Word should catalog misspelled words to study.

And I emphasize that by this I meant a third-party add-in, not something
provided by Microsoft. There is a thriving community of Word developers
outside of Microsoft, people like Bill Coan, with his DataPrompter add-in
(which I find very helpful since I'm VBA-less). In addition to commercial
add-ins (sold to anyone who's interested), these developers also provide
custom solutions to those who require them (and are willing to pay). The
bottom line on all of this is economic: we've been told repeatedly that
every proposed function requires a business case, that is, what is the ratio
of the cost to develop to the demand for the feature? Would a feature be
attractive to enough people to sell enough extra copies of Office to make it
worth the cost to develop it?

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so
all may benefit.

"rndthought" wrote in message
...
Thank you Suzanne.

"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:

Following up on this, the spelling function would be a perfect
application
for a Word add-in, to be added in only by those interested in using it
(and
willing to take the performance hit that would inevitably result).

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the
newsgroup so
all may benefit.

"Tony Jollans" My Forename at My Surname dot com wrote in message
...
I'm not going to quibble over words. Yes, I *choose* to agree with
Suzanne

I'm not sure that the argument that Word already does things it
probably
shouldn't is grounds for suggesting that it do more. In particular I
would
say that it should leave web page design to other dedicated software
(very
few people actually like what Word does with web pages and I've never
seen
it recommended as a tool for this). What it can do with images is
pretty
limited. What it does with embedded objects (not actually as much as
you
might think) is almost a requirement for the creation of many
documents.

I don't think it's a difficult point to argue, and the reason, of
course,
is
that I enjoy a good argument :-) Word is not a study aid and what you
are
suggesting would put quite a heavy load on everyday activity; it would
have
to keep track of every word you typed and whether or not you corrected
it
(or maybe just changed it later - because not all misspellings result
in
invalid words) or it was autocorrected or it was picked up by the
spellchecker (or the grammar checker) - and if so, what you did with
it.
In
fact the more I think about what it would have to do to effectively
implement such a facility, the more I am certain it shouldn't be done.

OK - maybe the washer analogy was extreme, but the point stands. Word
does
a certain type of manipulation of words and other document content and
there
are other programs which do other types of manipulation. The more
that's
bundled together, the more it would cost to produce and to buy.
Perhaps a
better analogy would be this: I have just got broadband Internet
access
and
I looked at the various packages that were available. I bought one for
£15
a
month. I could have bought one for £30 a month (AOL, say) but I didn't
want
most of the facilities (all, loosely, related to internet connection)
that
were included in the AOL package; I didn't want them running on my
machine
and I didn't want to pay for them. Your suggestion (not unreasonable
for a
separately purchased addon) would be attractive to a fairly small
subset
of
current, or prospective, Word users but all would have to pay for it.

--
Enjoy,
Tony


"rndthought" wrote in message
...
Tony,

First, don't debase yourself. You do not "half to", you choose to.
Second,
neither you nor Suzanne has established how "word processing"
explicitly
excludes building a personalized list of misspelled words for
further
study,
personal development.

You and Suzanne have chosen a difficult point to argue (and for no
reason).
If MS Word can manipulate HTML with web page previews, embed Excel
tables
able to be edited from within the document and manipulate image
characteristics; the word processor has shattered the complexity
barrier
it
would take to build a simple list file - if the option was
selected - of
misspelled words. The text to voice feature is already in place.
The
argument that my request would add too much complexity is simply
absurd
and
baseless. My suggestion is not unreasonable and certainly not close
to
the
horrible washer parallel. Trying to negate a "spelling is to word
processing" relationship? You will half to try very hard.

While MS Word is ubiquitous, not just CEOs and MPV use the program
daily
but
it is on essentially every school computer in my district, it is not
always
possible to rely on the crutch of spell check and auto replace in
the
real
word. This spelling tutor feature is one from which my children and
I
believe many children and adults would greatly benefit.

The cause for so much resistance and the need to voice it still
baffling.
It
is just a list of misspelled words. Why would this be so
disconcerting?

As always, except for the washer thing, thank you for the thoughtful
comments.


"Tony Jollans" wrote:

I'd have to agree with Suzanne here. Word Processing is what Word
does.
Just
because it uses words does not mean that it does, or should,
provide
every
imaginable function that might also use words; before you know it
someone
will be suggesting that it solve crosswords.

It is generally true that adding essentially unrelated
functionality
is
likely to bring problems. Imagine trying to add a dish-washing
facility
to
your washing machine; they both use water and detergent to get
things
clean,
so why not?

--
Enjoy,
Tony


"rndthought" wrote in
message
...
Suzanne, spelling is Fundamental to this purpose. Period.

Again, why so much resistance and the need to voice it?


"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:

A word processor is a way for people who know what they want
to
say
and
how
to say it to put those words on paper. Some of the functions
you
mention
(such as automatic creation of TOCs) are fundamental to this
purpose.
Auto
formatting certainly facilitates it. Keep in mind that a huge
target
market
for Microsoft is "knowledge workers" (secretaries and the
like)
and
executives in large corporations. They need to be able to
create
letters
and
reports and easily and quickly as possible. It is assumed that
they
either
know how to spell or will depend on spell check to correct
their
spelling.
I'll grant you that this is an unreasonable assumption in the
first
instance
and a dangerous one in the second, but there you have it.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to
the
newsgroup so
all may benefit.

"rndthought" wrote in
message
...
Suzanne,

You make a good observation in regards to trying to be all
things.
As
for
keeping MS Word from loosing sight of the "primary
functions"
(or
focus)... I
believe even a cursory overview of the options and abilities
in
Word
show's
the ship has set sail (Invoicing with macros, auto creation
of
TOC,
auto
formatting, Auto fill forms, creating HTML documents,
altering
Image
attributes - all on a word processor???). It seems to me
that
MS
Word
most
definitely has higher aspirations than that of a functioned
word
processor
or
computerize type writer.

If a spelling tutor, I like that term Suzanne, doesn't
belong in
a
program
whose primary purpose is to type words in the creation of
documents,
presumably for purpose of communicating information
accurately...where
then?

This isn't a fundamental change in the program or a complete
change in
the
interface (which is coming in the next version)...simply an
option
(or
if
possible a macro as Greg has shown in a limited fashion)
that
could be
enabled for those that wish to expand their spelling
abilities.
Why
so
much
resistance and need to voice it?

Thank you again for the thoughtful comments.

"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:

Where Word most often gets into trouble is through trying
to
be
all
things
to all people. I don't imagine, however, that the Word
developers
will
ever
so far lose sight of the primary functions of Word as to
incorporate
features that make it a spelling tutor.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups
to
the
newsgroup so
all may benefit.

A gracious close to a stimulating discussion. One last question.

Why can't I have one pint for the new aquantenance and one for posting and
providing a simple start to to the best damned spelling enhancer the world
has every seen!

--
Greg Maxey/Word MVP
See:
http://gregmaxey.mvps.org/word_tips.htm
For some helpful tips using Word.

rndthought wrote:
Tony,

I apologize for that opening remark. It didn't come across as I
intended. I'm sorry.

That MS Word shouldn't do anything hasn't been any concern of mine.
All of you have attention focused on explaining what I'd like it to
do! And hopefully I've been respectful and friendly throughout with
one exception to you Tony.

First, MS Word already keeps track of every word you type and checks
it against the dictionary. There would be no additional over head
there.

Second, to simply write a word to a file when either the auto correct
is fired or when the user makes a selection in the drop down list
from spell checker would not seemingly over tax the system.
Certainly trivial compared to the UNDO feature that is undetectable
in the background.

