Normal.dot versus blank document template

I have been involved in several discussions regarding this recently and
would like to try and clear this up. My firm hold the normal.dot (and
all other templates) in a central templates folder on our network.
Each user has a copy on their C drive which updates every day when they
log on. This means if the network crashes they can still work with
their template(s). Normal.dot contains all of our macros, styles,
autotexts etc. When I update I simply update the master version and
this is replicated to each pc. This means if a user's normal.dot gets
damaged it can be copied from the master, and if something goes wrong
with the master I can copy my (or someone else's c drive version).

This seems to work well but everything I read tells me we shouldn't use
normal.dot as our blank document - can anyone tell me a good reason
why we should change?

thanks

"everything I read tells me we shouldn't use normal.dot as our blank
document"

Can you give an example of something you've read that tells you this?
Normal.dot is the default "blank document", by definition. Perhaps you've
misunderstood suggestions about not putting stuff into the headers and
footers of normal.dot, eg to use it as the standard company letterhead or
similar (which is indeed good advice). But if you just want a plain blank
document, there's no need to complicate matters.

Previous firms I've worked with worked with two templates (blank and
normal) and during a VBA training course yesterday the trainer
recommended this. I then looked at previous posts on here and found
suggestions for both methods. Perhaps as you say I have misunderstood
these posts and the blank document template has contained 'add-ins' or
similar.

Previous firms I've worked with worked with two templates (blank and
normal) and during a VBA training course yesterday the trainer
recommended this. I then looked at previous posts on here and found
suggestions for both methods. Perhaps as you say I have misunderstood
these posts and the blank document template has contained 'add-ins' or
similar.

Hi Jacqueline:

No, I don't think you have misunderstood. This is a vexed question, and
posed with the exact constraints you have, I struggle to find a clear choice
in advising you.

The benefit of using Normal for this purpose a
* It gives you only one file to maintain
* Word starts faster and performs better because it has only one file to
load and hold in memory
* VBA is massively simpler to write because Normal does not suffer from the
context-switching that other files do. Normal is *always* in scope.
* Toolbars and other customisations are *always* available to *all*
documents. Again, because Normal never goes out of scope.

The drawbacks include:
* You blow away the user's customisations every time you update.
* You can't have things "disappear" when the user doesn't need/can't
use/shouldn't use them.
* The user is also writing to your file, regularly and frequently. That
will lead to conflicts and corruptions.
* The brighter and more valuable the user, the more likely they are to be
offended by this behaviour. They will then either fight you, or leave.

The IT department is a "service and support" department. It is there to
"serve" and "support" the users. It should NOT be attempting to "control"
the users (OK, you have to make some exceptions for security, but this is
not one of them :-)) If the users start to "fight" you, IT department will
rapidly lose the battle -- there are more of them than there are IT staff --
collectively, they're smarter and quicker :-)

I suggest that with a very little effort, we could be a lot "nicer" about
this. For example, we could add one line of code to your distribution
script that checks the file last saved date on the user's copy. Replace
their file only if the new one is more recent.

You could put a run-once macro in your Normal.dot that pops up a dialog when
the user starts Word: "Your Normal template has been replaced. Your old
version has been re-named as "Normal.old". If you had customised settings,
please copy them from the old version to the new version. Click here to see
how to do this."

You could be even nicer, and make your run-once macro actually perform the
merge for them :-)

As to the discussion between "Normal" and "Blank Document", I wonder if
there is some confusion the not in your mind, but in the minds of your
instructors.

In Word 2002 and later, a "Blank Document" icon appeared on the toolbar.
This button does NOT necessarily create documents from Normal.dot. There
are specific circumstances under which Normal.dot may not exist in these
applications. If it doesn't, the blank document is produced directly from
Word's hard-coded defaults. That may be what they were referring to.

Hope this helps

On 15/3/06 1:27 AM, in article
, "Jacqueline"
wrote:

Previous firms I've worked with worked with two templates (blank and
normal) and during a VBA training course yesterday the trainer
recommended this. I then looked at previous posts on here and found
suggestions for both methods. Perhaps as you say I have misunderstood
these posts and the blank document template has contained 'add-ins' or
similar.


--

Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie
Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Consultant Technical Writer
Sydney, Australia +61 (0) 4 1209 1410

A well written summary.

In Word 2002 and later, a "Blank Document" icon appeared on the toolbar.
This button does NOT necessarily create documents from Normal.dot. There
are specific circumstances under which Normal.dot may not exist in these
applications. If it doesn't, the blank document is produced directly from
Word's hard-coded defaults. That may be what they were referring to.

New icon in 2002? Which toolbar?

I was under the impression that, no matter what, a Normal.dot always
existed - at least in memory. Under what circumstances is this not the case?

--
Enjoy,
Tony

Hi Tony:

It's on the Standard toolbar, I think. It's labelled "Blank Document"
instead of "New Document", from memory.

Yes, the Normal Template data structure always exists in memory. What I
meant was that the "file" Normal.dot does not always exist. I must admit
that I have never seen a case where it actually didn't. But that's because
in Australia, chances are the first thing we do is change the default
spelling languages from English US, and that would automatically populate
the Normal Template structure with a user specification, which will force
creation of a file.

Cheers


On 16/3/06 12:35 AM, in article , "Tony
Jollans" My Forename at My Surname dot com wrote:

A well written summary.

In Word 2002 and later, a "Blank Document" icon appeared on the toolbar.
This button does NOT necessarily create documents from Normal.dot. There
are specific circumstances under which Normal.dot may not exist in these
applications. If it doesn't, the blank document is produced directly from
Word's hard-coded defaults. That may be what they were referring to.

