening Word Perfect docs and saving under 97?
Under /tools/Templates... what do you show your docs based upon?
Do you have global and document Templates for all docs?
Are they based on NORMAL.DOT?
Can your users change the appearance any way they like with cut and paste
or by redefining styles?
Are your styles set to Auto Update? to update their Templates?
Do you take refugees from .... no, I better not ask .
But I sure want to know how your place is set up, and how long you have
been running under W97. (NT?)
Bill Coan
I continue to be delighted by your posts. Thank you for providing this
extraordinary level of detail.
--
Bill Coan
Microsoft Word MVP
Neenah, Wisconsin USA
http://www.wordmacros.com
Margaret Aldis wrote in message ...
michael edson
appreciate it if you'd post a sample template that you use
here.
-- note real email: mmedson at ibm dot net
In article <e1eyNWqW#GA....@uppssnewspub04.moswest.msn.net>,
nos...@spamless.com says...
> >I use Word97 SR-2. Auto numbering is buggy as documented in this newsgroup
> >and www.tech-tav.com
> >
>
>
Hank Roberts
>Margaret,
>I continue to be delighted by your posts. Thank you for providing this
>extraordinary level of detail.
Me too. Have you posted the VBA method ("a)" on your list below? I haven't
found that in News or DejaNews. I know never, ever, to touch the eight panels
of the List Gallery (a.k.a. the 'window of death') and my coworkers set their
numbering only with format/style/modify/format/numbering ... but it sounds like
you're going in directly with VBA code; I don't get that part.
...
Mike Maxwell
it. The outline numbering will be just fine, until you go into the second
half of the doc (roughly) and make a change, then save. After that, 3.1.2
will be numbered 1.1.2; 3.1.3 turns into 1.1.3; 3.2 turns into 1.2; 4 turns
into 2, etc. etc. If you go back to the first part of the doc, make a
change and save, the numbers go back to what they're supposed to be (until
the next time you edit the second half and save).
I've created docs with three different machines with entirely different
hardware and drivers, all running Word97 SR2 under Win95 or Win97, and they
all have the same problem. I've tried doing outline numbering by using the
Format | Bullets and Numbering dlg box, and I've tried it by making the
heading styles numbered. It fails regardless of what I do, and when I send
the docs to other people, they see the same erroneous numbering that I do.
If you can find a way to make outline numbering work in my docs without
using SEQ numbers, I'd sure like to hear about it.
--
Mike Maxwell
Summer Institute of Linguistics
ajr wrote in message ...
>>I use Word97 SR-2. Auto numbering is buggy as documented in this newsgroup
>>and www.tech-tav.com
>>
>
>
>I went to www.tech-tav.com, read what they had to say about Word 97
>autonumbering, but was not totally convinced...
Lilla
ajr wrote in message ...
>>I use Word97 SR-2. Auto numbering is buggy as documented in this newsgroup
>>and www.tech-tav.com
>>
>
>
>I went to www.tech-tav.com, read what they had to say about Word 97
>autonumbering is true (that the numbering scheme is not tied to the
document
>itself but resides instead as a number from 0-7 in the computer's registry)
>then how in the world does Word 97 work at all in a networked environment?
>They claim that it is totally useless. I beg to differ.
The part about the registry is wrong. This is corrected in a later
newsletter, news letter 6 I think (or maybe it's 5). The correction is
listed in the resource section of my post. The part about the numbering
scheme being buggy stands.
Lilla
Margaret Aldis
writes
>"Bill Coan" <bill...@wordmacros.com> writes:
>>Margaret,
>>I continue to be delighted by your posts. Thank you for providing this
>>extraordinary level of detail.
>
>found that in News or DejaNews. I know never, ever, to touch the eight panels
>of the List Gallery (a.k.a. the 'window of death') and my coworkers set their
>numbering only with format/style/modify/format/numbering ... but it sounds like
>you're going in directly with VBA code; I don't get that part.
>
Flattery will get you everywhere ;-) I will post (as a separate thread
since this title is inappropriate) the full details. Bear with me while
I collect my thoughts and previous postings.
Hank Roberts
>In article <hankF7C...@netcom.com>, Hank Roberts <ha...@netcom.com>
>writes
>>>Margaret, I continue to be delighted by your posts. Thank you for providing
>>>this extraordinary level of detail.
>>
>>you're going in directly with VBA code; I don't get that part.