Third, I do not know what you mean by effectively implement. All
I've mused about is a simple misspelled word list that could be fed
back into the text to voice feature that is already a feature in MS
Word. I'll leave grammar enhancements to the grammar checker that
is, again, already a feature in MS Word.

The more MS Word can do the better. (And it would seem every release
has aspired to do much more than each previous release) But again
all those other things everyone has brought up (crosswords, poetry,
insipid math puzzles in the Daily, word peace) haven't been a concern
of mine. The points were brought up simply to demonstrate it already
does so much more than "word processing." So saying that a feature
that deals with spelling is ridiculous, I dare say, is ridiculous.
MS Word is not a study aid.why not? Why not state MS Word isn't a
HTML code writing tool, go use (whatever MS product is for that) or
MS Word isn't a layout tool, go use MS Publisher if you want photos
in a document. Why, because those features are there. So arguing
that if a feature isn't already there then it should not be included
just doesn't stand.

Am I correct that you, Suzanne, Greg, and now Daiya (hello) are
opposed because essentially: to produce a list of misspelled words
would first, over tax the system and second, add too much additional
cost to the product?

If we assume, for friendly discussion, no performance or cost issues,
that then it would be an agreeable feature? If so then we'll be at
agreement and I can go to bed thankful of some new acquaintances!
If not, I'm still going to bed and I'd still by each of you a pint!

And no Tony, I don't believe the broadband parallel is much better.
I don't do HTML or pictures in documents and still HAVE TO (just for
you Greg ) take MS Word as it comes, and with no complaints! Eons
better than Word Perfect 5 for which I spent 2x as much. Spelling
is to word processing as.

Thank you all.


"Tony Jollans" wrote:

I'm not going to quibble over words. Yes, I *choose* to agree with
Suzanne

I'm not sure that the argument that Word already does things it
probably shouldn't is grounds for suggesting that it do more. In
particular I would say that it should leave web page design to other
dedicated software (very few people actually like what Word does
with web pages and I've never seen it recommended as a tool for
this). What it can do with images is pretty limited. What it does
with embedded objects (not actually as much as you might think) is
almost a requirement for the creation of many documents.

I don't think it's a difficult point to argue, and the reason, of
course, is that I enjoy a good argument :-) Word is not a study aid
and what you are suggesting would put quite a heavy load on everyday
activity; it would have to keep track of every word you typed and
whether or not you corrected it (or maybe just changed it later -
because not all misspellings result in invalid words) or it was
autocorrected or it was picked up by the spellchecker (or the
grammar checker) - and if so, what you did with it. In fact the more
I think about what it would have to do to effectively implement such
a facility, the more I am certain it shouldn't be done.

OK - maybe the washer analogy was extreme, but the point stands.
Word does a certain type of manipulation of words and other document
content and there are other programs which do other types of
manipulation. The more that's bundled together, the more it would
cost to produce and to buy. Perhaps a better analogy would be this:
I have just got broadband Internet access and I looked at the
various packages that were available. I bought one for £15 a month.
I could have bought one for £30 a month (AOL, say) but I didn't want
most of the facilities (all, loosely, related to internet
connection) that were included in the AOL package; I didn't want
them running on my machine and I didn't want to pay for them. Your
suggestion (not unreasonable for a separately purchased addon) would
be attractive to a fairly small subset of current, or prospective,
Word users but all would have to pay for it.

--
Enjoy,
Tony


"rndthought" wrote in message
...
Tony,

First, don't debase yourself. You do not "half to", you choose to.
Second, neither you nor Suzanne has established how "word
processing" explicitly excludes building a personalized list of
misspelled words for further study, personal development.

You and Suzanne have chosen a difficult point to argue (and for no
reason). If MS Word can manipulate HTML with web page previews,
embed Excel tables able to be edited from within the document and
manipulate image characteristics; the word processor has shattered
the complexity barrier it would take to build a simple list file -
if the option was selected - of misspelled words. The text to
voice feature is already in place. The argument that my request
would add too much complexity is simply absurd and baseless. My
suggestion is not unreasonable and certainly not close to the
horrible washer parallel. Trying to negate a "spelling is to word
processing" relationship? You will half to try very hard.

While MS Word is ubiquitous, not just CEOs and MPV use the program
daily but it is on essentially every school computer in my
district, it is not always possible to rely on the crutch of spell
check and auto replace in the real word. This spelling tutor
feature is one from which my children and I believe many children
and adults would greatly benefit.

The cause for so much resistance and the need to voice it still
baffling. It is just a list of misspelled words. Why would this be
so disconcerting?

As always, except for the washer thing, thank you for the
thoughtful comments.


"Tony Jollans" wrote:

I'd have to agree with Suzanne here. Word Processing is what Word
does. Just because it uses words does not mean that it does, or
should, provide every imaginable function that might also use
words; before you know it someone will be suggesting that it solve
crosswords.

It is generally true that adding essentially unrelated
functionality is likely to bring problems. Imagine trying to add a
dish-washing facility to your washing machine; they both use water
and detergent to get things clean, so why not?

--
Enjoy,
Tony


"rndthought" wrote in
message ...
Suzanne, spelling is Fundamental to this purpose. Period.

Again, why so much resistance and the need to voice it?


"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:

A word processor is a way for people who know what they want to
say and how to say it to put those words on paper. Some of the
functions you mention (such as automatic creation of TOCs) are
fundamental to this purpose. Auto formatting certainly
facilitates it. Keep in mind that a huge target market for
Microsoft is "knowledge workers" (secretaries and the like) and
executives in large corporations. They need to be able to create
letters and reports and easily and quickly as possible. It is
assumed that they either know how to spell or will depend on
spell check to correct their spelling. I'll grant you that this
is an unreasonable assumption in the first instance and a
dangerous one in the second, but there you have it.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the
newsgroup so all may benefit.

"rndthought" wrote in
message
...
Suzanne,

You make a good observation in regards to trying to be all
things. As for keeping MS Word from loosing sight of the
"primary functions" (or focus)... I believe even a cursory
overview of the options and abilities in Word show's the ship
has set sail (Invoicing with macros, auto creation of TOC, auto
formatting, Auto fill forms, creating HTML documents, altering
Image attributes - all on a word processor???). It seems to
me that MS Word most definitely has higher aspirations than
that of a functioned word processor or computerize type writer.

If a spelling tutor, I like that term Suzanne, doesn't belong
in a program whose primary purpose is to type words in the
creation of documents, presumably for purpose of communicating
information accurately...where then?

This isn't a fundamental change in the program or a complete
change in the interface (which is coming in the next
version)...simply an option (or if possible a macro as Greg has
shown in a limited fashion) that could be enabled for those
that wish to expand their spelling abilities.
Why
so
much
resistance and need to voice it?

Thank you again for the thoughtful comments.

"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:

Where Word most often gets into trouble is through trying to
be all things to all people. I don't imagine, however, that
the Word
developers
will
ever
so far lose sight of the primary functions of Word as to
incorporate features that make it a spelling tutor.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to
the newsgroup so all may benefit.

Greg,

We all headed underground eventually, just a matter of time. I defer to my
Tony response but in an attempt to not spoil all your fun, will respond to a
couple of things.

As for my "half to" mistake, kudos. I’m only looking at misspelled words.
Misspelled words that are actually another word would seemingly fall to the
grammar department in this case. Hay, maybe a grammar mistake logger!!!
Nothing is 100% and I don’t expect that from anything. Nothing substitutes
for proof reading. However, I’ll bet a pint that the next version of MS Word
will catch that very mistake in its already existing impressive grammar check
feature.

And I would not take that bet! No doubt Microsoft could change the rotation
of the earth were it their whim. But all of this is neither here nor there.
I’m only saying it would be a great feature, I see merit in it. I’m not
equipped to lay out how to implement it or how much it would cost.