New icon in 2002? Which toolbar?

I was under the impression that, no matter what, a Normal.dot always
existed - at least in memory. Under what circumstances is this not the case?

--
Enjoy,
Tony



--

Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie
Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Consultant Technical Writer
Sydney, Australia +61 (0) 4 1209 1410

Hi Jacqueline:

I would say your firm has it close to exactly correct.

My only quibble would be that each time you copy Normal.dot in, you blow
away all of the users' carefully-created customisations :-) I doubt if that
would do much for staff morale -- most users passionately hate being treated
like that.

However, apart from destroying staff morale, "technically" your method is
exactly correct. The Normal template is designed and intended to be the
blank document, and to be used as such.

The method you are using is dramatically simpler to code, administer, and
maintain! And very reliable.

I don't know what you've been reading, but I think I would throw it in the
round file :-)

If your firm is a heavy user of macros and toolbars, you might "consider"
putting those in a global add-in. You can administer that exactly the same
way: put it on the network and copy it to the user's Word/Startup folder
each time you update it.

In your situation, there's no real benefit in doing this, other than the
fact that a global add-in is not subject to constant change by normal Word
usage, so it will last longer between "damages". It would also mean you did
not need to blow the user's customisations away every morning :-)

Hope this helps

On 14/3/06 9:57 PM, in article
, "Jacqueline"
wrote:

I have been involved in several discussions regarding this recently and
would like to try and clear this up. My firm hold the normal.dot (and
all other templates) in a central templates folder on our network.
Each user has a copy on their C drive which updates every day when they
log on. This means if the network crashes they can still work with
their template(s). Normal.dot contains all of our macros, styles,
autotexts etc. When I update I simply update the master version and
this is replicated to each pc. This means if a user's normal.dot gets
damaged it can be copied from the master, and if something goes wrong
with the master I can copy my (or someone else's c drive version).

This seems to work well but everything I read tells me we shouldn't use
normal.dot as our blank document - can anyone tell me a good reason
why we should change?

thanks


--

Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie
Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Consultant Technical Writer
Sydney, Australia +61 (0) 4 1209 1410

... most users passionately hate being treated like that....

Seconded.

If your, or any other IT department, tried to overwrite my Normal.dot I
would build my own process to make sure I got it back. I have been fighting
this total failure of IT departments to understand users since the days of
mainframes - they couldn't impose central control over designed-in user
customization facilities then and they can't do it now - and trying to do so
shows ignorance and arrogance.

--
Enjoy,
Tony

"John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]" wrote in
message ...
Hi Jacqueline:

I would say your firm has it close to exactly correct.

My only quibble would be that each time you copy Normal.dot in, you blow
away all of the users' carefully-created customisations :-) I doubt if
that
would do much for staff morale -- most users passionately hate being
treated
like that.

However, apart from destroying staff morale, "technically" your method is
exactly correct. The Normal template is designed and intended to be the
blank document, and to be used as such.

The method you are using is dramatically simpler to code, administer, and
maintain! And very reliable.

I don't know what you've been reading, but I think I would throw it in the
round file :-)

If your firm is a heavy user of macros and toolbars, you might "consider"
putting those in a global add-in. You can administer that exactly the
same
way: put it on the network and copy it to the user's Word/Startup folder
each time you update it.

In your situation, there's no real benefit in doing this, other than the
fact that a global add-in is not subject to constant change by normal Word
usage, so it will last longer between "damages". It would also mean you
did
not need to blow the user's customisations away every morning :-)

Hope this helps

On 14/3/06 9:57 PM, in article
, "Jacqueline"
wrote:

I have been involved in several discussions regarding this recently and
would like to try and clear this up. My firm hold the normal.dot (and
all other templates) in a central templates folder on our network.
Each user has a copy on their C drive which updates every day when they
log on. This means if the network crashes they can still work with
their template(s). Normal.dot contains all of our macros, styles,
autotexts etc. When I update I simply update the master version and
this is replicated to each pc. This means if a user's normal.dot gets
damaged it can be copied from the master, and if something goes wrong
with the master I can copy my (or someone else's c drive version).

This seems to work well but everything I read tells me we shouldn't use
normal.dot as our blank document - can anyone tell me a good reason
why we should change?

thanks


--

Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie
Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Consultant Technical Writer
Sydney, Australia +61 (0) 4 1209 1410

"Jacqueline" wrote in message
oups.com...
I have been involved in several discussions regarding this recently and
would like to try and clear this up. My firm hold the normal.dot (and
all other templates) in a central templates folder on our network.
Each user has a copy on their C drive which updates every day when they
log on. This means if the network crashes they can still work with
their template(s). Normal.dot contains all of our macros, styles,
autotexts etc. When I update I simply update the master version and
this is replicated to each pc. This means if a user's normal.dot gets
damaged it can be copied from the master, and if something goes wrong
with the master I can copy my (or someone else's c drive version).

This seems to work well but everything I read tells me we shouldn't use
normal.dot as our blank document - can anyone tell me a good reason
why we should change?


Hi Jacqueline

In addition to what John said, this article will also help you work out the
best approach for storing and distributing macros.

Distributing macros to other users
http://www.word.mvps.org/FAQs/Macros...buteMacros.htm


--
Regards
Jonathan West - Word MVP
www.intelligentdocuments.co.uk
Please reply to the newsgroup
Keep your VBA code safe, sign the ClassicVB petition www.classicvb.org