>Flattery will get you everywhere ;-) I will post (as a separate thread
>since this title is inappropriate) the full details. Bear with me...
This counts big toward my degree in social engineering (grin). Thanks!
mikep
> I work in the wp center of a large lawfirm with hundreds of users and
> computers. We use elaborate multilevel numbering schemes which you could
> not begin to effect using SEQ fields.
ajr:
I wish you would contact me directly. Are you willing to share any of
your techniques?
mikep
Rebecca Rachmany
>>I use Word97 SR-2. Auto numbering is buggy as documented in this newsgroup
>>and www.tech-tav.com
>>
>
>
>I went to www.tech-tav.com, read what they had to say about Word 97
>autonumbering, but was not totally convinced. If what they say about Word
>autonumbering is true (that the numbering scheme is not tied to the document
>itself but resides instead as a number from 0-7 in the computer's registry)
>then how in the world does Word 97 work at all in a networked environment?
>They claim that it is totally useless. I beg to differ.
Because you have not experienced a bug does not mean it doesn't
exist. I had a call from a colleague who had been using Master
Document with no problem. I said, if it works for you, fine, but I
can't personally recommend it. The problem with these bugs is that you
don't know when they are going to appear. I have had to clean up many
a document which was honkey-dorey for months and one day, poof, the
numbering went off kilter and a desperate tech writer called saying
they had a 200-page document and they couldn't get it to number
properly.
For just this instance, we have written a macro which takes a Word
auto-numbered document and substitutes SEQ fields for headings and
numbered lists. We would be happy to hear from guinea pigs who would
be willing to test out this macro. Having used SEQ fields for 6 years,
we don't have very many good testing documents ourselves.
Rebecca Rachmany
General Manager
TECH-TAV Documentation Ltd.
PO Box 1384 Hod Hasharon 45112
in...@tech-tav.com
http://www.tech-tav.com
P.S. Sorry for long absence from the newsgroup forum. TECH-TAV had a
baby. We are slowly getting back into the swing of things.
Rebecca Rachmany
General Manager
TECH-TAV Documentation Ltd.
PO Box 1384 Hod Hasharon 45112
in...@tech-tav.com
http://www.tech-tav.com
Hank Roberts
>On Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:44:18 -0500, "ajr" <nos...@spamless.com> wrote:
..
>>then how in the world does Word 97 work at all in a networked environment?
>>They claim that it is totally useless. I beg to differ.
>Because you have not experienced a bug does not mean it doesn't
>exist.
Amen.
Law office worker -- see Law Office Computing Magazine for October/November
1998, "Seven Deadly SIns of Document Conversion .... Your documents will go
to hell" -- for a basically good explanation of how the slow and pervasive
corruption Word97 introduces into shared files accumulates until your
documents begin to blow up all over the place, by which time it's too damn
late to salvage much and your time costs for repair will be huge.
Your tech staff will be in denial about this for a long time before they
finally begin to believe it's as bad as documented, I'll bet. Don't wait
for them to protect you on this problem.
The classic epidemiological problem is at work here -- if you have 3 in 1000
problems the first year, and everyone's sharing documents and cutting and
pasting pieces, the next year you'll have 30, the year after 300 bad docs.
Nobody believes low odds are simply a guarantee of eventual but delayed
trouble, but that's how it works.
LOC didn't understand the numbering bugs, they ought to be following up
with the info TechTav and the newsgroup people have accumulated. But for the
rest of the slow accumulation of document corruption in large shared Word
environments, they nailed it.
It'll nail you. Prepare.
Matt
>>autonumbering, but was not totally convinced. If what they say about Word
>>autonumbering is true (that the numbering scheme is not tied to the
document
>>itself but resides instead as a number from 0-7 in the computer's
registry)
>>They claim that it is totally useless. I beg to differ.
>
>Because you have not experienced a bug does not mean it doesn't
>Document with no problem. I said, if it works for you, fine, but I
>can't personally recommend it. The problem with these bugs is that you
>don't know when they are going to appear. I have had to clean up many
>a document which was honkey-dorey for months and one day, poof, the
>numbering went off kilter and a desperate tech writer called saying
>they had a 200-page document and they couldn't get it to number
>properly.
Hi Rebecca,
I've also been struggling with this problem. I agree that the bug exists but
i don't agree with the explaination given in the Tech-Tav newsletter.