However, what little I do know seems to say it would not be that difficult.
The majority of the infrastructure is already present. MS Word already
checks every word against the dictionary in real time and designates
unrecognized words with red underlines. The text to voice feature is there.
How hard would it be to log every time a red underlined word is changed to a
recognized word and then have them sounded back? For sure it will be more
complicated than I imagine but not bog the system down intensive.

Certainly implementing alterations using VBA may be far beyond both of our
capabilities (I hope you didn’t feel I was asking you to?) but this may be a
very simple thing for somebody like a MS programmer!

You never know till you ask.

Thanks for the comments Greg! And for what it is worth, your List Spelling
Errors mod is a great little item. I have two people interested in it
already and for two entirely different reasons!


"Greg" wrote:

If joining (or re-joining a healthy fray) is debasement, then I to am
heading to de basement ;-).
You and Tony both appear to enjoy a good argument. So what's good for
the goose is good for the gander.

Personnally I am a terrible speller (actually I know how to spell, but
I am a careless typer and poor proofreader). I noticed with amusement
that you emphasize your spelling of "half to." Ok, half is spelled
correctly, but the English teacher would still make a mark on your
paper.

How would the enhanceement to Word you propose handle that? ;-)

I would wager heavily that the powers at Microsoft have the wherewithal
create a spelling enhancer like you envison, but at the end of the day
I don't feel that they will do so for the reasons that Suzanne and Tony
have put forth. I will add that it certainly isn't something that I
would want to pay extra for.

The List Spelling Errors Addin that I have posted on my website was
more a result of my personal efforts to learn how to use Class Modules
in VBA than enhance my spelling. Yes it is limited. I thought about
the enhancements that you recommended and quickly realized that
achieving them was far beyond my capability.

Daiya,

The requests you and all the rest have witnessed, my wildest fantasies
wouldn’t come close. But talk of apocalypses and such just doesn’t fit the
simple thing I’ve suggested. Quite the contrary to your concern it is a way
to improve spelling, to become less dependent on computer programs. Imagine
taking pen to paper with no spell check safety net! Spelling is the base of
producing meaningful communication and if providing an option to improve this
ability is an absurd request of a word processing program as extensive as MS
Word, well I just don’t see it.

Spell checker is the single most important advancement to the basic text
editor. This speaks directly to the importance of spelling. (All of this is
my opinion only, lest you think someone is holding a gun to my head telling
me to type this wink)

The addition of a spelling tutor feature or module would no more belabor MS
Word with the responsibility of teaching spelling than the automatic spell
check or grammar check features do now. In fact one could argue that MS Word
is a bad citizen, anti-education and pro-lazy by allowing users to simply
guess and stab to get close to words, auto correcting typing mistakes and
pointing out grievous grammatical errors.

I’m not advocating a mallet pop out of the monitor and box the user about
the head until the correct spelling is entered or poor spellers be logged in
a national database. If you don’t want to pursue better spelling, then don’t
enable the feature. You are your own captain.

And what you call the apocalypse, Mr. Bill Gates calls productivity.

Thank you for the thoughtful comments. Will you please join me in a pint?


"Daiya Mitchell" wrote:

I am almost positive this group *has* seen requests that Word should solve
crosswords. Or perhaps I have it confused with the request that Word should
help write poetry by providing a rhyming dictionary.

Not to mention all the demands that Word should include a template for "how
to word a cover letter", a template for a letter of condolence to a friend,
a template for a letter of reprimand for an employee, etc, etc, etc.

Rndthought,

Suzanne's resistance to your idea comes from a context of seeing years of
ridiculous requests for Word. The ability to "export a list of misspelled
words in this document" could be quite useful, and I might vote for that,
but Greg's add-in has it covered.

But I am *solidly* against any implication that it is Word's responsibility
to teach people how to spell, and that's what you seemed to be asking.

I personally think that the more we depend on computer programs to *think*
for us on an everyday level, the closer we move to the apocalypse. So
resisting such a suggestion becomes a matter of principle.


On 12/6/05 1:51 AM, "Tony Jollans" wrote:

I'd have to agree with Suzanne here. Word Processing is what Word does. Just
because it uses words does not mean that it does, or should, provide every
imaginable function that might also use words; before you know it someone
will be suggesting that it solve crosswords.

Suzanne,

I bow to you the MS bean counters and pray that third party bean counters
have less acumen.

Thank you for the clarification lest I believe you yielded even one small
point to me! (Flurries of arms and deepest of bows)

Can we have that pint now?



"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:

And I emphasize that by this I meant a third-party add-in, not something
provided by Microsoft. There is a thriving community of Word developers
outside of Microsoft, people like Bill Coan, with his DataPrompter add-in
(which I find very helpful since I'm VBA-less). In addition to commercial
add-ins (sold to anyone who's interested), these developers also provide
custom solutions to those who require them (and are willing to pay). The
bottom line on all of this is economic: we've been told repeatedly that
every proposed function requires a business case, that is, what is the ratio
of the cost to develop to the demand for the feature? Would a feature be
attractive to enough people to sell enough extra copies of Office to make it
worth the cost to develop it?

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so
all may benefit.

"rndthought" wrote in message
...
Thank you Suzanne.

"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:

Following up on this, the spelling function would be a perfect
application
for a Word add-in, to be added in only by those interested in using it
(and
willing to take the performance hit that would inevitably result).

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the
newsgroup so
all may benefit.

"Tony Jollans" My Forename at My Surname dot com wrote in message
...
I'm not going to quibble over words. Yes, I *choose* to agree with
Suzanne

I'm not sure that the argument that Word already does things it
probably
shouldn't is grounds for suggesting that it do more. In particular I
would
say that it should leave web page design to other dedicated software
(very
few people actually like what Word does with web pages and I've never
seen
it recommended as a tool for this). What it can do with images is
pretty
limited. What it does with embedded objects (not actually as much as
you
might think) is almost a requirement for the creation of many
documents.

I don't think it's a difficult point to argue, and the reason, of
course,
is
that I enjoy a good argument :-) Word is not a study aid and what you
are
suggesting would put quite a heavy load on everyday activity; it would
have
to keep track of every word you typed and whether or not you corrected
it
(or maybe just changed it later - because not all misspellings result
in
invalid words) or it was autocorrected or it was picked up by the
spellchecker (or the grammar checker) - and if so, what you did with
it.
In
fact the more I think about what it would have to do to effectively
implement such a facility, the more I am certain it shouldn't be done.

OK - maybe the washer analogy was extreme, but the point stands. Word
does
a certain type of manipulation of words and other document content and
there
are other programs which do other types of manipulation. The more
that's
bundled together, the more it would cost to produce and to buy.
Perhaps a
better analogy would be this: I have just got broadband Internet
access
and
I looked at the various packages that were available. I bought one for
£15
a
month. I could have bought one for £30 a month (AOL, say) but I didn't
want
most of the facilities (all, loosely, related to internet connection)
that
were included in the AOL package; I didn't want them running on my
machine
and I didn't want to pay for them. Your suggestion (not unreasonable
for a
separately purchased addon) would be attractive to a fairly small
subset
of
current, or prospective, Word users but all would have to pay for it.

--
Enjoy,
Tony


"rndthought" wrote in message
...
Tony,

First, don't debase yourself. You do not "half to", you choose to.
Second,
neither you nor Suzanne has established how "word processing"
explicitly
excludes building a personalized list of misspelled words for
further
study,
personal development.

You and Suzanne have chosen a difficult point to argue (and for no
reason).
If MS Word can manipulate HTML with web page previews, embed Excel
tables
able to be edited from within the document and manipulate image
characteristics; the word processor has shattered the complexity
barrier
it
would take to build a simple list file - if the option was
selected - of
misspelled words. The text to voice feature is already in place.
The
argument that my request would add too much complexity is simply
absurd
and
baseless. My suggestion is not unreasonable and certainly not close
to
the
horrible washer parallel. Trying to negate a "spelling is to word
processing" relationship? You will half to try very hard.

While MS Word is ubiquitous, not just CEOs and MPV use the program
daily
but
it is on essentially every school computer in my district, it is not
always
possible to rely on the crutch of spell check and auto replace in
the
real
word. This spelling tutor feature is one from which my children and
I
believe many children and adults would greatly benefit.

The cause for so much resistance and the need to voice it still
baffling.
It
is just a list of misspelled words. Why would this be so
disconcerting?

As always, except for the washer thing, thank you for the thoughtful
comments.


"Tony Jollans" wrote:

I'd have to agree with Suzanne here. Word Processing is what Word
does.
Just
because it uses words does not mean that it does, or should,
provide
every
imaginable function that might also use words; before you know it
someone
will be suggesting that it solve crosswords.

It is generally true that adding essentially unrelated
functionality
is
likely to bring problems. Imagine trying to add a dish-washing
facility
to
your washing machine; they both use water and detergent to get
things
clean,
so why not?

--
Enjoy,
Tony


"rndthought" wrote in
message
...
Suzanne, spelling is Fundamental to this purpose. Period.

Again, why so much resistance and the need to voice it?


"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:

A word processor is a way for people who know what they want
to
say
and
how
to say it to put those words on paper. Some of the functions
you
mention
(such as automatic creation of TOCs) are fundamental to this
purpose.
Auto
formatting certainly facilitates it. Keep in mind that a huge
target
market
for Microsoft is "knowledge workers" (secretaries and the
like)
and
executives in large corporations. They need to be able to
create
letters
and
reports and easily and quickly as possible. It is assumed that
they
either
know how to spell or will depend on spell check to correct
their
spelling.
I'll grant you that this is an unreasonable assumption in the
first
instance
and a dangerous one in the second, but there you have it.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to
the
newsgroup so
all may benefit.

"rndthought" wrote in
message
...
Suzanne,

You make a good observation in regards to trying to be all
things.
As
for
keeping MS Word from loosing sight of the "primary
functions"
(or
focus)... I
believe even a cursory overview of the options and abilities
in
Word
show's
the ship has set sail (Invoicing with macros, auto creation
of
TOC,
auto
formatting, Auto fill forms, creating HTML documents,
altering
Image
attributes - all on a word processor???). It seems to me
that
MS
Word
most
definitely has higher aspirations than that of a functioned
word
processor
or
computerize type writer.

If a spelling tutor, I like that term Suzanne, doesn't
belong in
a
program
whose primary purpose is to type words in the creation of
documents,
presumably for purpose of communicating information
accurately...where
then?

This isn't a fundamental change in the program or a complete
change in
the
interface (which is coming in the next version)...simply an
option

Not one damn reason I can think of...but must warn you I'm about 5 ahead of
all of you!

Thank you Greg. And if I pass out, tell the keep they are all on me!

"Greg Maxey" wrote:

A gracious close to a stimulating discussion. One last question.

Why can't I have one pint for the new aquantenance and one for posting and
providing a simple start to to the best damned spelling enhancer the world
has every seen!

--
Greg Maxey/Word MVP
See:
http://gregmaxey.mvps.org/word_tips.htm
For some helpful tips using Word.

rndthought wrote:
Tony,

I apologize for that opening remark. It didn't come across as I
intended. I'm sorry.

That MS Word shouldn't do anything hasn't been any concern of mine.
All of you have attention focused on explaining what I'd like it to
do! And hopefully I've been respectful and friendly throughout with
one exception to you Tony.

First, MS Word already keeps track of every word you type and checks
it against the dictionary. There would be no additional over head
there.

Second, to simply write a word to a file when either the auto correct
is fired or when the user makes a selection in the drop down list
from spell checker would not seemingly over tax the system.
Certainly trivial compared to the UNDO feature that is undetectable
in the background.

Third, I do not know what you mean by effectively implement. All
I've mused about is a simple misspelled word list that could be fed
back into the text to voice feature that is already a feature in MS
Word. I'll leave grammar enhancements to the grammar checker that
is, again, already a feature in MS Word.

The more MS Word can do the better. (And it would seem every release
has aspired to do much more than each previous release) But again
all those other things everyone has brought up (crosswords, poetry,
insipid math puzzles in the Daily, word peace) haven't been a concern
of mine. The points were brought up simply to demonstrate it already
does so much more than "word processing." So saying that a feature
that deals with spelling is ridiculous, I dare say, is ridiculous.
MS Word is not a study aid.why not? Why not state MS Word isn't a
HTML code writing tool, go use (whatever MS product is for that) or
MS Word isn't a layout tool, go use MS Publisher if you want photos
in a document. Why, because those features are there. So arguing
that if a feature isn't already there then it should not be included
just doesn't stand.

Am I correct that you, Suzanne, Greg, and now Daiya (hello) are
opposed because essentially: to produce a list of misspelled words
would first, over tax the system and second, add too much additional
cost to the product?

If we assume, for friendly discussion, no performance or cost issues,
that then it would be an agreeable feature? If so then we'll be at
agreement and I can go to bed thankful of some new acquaintances!
If not, I'm still going to bed and I'd still by each of you a pint!

And no Tony, I don't believe the broadband parallel is much better.
I don't do HTML or pictures in documents and still HAVE TO (just for
you Greg ) take MS Word as it comes, and with no complaints! Eons
better than Word Perfect 5 for which I spent 2x as much. Spelling
is to word processing as.

Thank you all.


"Tony Jollans" wrote:

I'm not going to quibble over words. Yes, I *choose* to agree with
Suzanne

I'm not sure that the argument that Word already does things it
probably shouldn't is grounds for suggesting that it do more. In
particular I would say that it should leave web page design to other
dedicated software (very few people actually like what Word does
with web pages and I've never seen it recommended as a tool for
this). What it can do with images is pretty limited. What it does
with embedded objects (not actually as much as you might think) is
almost a requirement for the creation of many documents.

I don't think it's a difficult point to argue, and the reason, of
course, is that I enjoy a good argument :-) Word is not a study aid
and what you are suggesting would put quite a heavy load on everyday
activity; it would have to keep track of every word you typed and
whether or not you corrected it (or maybe just changed it later -
because not all misspellings result in invalid words) or it was
autocorrected or it was picked up by the spellchecker (or the
grammar checker) - and if so, what you did with it. In fact the more
I think about what it would have to do to effectively implement such
a facility, the more I am certain it shouldn't be done.

OK - maybe the washer analogy was extreme, but the point stands.
Word does a certain type of manipulation of words and other document
content and there are other programs which do other types of
manipulation. The more that's bundled together, the more it would
cost to produce and to buy. Perhaps a better analogy would be this:
I have just got broadband Internet access and I looked at the
various packages that were available. I bought one for £15 a month.
I could have bought one for £30 a month (AOL, say) but I didn't want
most of the facilities (all, loosely, related to internet
connection) that were included in the AOL package; I didn't want
them running on my machine and I didn't want to pay for them. Your
suggestion (not unreasonable for a separately purchased addon) would
be attractive to a fairly small subset of current, or prospective,
Word users but all would have to pay for it.

--
Enjoy,
Tony


"rndthought" wrote in message
...
Tony,

First, don't debase yourself. You do not "half to", you choose to.
Second, neither you nor Suzanne has established how "word
processing" explicitly excludes building a personalized list of
misspelled words for further study, personal development.