I realise that some information is stored in the registry, but if as the
Newsletter states "that the numbering scheme is not tied to the document
itself but resides instead as a number from 0-7 in the computer's registry",
how does numbering work at all?
I created a new document, created a weird bullet scheme and saved the
document. I then opened the document on another computer without that bullet
scheme - The document looked fine. I have however seen examples where styles
(with bullets) are not viewed properly on a second machine. Is this problem
style related.
thanks
Matt
Hank Roberts
...
>Hi Rebecca,
...
>how does numbering work at all?
>I created a new document, created a weird bullet scheme and saved the
>document. I then opened the document on another computer without that bullet
>scheme - The document looked fine. I have however seen examples where styles
>(with bullets) are not viewed properly on a second machine. Is this problem
>style related.
Okay, you open it on another computer. It looks fine. Now, go
to Format/Bullets and Numbering, and click on one of the eight panels
showing other numbering setups. Accept that one, close the window.
Click Undo.
What happens?
Hank Roberts
>>Okay, you open it on another computer. It looks fine. Now, go
>>to Format/Bullets and Numbering, and click on one of the eight panels
>>showing other numbering setups. Accept that one, close the window.
>>
>>Click Undo.
>>
>>What happens?
>It worked fine:-)
Well, now try going to that second computer and _customizing_ the stock
Microsoft numbering in each of those panels, as a user would eventually.
Unless you're set up so both machines are identical and stay that way
(no user changes)...
Matt
>Okay, you open it on another computer. It looks fine. Now, go
>to Format/Bullets and Numbering, and click on one of the eight panels
>showing other numbering setups. Accept that one, close the window.
>
>Click Undo.
>
>What happens?
<Grin> It worked perfectly. I think i'm going mad. I realise there is a
problem but i can't make it happen reliably.
Any other suggestions?
Matt
Thank you for your email suggesting that the reason i couldn't replicate the
problem was due to the computers in my workplace having the stock default
numbering.
I customised each of the eight slots (differently) and restarted each
computer. I then created a new document which contained multiple bulleted
paragraphs. I saved the document. Opened it on a second machine (looks
fine). I then changed the bullet scheme and pressed undo (no problem).
I do alot of developing in Word97 and as such try to keep my environment as
generic as possible. I don't lock my templates or replace normal.dot
I can't figure out why my system is behaving differently to both yours and
that of the Microsoft VIPs that you mentioned. Any other ideas :)
thanks again
Matt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hank Roberts [mailto:ha...@netcom.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 18 March 1999 04:59
> To: Matthew.F...@whk.com.au; ha...@netcom.com
> Subject: Re: Here's how to number list items using SEQ. I've
> documented
> my process.
>
>
> All this means is that all of the computers at your shop have
> still got
> the stock default numbering.
>
> Now, go to another computer; click in each of the eight
> numbering panels
> and modify each one. Save, close, exit, restart.
>
> Bring in your document and - on the CPU on which the numbering has
> been modified, as it would be eventually by a user -- try
> modifying the
> numbering on your original doc.
>
> Unless you've got a system setup that simply recreates the stock
> normal.dot, refusing any user changes, or documents that don't
> refer to it at all, I think you'll see it.
>
> This is the way it works, it takes a while before the machines start
> to diverge, and a sufficiently rigidly locked down system, with all
> the templates locked and all the docs based on locked templates so
> the user can't change styles, will not show the problem. Only one
> of the Microsoft VIPs on the newsgroup couldn't recreate this problem;
> that turned out to be how he'd gotten his system setup, so the users
> had no choices that let them change numbering.
>
Peter Jamieson
to know whether or not you have been "successful" at making Word go wrong.
2. I first encountered this problem about 18 months ago - or at least I
thought I had. I looked in this NG, discovered that experienced users of
Word had found an explanation, and didn't look further. But I too have had a
lot of difficulty replicating the problem ever since and am beginning to
doubt that what I saw resulted from the same problem.
3. Over the last few days I had a reasonably good look at what was stored in
the registry, but there are still bits that are difficult to work out - I
got the impression from comments in this NG that someone had documented the
contents - is this true, and if so can someone point me to their
conclusions?
Peter Jamieson
Matt <**Ma...@macroview.com.au> wrote in message
news:OVsS$oHk#GA....@cppssbbsa02.microsoft.com...