You and Suzanne have chosen a difficult point to argue (and for no
reason). If MS Word can manipulate HTML with web page previews,
embed Excel tables able to be edited from within the document and
manipulate image characteristics; the word processor has shattered
the complexity barrier it would take to build a simple list file -
if the option was selected - of misspelled words. The text to
voice feature is already in place. The argument that my request
would add too much complexity is simply absurd and baseless. My
suggestion is not unreasonable and certainly not close to the
horrible washer parallel. Trying to negate a "spelling is to word
processing" relationship? You will half to try very hard.

While MS Word is ubiquitous, not just CEOs and MPV use the program
daily but it is on essentially every school computer in my
district, it is not always possible to rely on the crutch of spell
check and auto replace in the real word. This spelling tutor
feature is one from which my children and I believe many children
and adults would greatly benefit.

The cause for so much resistance and the need to voice it still
baffling. It is just a list of misspelled words. Why would this be
so disconcerting?

As always, except for the washer thing, thank you for the
thoughtful comments.


"Tony Jollans" wrote:

I'd have to agree with Suzanne here. Word Processing is what Word
does. Just because it uses words does not mean that it does, or
should, provide every imaginable function that might also use
words; before you know it someone will be suggesting that it solve
crosswords.

It is generally true that adding essentially unrelated
functionality is likely to bring problems. Imagine trying to add a
dish-washing facility to your washing machine; they both use water
and detergent to get things clean, so why not?

--
Enjoy,
Tony


"rndthought" wrote in
message ...
Suzanne, spelling is Fundamental to this purpose. Period.

Again, why so much resistance and the need to voice it?


"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:

A word processor is a way for people who know what they want to
say and how to say it to put those words on paper. Some of the
functions you mention (such as automatic creation of TOCs) are
fundamental to this purpose. Auto formatting certainly
facilitates it. Keep in mind that a huge target market for
Microsoft is "knowledge workers" (secretaries and the like) and
executives in large corporations. They need to be able to create
letters and reports and easily and quickly as possible. It is
assumed that they either know how to spell or will depend on
spell check to correct their spelling. I'll grant you that this
is an unreasonable assumption in the first instance and a
dangerous one in the second, but there you have it.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the
newsgroup so all may benefit.

"rndthought" wrote in
message
...
Suzanne,

You make a good observation in regards to trying to be all
things. As for keeping MS Word from loosing sight of the
"primary functions" (or focus)... I believe even a cursory
overview of the options and abilities in Word show's the ship
has set sail (Invoicing with macros, auto creation of TOC, auto
formatting, Auto fill forms, creating HTML documents, altering
Image attributes - all on a word processor???). It seems to
me that MS Word most definitely has higher aspirations than
that of a functioned word processor or computerize type writer.

If a spelling tutor, I like that term Suzanne, doesn't belong
in a program whose primary purpose is to type words in the
creation of documents, presumably for purpose of communicating
information accurately...where then?

This isn't a fundamental change in the program or a complete
change in the interface (which is coming in the next
version)...simply an option (or if possible a macro as Greg has
shown in a limited fashion) that could be enabled for those
that wish to expand their spelling abilities.
Why
so
much
resistance and need to voice it?

Thank you again for the thoughtful comments.

"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:

Where Word most often gets into trouble is through trying to
be all things to all people. I don't imagine, however, that
the Word
developers
will
ever
so far lose sight of the primary functions of Word as to
incorporate features that make it a spelling tutor.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to
the newsgroup so all may benefit.

Got to keep a clear head now--I'm working on my Rotary bulletin for
tomorrow's meeting--but thanks!

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so
all may benefit.

"rndthought" wrote in message
...
Suzanne,

I bow to you the MS bean counters and pray that third party bean counters
have less acumen.

Thank you for the clarification lest I believe you yielded even one small
point to me! (Flurries of arms and deepest of bows)

Can we have that pint now?



"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:

And I emphasize that by this I meant a third-party add-in, not something
provided by Microsoft. There is a thriving community of Word developers
outside of Microsoft, people like Bill Coan, with his DataPrompter
add-in
(which I find very helpful since I'm VBA-less). In addition to
commercial
add-ins (sold to anyone who's interested), these developers also provide
custom solutions to those who require them (and are willing to pay). The
bottom line on all of this is economic: we've been told repeatedly that
every proposed function requires a business case, that is, what is the
ratio
of the cost to develop to the demand for the feature? Would a feature be
attractive to enough people to sell enough extra copies of Office to
make it
worth the cost to develop it?

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the
newsgroup so
all may benefit.

"rndthought" wrote in message
...
Thank you Suzanne.

"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:

Following up on this, the spelling function would be a perfect
application
for a Word add-in, to be added in only by those interested in using
it
(and
willing to take the performance hit that would inevitably result).

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the
newsgroup so
all may benefit.

"Tony Jollans" My Forename at My Surname dot com wrote in message
...
I'm not going to quibble over words. Yes, I *choose* to agree with
Suzanne

I'm not sure that the argument that Word already does things it
probably
shouldn't is grounds for suggesting that it do more. In particular
I
would
say that it should leave web page design to other dedicated
software
(very
few people actually like what Word does with web pages and I've
never
seen
it recommended as a tool for this). What it can do with images is
pretty
limited. What it does with embedded objects (not actually as much
as
you
might think) is almost a requirement for the creation of many
documents.

I don't think it's a difficult point to argue, and the reason, of
course,
is
that I enjoy a good argument :-) Word is not a study aid and what
you
are
suggesting would put quite a heavy load on everyday activity; it
would
have
to keep track of every word you typed and whether or not you
corrected
it
(or maybe just changed it later - because not all misspellings
result
in
invalid words) or it was autocorrected or it was picked up by the
spellchecker (or the grammar checker) - and if so, what you did
with
it.
In
fact the more I think about what it would have to do to
effectively
implement such a facility, the more I am certain it shouldn't be
done.

OK - maybe the washer analogy was extreme, but the point stands.
Word
does
a certain type of manipulation of words and other document content
and
there
are other programs which do other types of manipulation. The more
that's
bundled together, the more it would cost to produce and to buy.
Perhaps a
better analogy would be this: I have just got broadband Internet
access
and
I looked at the various packages that were available. I bought one
for
£15
a
month. I could have bought one for £30 a month (AOL, say) but I
didn't
want
most of the facilities (all, loosely, related to internet
connection)
that
were included in the AOL package; I didn't want them running on my
machine
and I didn't want to pay for them. Your suggestion (not
unreasonable
for a
separately purchased addon) would be attractive to a fairly small
subset
of
current, or prospective, Word users but all would have to pay for
it.

--
Enjoy,
Tony


"rndthought" wrote in
message
...
Tony,

First, don't debase yourself. You do not "half to", you choose
to.
Second,
neither you nor Suzanne has established how "word processing"
explicitly
excludes building a personalized list of misspelled words for
further
study,
personal development.

You and Suzanne have chosen a difficult point to argue (and for
no
reason).
If MS Word can manipulate HTML with web page previews, embed
Excel
tables
able to be edited from within the document and manipulate image
characteristics; the word processor has shattered the complexity
barrier
it
would take to build a simple list file - if the option was
selected - of
misspelled words. The text to voice feature is already in
place.
The
argument that my request would add too much complexity is simply
absurd
and
baseless. My suggestion is not unreasonable and certainly not
close
to
the
horrible washer parallel. Trying to negate a "spelling is to
word
processing" relationship? You will half to try very hard.

While MS Word is ubiquitous, not just CEOs and MPV use the
program
daily
but
it is on essentially every school computer in my district, it is
not
always
possible to rely on the crutch of spell check and auto replace
in
the
real
word. This spelling tutor feature is one from which my children
and
I
believe many children and adults would greatly benefit.

The cause for so much resistance and the need to voice it still
baffling.
It
is just a list of misspelled words. Why would this be so
disconcerting?

As always, except for the washer thing, thank you for the
thoughtful
comments.


"Tony Jollans" wrote:

I'd have to agree with Suzanne here. Word Processing is what
Word
does.
Just
because it uses words does not mean that it does, or should,
provide
every
imaginable function that might also use words; before you know
it
someone
will be suggesting that it solve crosswords.

It is generally true that adding essentially unrelated
functionality
is
likely to bring problems. Imagine trying to add a dish-washing
facility
to
your washing machine; they both use water and detergent to get
things
clean,
so why not?

--
Enjoy,
Tony


"rndthought" wrote in
message
...
Suzanne, spelling is Fundamental to this purpose. Period.

Again, why so much resistance and the need to voice it?


"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:

A word processor is a way for people who know what they
want
to
say
and
how
to say it to put those words on paper. Some of the
functions
you
mention
(such as automatic creation of TOCs) are fundamental to
this
purpose.
Auto
formatting certainly facilitates it. Keep in mind that a
huge
target
market
for Microsoft is "knowledge workers" (secretaries and the
like)
and
executives in large corporations. They need to be able to
create
letters
and
reports and easily and quickly as possible. It is assumed
that
they
either
know how to spell or will depend on spell check to correct
their
spelling.
I'll grant you that this is an unreasonable assumption in
the
first
instance
and a dangerous one in the second, but there you have it.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups
to
the
newsgroup so
all may benefit.

"rndthought" wrote
in
message
...
Suzanne,

You make a good observation in regards to trying to be
all
things.
As
for
keeping MS Word from loosing sight of the "primary
functions"
(or
focus)... I
believe even a cursory overview of the options and
abilities
in
Word
show's
the ship has set sail (Invoicing with macros, auto
creation
of
TOC,
auto
formatting, Auto fill forms, creating HTML documents,
altering
Image
attributes - all on a word processor???). It seems to
me
that
MS
Word
most
definitely has higher aspirations than that of a
functioned
word
processor
or
computerize type writer.

If a spelling tutor, I like that term Suzanne, doesn't
belong in
a
program
whose primary purpose is to type words in the creation
of
documents,
presumably for purpose of communicating information
accurately...where
then?

This isn't a fundamental change in the program or a
complete
change in
the
interface (which is coming in the next version)...simply
an
option

On 12/6/05 8:25 PM, "rndthought" wrote:

And what you call the apocalypse, Mr. Bill Gates calls productivity.

Yes, that is very true. Nicely stated. The general ethos around developing
and marketing Word does seem to be that it ought to do everything for the
user, right up to thinking. I personally disagree, but I admit it's a line
in the sand that I'm trying to draw.

Thank you for the thoughtful comments. Will you please join me in a pint?

Only if mine can be cider.

Daiya

--
Daiya Mitchell, MVP Mac/Word
Word FAQ: http://www.word.mvps.org/
MacWord Tips: http://www.word.mvps.org/MacWordNew/
What's an MVP? A volunteer! Read the FAQ: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/

Firstly, let me say I'd love to join you for a pint!

I see no real harm in your proposal - and perhaps benefit for some. What I
question is not whether it should be available, just whether it should be
available as standard in Word. I have, I suppose, two concerns: cost and
complexity.

Cost first. I don't have a company budget; I buy my own software and I watch
the price climb every time a new version is released with a lot of bells and
whistles I don't want. What I want from Word is a word processor (and I know
we can argue about exactly what that means). What I don't want from Word is
a web page designer or HTML editor, or a DTP program, or a graphics editor.I
already have all of those including, in particular, FrontPage (although I
don't use it) and Publisher which are already in Office. I also don't
particularly want a spelling or grammar checker.

Leaving cost aside, every additional feature adds complexity. The more
complexity there is the more core functionality can be compromised. By and
large, Word does a pretty good job of most things but there is plenty scope
for improvement. To veer off slightly, people seem to be getting excited
about the upcoming 'Word 12' but I haven't seen very much that suggests it
has significant improvements in word processing (numbering, for example,
seems to be the same old mess) - what it does have is a fancy new interface.
The main reason for this is not really what the MS publicity engine is
telling us, it is to give Microsoft an excuse for rewriting and properly
integrating what has become a somewhat confused collection of
loosely-related features; that's a little bit cynical, but only a little
bit.

You make a fair point that Word already checks words in real time, but that
does give a performance hit and there would be quite a bit more to fully do
as you propose. That said, however, Word has an ever-improving interface
provided for code developers to write AddIns to perform almost any function
imaginable and that is where I would see your idea fitting in. Working with
the spell checker in code is not the easiest or error-free of options but it
might be possible to go some way towards what you want. I will take a look
at what Greg has done - strictly for my own enjoyment of course.

Now, about that pint ....

--
Enjoy,
Tony


"rndthought" wrote in message
...
Tony,

I apologize for that opening remark. It didn't come across as I intended.
I'm sorry.

That MS Word shouldn't do anything hasn't been any concern of mine. All
of
you have attention focused on explaining what I'd like it to do! And
hopefully I've been respectful and friendly throughout with one exception
to
you Tony.

First, MS Word already keeps track of every word you type and checks it
against the dictionary. There would be no additional over head there.

Second, to simply write a word to a file when either the auto correct is
fired or when the user makes a selection in the drop down list from spell
checker would not seemingly over tax the system. Certainly trivial
compared
to the UNDO feature that is undetectable in the background.

Third, I do not know what you mean by effectively implement. All I've
mused
about is a simple misspelled word list that could be fed back into the
text
to voice feature that is already a feature in MS Word. I'll leave grammar
enhancements to the grammar checker that is, again, already a feature in
MS
Word.

The more MS Word can do the better. (And it would seem every release has
aspired to do much more than each previous release) But again all those
other things everyone has brought up (crosswords, poetry, insipid math
puzzles in the Daily, word peace) haven't been a concern of mine. The
points
were brought up simply to demonstrate it already does so much more than
"word
processing." So saying that a feature that deals with spelling is
ridiculous, I dare say, is ridiculous. MS Word is not a study aid.why
not?
Why not state MS Word isn't a HTML code writing tool, go use (whatever MS
product is for that) or MS Word isn't a layout tool, go use MS Publisher
if
you want photos in a document. Why, because those features are there. So
arguing that if a feature isn't already there then it should not be
included
just doesn't stand.

Am I correct that you, Suzanne, Greg, and now Daiya (hello) are opposed
because essentially: to produce a list of misspelled words would first,
over
tax the system and second, add too much additional cost to the product?

If we assume, for friendly discussion, no performance or cost issues, that
then it would be an agreeable feature? If so then we'll be at agreement
and
I can go to bed thankful of some new acquaintances! If not, I'm still
going
to bed and I'd still by each of you a pint!

And no Tony, I don't believe the broadband parallel is much better. I
don't do HTML or pictures in documents and still HAVE TO (just for you
Greg
) take MS Word as it comes, and with no complaints! Eons better than
Word
Perfect 5 for which I spent 2x as much. Spelling is to word processing
as.

Thank you all.


"Tony Jollans" wrote:

I'm not going to quibble over words. Yes, I *choose* to agree with
Suzanne

I'm not sure that the argument that Word already does things it probably
shouldn't is grounds for suggesting that it do more. In particular I
would
say that it should leave web page design to other dedicated software
(very
few people actually like what Word does with web pages and I've never
seen
it recommended as a tool for this). What it can do with images is pretty
limited. What it does with embedded objects (not actually as much as you
might think) is almost a requirement for the creation of many documents.

I don't think it's a difficult point to argue, and the reason, of
course, is
that I enjoy a good argument :-) Word is not a study aid and what you
are
suggesting would put quite a heavy load on everyday activity; it would
have
to keep track of every word you typed and whether or not you corrected
it
(or maybe just changed it later - because not all misspellings result in
invalid words) or it was autocorrected or it was picked up by the
spellchecker (or the grammar checker) - and if so, what you did with it.
In
fact the more I think about what it would have to do to effectively
implement such a facility, the more I am certain it shouldn't be done.

OK - maybe the washer analogy was extreme, but the point stands. Word
does
a certain type of manipulation of words and other document content and
there
are other programs which do other types of manipulation. The more that's
bundled together, the more it would cost to produce and to buy. Perhaps
a
better analogy would be this: I have just got broadband Internet access
and
I looked at the various packages that were available. I bought one for
£15 a
month. I could have bought one for £30 a month (AOL, say) but I didn't
want
most of the facilities (all, loosely, related to internet connection)
that
were included in the AOL package; I didn't want them running on my
machine
and I didn't want to pay for them. Your suggestion (not unreasonable for
a
separately purchased addon) would be attractive to a fairly small subset
of
current, or prospective, Word users but all would have to pay for it.

--
Enjoy,
Tony


"rndthought" wrote in message
...
Tony,

First, don't debase yourself. You do not "half to", you choose to.
Second,
neither you nor Suzanne has established how "word processing"
explicitly
excludes building a personalized list of misspelled words for further
study,
personal development.

You and Suzanne have chosen a difficult point to argue (and for no
reason).
If MS Word can manipulate HTML with web page previews, embed Excel
tables
able to be edited from within the document and manipulate image
characteristics; the word processor has shattered the complexity
barrier
it
would take to build a simple list file - if the option was selected -
of
misspelled words. The text to voice feature is already in place. The
argument that my request would add too much complexity is simply
absurd
and
baseless. My suggestion is not unreasonable and certainly not close
to
the
horrible washer parallel. Trying to negate a "spelling is to word
processing" relationship? You will half to try very hard.

While MS Word is ubiquitous, not just CEOs and MPV use the program
daily
but
it is on essentially every school computer in my district, it is not
always
possible to rely on the crutch of spell check and auto replace in the
real
word. This spelling tutor feature is one from which my children and I
believe many children and adults would greatly benefit.

The cause for so much resistance and the need to voice it still
baffling.
It
is just a list of misspelled words. Why would this be so
disconcerting?

As always, except for the washer thing, thank you for the thoughtful
comments.


"Tony Jollans" wrote:

I'd have to agree with Suzanne here. Word Processing is what Word
does.
Just
because it uses words does not mean that it does, or should, provide
every
imaginable function that might also use words; before you know it
someone
will be suggesting that it solve crosswords.

It is generally true that adding essentially unrelated functionality
is
likely to bring problems. Imagine trying to add a dish-washing
facility
to
your washing machine; they both use water and detergent to get
things
clean,
so why not?

--
Enjoy,
Tony


"rndthought" wrote in message
...
Suzanne, spelling is Fundamental to this purpose. Period.

Again, why so much resistance and the need to voice it?


"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:

A word processor is a way for people who know what they want to
say
and
how
to say it to put those words on paper. Some of the functions you
mention
(such as automatic creation of TOCs) are fundamental to this
purpose.
Auto
formatting certainly facilitates it. Keep in mind that a huge
target
market
for Microsoft is "knowledge workers" (secretaries and the like)
and
executives in large corporations. They need to be able to create
letters
and
reports and easily and quickly as possible. It is assumed that
they
either
know how to spell or will depend on spell check to correct their
spelling.
I'll grant you that this is an unreasonable assumption in the
first
instance
and a dangerous one in the second, but there you have it.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the
newsgroup so
all may benefit.

"rndthought" wrote in
message
...
Suzanne,

You make a good observation in regards to trying to be all
things.
As
for
keeping MS Word from loosing sight of the "primary functions"
(or
focus)... I
believe even a cursory overview of the options and abilities
in
Word
show's
the ship has set sail (Invoicing with macros, auto creation of
TOC,
auto
formatting, Auto fill forms, creating HTML documents, altering
Image
attributes - all on a word processor???). It seems to me
that MS
Word
most
definitely has higher aspirations than that of a functioned
word
processor
or
computerize type writer.

If a spelling tutor, I like that term Suzanne, doesn't belong
in a
program
whose primary purpose is to type words in the creation of
documents,
presumably for purpose of communicating information
accurately...where
then?

This isn't a fundamental change in the program or a complete
change in
the
interface (which is coming in the next version)...simply an
option
(or
if
possible a macro as Greg has shown in a limited fashion) that
could be
enabled for those that wish to expand their spelling
abilities.
Why
so
much
resistance and need to voice it?

Thank you again for the thoughtful comments.

"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:

Where Word most often gets into trouble is through trying to
be
all
things
to all people. I don't imagine, however, that the Word
developers
will
ever
so far lose sight of the primary functions of Word as to
incorporate
features that make it a spelling tutor.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to
the
newsgroup so
all may benefit.

If you want to understand the reasoning behind the "fancy new interface," I
suggest you read Jensen Harris's series of blogs about the history of the
Word UI and the rationale for the new one. My reservations about the new UI
(aside from fears that it will be much more difficult for the ordinary
"power user" to customize) are that all of the developers' energy and
resources have gone into the UI, and very few of the features or bug fixes
that have been requested for several versions running will make it into this
version.

The base URL for Jensen's blog is http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/

The History category of blog topics
(http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archiv...ory/10948.aspx) includes a
series on "Why the New UI" that I think you'll find instructive.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so
all may benefit.

"Tony Jollans" My Forename at My Surname dot com wrote in message
...
Firstly, let me say I'd love to join you for a pint!

I see no real harm in your proposal - and perhaps benefit for some. What I
question is not whether it should be available, just whether it should be
available as standard in Word. I have, I suppose, two concerns: cost and
complexity.

Cost first. I don't have a company budget; I buy my own software and I
watch
the price climb every time a new version is released with a lot of bells
and
whistles I don't want. What I want from Word is a word processor (and I
know
we can argue about exactly what that means). What I don't want from Word
is
a web page designer or HTML editor, or a DTP program, or a graphics
editor.I
already have all of those including, in particular, FrontPage (although I
don't use it) and Publisher which are already in Office. I also don't
particularly want a spelling or grammar checker.

Leaving cost aside, every additional feature adds complexity. The more
complexity there is the more core functionality can be compromised. By and
large, Word does a pretty good job of most things but there is plenty
scope
for improvement. To veer off slightly, people seem to be getting excited
about the upcoming 'Word 12' but I haven't seen very much that suggests it
has significant improvements in word processing (numbering, for example,
seems to be the same old mess) - what it does have is a fancy new
interface.
The main reason for this is not really what the MS publicity engine is
telling us, it is to give Microsoft an excuse for rewriting and properly
integrating what has become a somewhat confused collection of
loosely-related features; that's a little bit cynical, but only a little
bit.

You make a fair point that Word already checks words in real time, but
that
does give a performance hit and there would be quite a bit more to fully
do
as you propose. That said, however, Word has an ever-improving interface
provided for code developers to write AddIns to perform almost any
function
imaginable and that is where I would see your idea fitting in. Working
with
the spell checker in code is not the easiest or error-free of options but
it
might be possible to go some way towards what you want. I will take a look
at what Greg has done - strictly for my own enjoyment of course.

Now, about that pint ....

--
Enjoy,
Tony


"rndthought" wrote in message
...
Tony,

I apologize for that opening remark. It didn't come across as I
intended.
I'm sorry.

That MS Word shouldn't do anything hasn't been any concern of mine.
All
of
you have attention focused on explaining what I'd like it to do! And
hopefully I've been respectful and friendly throughout with one
exception
to
you Tony.

First, MS Word already keeps track of every word you type and checks it
against the dictionary. There would be no additional over head there.

Second, to simply write a word to a file when either the auto correct is
fired or when the user makes a selection in the drop down list from
spell
checker would not seemingly over tax the system. Certainly trivial
compared
to the UNDO feature that is undetectable in the background.

Third, I do not know what you mean by effectively implement. All I've
mused
about is a simple misspelled word list that could be fed back into the
text
to voice feature that is already a feature in MS Word. I'll leave
grammar
enhancements to the grammar checker that is, again, already a feature in
MS
Word.

The more MS Word can do the better. (And it would seem every release
has
aspired to do much more than each previous release) But again all those
other things everyone has brought up (crosswords, poetry, insipid math
puzzles in the Daily, word peace) haven't been a concern of mine. The
points
were brought up simply to demonstrate it already does so much more than
"word
processing." So saying that a feature that deals with spelling is
ridiculous, I dare say, is ridiculous. MS Word is not a study aid.why
not?
Why not state MS Word isn't a HTML code writing tool, go use (whatever
MS
product is for that) or MS Word isn't a layout tool, go use MS Publisher
if
you want photos in a document. Why, because those features are there.
So
arguing that if a feature isn't already there then it should not be
included
just doesn't stand.

Am I correct that you, Suzanne, Greg, and now Daiya (hello) are opposed
because essentially: to produce a list of misspelled words would first,
over
tax the system and second, add too much additional cost to the product?

If we assume, for friendly discussion, no performance or cost issues,
that
then it would be an agreeable feature? If so then we'll be at agreement
and
I can go to bed thankful of some new acquaintances! If not, I'm still
going
to bed and I'd still by each of you a pint!

And no Tony, I don't believe the broadband parallel is much better. I
don't do HTML or pictures in documents and still HAVE TO (just for you
Greg
) take MS Word as it comes, and with no complaints! Eons better than
Word
Perfect 5 for which I spent 2x as much. Spelling is to word processing
as.

Thank you all.


"Tony Jollans" wrote:

I'm not going to quibble over words. Yes, I *choose* to agree with
Suzanne

I'm not sure that the argument that Word already does things it
probably
shouldn't is grounds for suggesting that it do more. In particular I
would
say that it should leave web page design to other dedicated software
(very
few people actually like what Word does with web pages and I've never
seen
it recommended as a tool for this). What it can do with images is
pretty
limited. What it does with embedded objects (not actually as much as
you
might think) is almost a requirement for the creation of many
documents.

I don't think it's a difficult point to argue, and the reason, of
course, is
that I enjoy a good argument :-) Word is not a study aid and what you
are
suggesting would put quite a heavy load on everyday activity; it would
have
to keep track of every word you typed and whether or not you corrected
it
(or maybe just changed it later - because not all misspellings result
in
invalid words) or it was autocorrected or it was picked up by the
spellchecker (or the grammar checker) - and if so, what you did with
it.
In
fact the more I think about what it would have to do to effectively
implement such a facility, the more I am certain it shouldn't be done.

OK - maybe the washer analogy was extreme, but the point stands. Word
does
a certain type of manipulation of words and other document content and
there
are other programs which do other types of manipulation. The more
that's
bundled together, the more it would cost to produce and to buy.
Perhaps
a
better analogy would be this: I have just got broadband Internet
access
and
I looked at the various packages that were available. I bought one for
£15 a
month. I could have bought one for £30 a month (AOL, say) but I didn't
want
most of the facilities (all, loosely, related to internet connection)
that
were included in the AOL package; I didn't want them running on my
machine
and I didn't want to pay for them. Your suggestion (not unreasonable
for
a
separately purchased addon) would be attractive to a fairly small
subset
of
current, or prospective, Word users but all would have to pay for it.

--
Enjoy,
Tony


"rndthought" wrote in message
...
Tony,

First, don't debase yourself. You do not "half to", you choose to.
Second,
neither you nor Suzanne has established how "word processing"
explicitly
excludes building a personalized list of misspelled words for
further
study,
personal development.

You and Suzanne have chosen a difficult point to argue (and for no
reason).
If MS Word can manipulate HTML with web page previews, embed Excel
tables
able to be edited from within the document and manipulate image
characteristics; the word processor has shattered the complexity
barrier
it
would take to build a simple list file - if the option was
selected -
of
misspelled words. The text to voice feature is already in place.
The
argument that my request would add too much complexity is simply
absurd
and
baseless. My suggestion is not unreasonable and certainly not close
to
the
horrible washer parallel. Trying to negate a "spelling is to word
processing" relationship? You will half to try very hard.

While MS Word is ubiquitous, not just CEOs and MPV use the program
daily
but
it is on essentially every school computer in my district, it is not
always
possible to rely on the crutch of spell check and auto replace in
the
real
word. This spelling tutor feature is one from which my children and
I
believe many children and adults would greatly benefit.

The cause for so much resistance and the need to voice it still
baffling.
It
is just a list of misspelled words. Why would this be so
disconcerting?

As always, except for the washer thing, thank you for the thoughtful
comments.


"Tony Jollans" wrote:

I'd have to agree with Suzanne here. Word Processing is what Word
does.
Just
because it uses words does not mean that it does, or should,
provide
every
imaginable function that might also use words; before you know it
someone
will be suggesting that it solve crosswords.

It is generally true that adding essentially unrelated
functionality
is
likely to bring problems. Imagine trying to add a dish-washing
facility
to
your washing machine; they both use water and detergent to get
things
clean,
so why not?

--
Enjoy,
Tony


"rndthought" wrote in
message
...
Suzanne, spelling is Fundamental to this purpose. Period.

Again, why so much resistance and the need to voice it?


"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:

A word processor is a way for people who know what they want
to
say
and
how
to say it to put those words on paper. Some of the functions
you
mention
(such as automatic creation of TOCs) are fundamental to this
purpose.
Auto
formatting certainly facilitates it. Keep in mind that a huge
target
market
for Microsoft is "knowledge workers" (secretaries and the
like)
and
executives in large corporations. They need to be able to
create
letters
and
reports and easily and quickly as possible. It is assumed that
they
either
know how to spell or will depend on spell check to correct
their
spelling.
I'll grant you that this is an unreasonable assumption in the
first
instance
and a dangerous one in the second, but there you have it.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to
the
newsgroup so
all may benefit.

"rndthought" wrote in
message
...
Suzanne,

You make a good observation in regards to trying to be all
things.
As
for
keeping MS Word from loosing sight of the "primary
functions"
(or
focus)... I
believe even a cursory overview of the options and abilities
in
Word
show's
the ship has set sail (Invoicing with macros, auto creation
of
TOC,
auto
formatting, Auto fill forms, creating HTML documents,
altering
Image
attributes - all on a word processor???). It seems to me
that MS
Word
most
definitely has higher aspirations than that of a functioned
word
processor
or
computerize type writer.

If a spelling tutor, I like that term Suzanne, doesn't
belong
in a
program
whose primary purpose is to type words in the creation of
documents,
presumably for purpose of communicating information
accurately...where
then?

This isn't a fundamental change in the program or a complete
change in
the
interface (which is coming in the next version)...simply an
option
(or
if
possible a macro as Greg has shown in a limited fashion)
that
could be
enabled for those that wish to expand their spelling
abilities.
Why
so
much
resistance and need to voice it?

Thank you again for the thoughtful comments.

"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:

Where Word most often gets into trouble is through trying
to
be
all
things
to all people. I don't imagine, however, that the Word
developers
will
ever
so far lose sight of the primary functions of Word as to
incorporate
features that make it a spelling tutor.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups
to
the
newsgroup so
all may benefit.