If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Body Text vs Normal
Hi,
My company has undergone a few mergers and I am now tasked with standardizing our style sheets across offices. I'd like some advice on this. The templates I have been using till now use "Normal" as body text rather than a specific style called "Body Text" or similar. (One of our offices uses "Body Text".) Most tech authors seem to advocate staying away from Normal, but I don't see any problem with it as long as you follow these simple rules: i. You base any styles you don't want to change if Normal changes on "no style" or another style. ii. If more than one person will work on the same master document, you EITHER give strict orders never to select "Automatically update document styles" in the Templates dialog box OR you make sure that everyone in the authoring team has the same definition of "Normal" in their "Normal" template OR you attach the document to a template on a shared network folder that you know will always be available, and in which the "Normal" style matches that of the document. I don't see any problem with copy/pasting from other documents or emails that use Normal, particularly with the latest versions of Word where you get a dropdown menu that allows you to choose whether to retain source or target formatting when you paste. To me this is easier than reformatting imported Normal text as Body Text. Even if somebody accidentally chooses "retain source formatting" when pasting, as far as I can see you can easily tidy this up by selecting "Automatically update document styles", saving, and then clearing this setting (or by selecting the offending text and clicking ctrl + space). Does this make sense? IMO, the arguments against using Normal are pretty weak. That said, I don't think the arguments against Body Text are strong either; six of one and half a dozen of the other. In any case, is there any good reason to use "Body Text", but still base it on "Normal"? I have seen this in some templates, but it just doesn't make any sense to me. Thanks, Adrian |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Body Text vs Normal
My case is at http://word.mvps.org/FAQs/Formatting...BodyStyles.htm
-- 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. "Adrian" wrote in message ... Hi, My company has undergone a few mergers and I am now tasked with standardizing our style sheets across offices. I'd like some advice on this. The templates I have been using till now use "Normal" as body text rather than a specific style called "Body Text" or similar. (One of our offices uses "Body Text".) Most tech authors seem to advocate staying away from Normal, but I don't see any problem with it as long as you follow these simple rules: i. You base any styles you don't want to change if Normal changes on "no style" or another style. ii. If more than one person will work on the same master document, you EITHER give strict orders never to select "Automatically update document styles" in the Templates dialog box OR you make sure that everyone in the authoring team has the same definition of "Normal" in their "Normal" template OR you attach the document to a template on a shared network folder that you know will always be available, and in which the "Normal" style matches that of the document. I don't see any problem with copy/pasting from other documents or emails that use Normal, particularly with the latest versions of Word where you get a dropdown menu that allows you to choose whether to retain source or target formatting when you paste. To me this is easier than reformatting imported Normal text as Body Text. Even if somebody accidentally chooses "retain source formatting" when pasting, as far as I can see you can easily tidy this up by selecting "Automatically update document styles", saving, and then clearing this setting (or by selecting the offending text and clicking ctrl + space). Does this make sense? IMO, the arguments against using Normal are pretty weak. That said, I don't think the arguments against Body Text are strong either; six of one and half a dozen of the other. In any case, is there any good reason to use "Body Text", but still base it on "Normal"? I have seen this in some templates, but it just doesn't make any sense to me. Thanks, Adrian |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Body Text vs Normal
Hi Adrian
Adrian wrote: The templates I have been using till now use "Normal" as body text rather than a specific style called "Body Text" or similar. (One of our offices uses "Body Text".) Most tech authors seem to advocate staying away from Normal, but I don't see any problem with it as long as you follow these simple rules: [..] IMO, the arguments against using Normal are pretty weak. That said, I don't think the arguments against Body Text are strong either; six of one and half a dozen of the other. In any case, is there any good reason to use "Body Text", but still base it on "Normal"? I have seen this in some templates, but it just doesn't make any sense to me. I personally prefer to use "Body Text", but I agree: you can certainly work both ways. [I used to define Normal as something like 16 pt purple, so that whenever I setup a template or work in a corresponding document, I quickly see whethere there's still some paragraph that hasn't been designated its proper style already. But this gets complicated when working with tables, esp. when you _try_ to work with table styles.] The biggest drawback about using normal productively is when you have to deal with documents containing a lot of textboxes and such. Almost 100%, Normal is assigned to their contents. Now, say, this document is pretty unstyled so far and you need to bring it in-line with your company's CI (as good as and ASAP). When you import another normal style from your template, or change it manually, all those textboxes might run havoc. Again, I agree, not a strong case ... :-) Greetinx Robert -- /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | MS \ / | MVP X Against HTML | for / \ in e-mail & news | Word |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Body Text vs Normal
I use Body Text. I would urge you to read Suzanne's short article as well as
the longer articles she links to. The http://www.mvps.org/word/FAQs/Custom...platePart2.htm is especially important if you are trying to build company-wide templates. Also, if automatic numbering will play a part in your templates, look at: How to create numbered headings or outline numbering in your Word document http://www.shaunakelly.com/word/numb...Numbering.html. (For bullets see http://www.shaunakelly.com/word/bull...olbullets.html, the subject is related.) This is based on ... Word's Numbering Explained http://www.mvps.org/word/FAQs/Number...gExplained.htm It sounds as if you already have a much better feel for styles and their importance than most. Good luck. -- Charles Kenyon Word New User FAQ & Web Directory: http://addbalance.com/word Intermediate User's Guide to Microsoft Word (supplemented version of Microsoft's Legal Users' Guide) http://addbalance.com/usersguide See also the MVP FAQ: http://word.mvps.org/FAQs/ which is awesome! --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- This message is posted to a newsgroup. Please post replies and questions to the newsgroup so that others can learn from my ignorance and your wisdom. "Adrian" wrote in message ... Hi, My company has undergone a few mergers and I am now tasked with standardizing our style sheets across offices. I'd like some advice on this. The templates I have been using till now use "Normal" as body text rather than a specific style called "Body Text" or similar. (One of our offices uses "Body Text".) Most tech authors seem to advocate staying away from Normal, but I don't see any problem with it as long as you follow these simple rules: i. You base any styles you don't want to change if Normal changes on "no style" or another style. ii. If more than one person will work on the same master document, you EITHER give strict orders never to select "Automatically update document styles" in the Templates dialog box OR you make sure that everyone in the authoring team has the same definition of "Normal" in their "Normal" template OR you attach the document to a template on a shared network folder that you know will always be available, and in which the "Normal" style matches that of the document. I don't see any problem with copy/pasting from other documents or emails that use Normal, particularly with the latest versions of Word where you get a dropdown menu that allows you to choose whether to retain source or target formatting when you paste. To me this is easier than reformatting imported Normal text as Body Text. Even if somebody accidentally chooses "retain source formatting" when pasting, as far as I can see you can easily tidy this up by selecting "Automatically update document styles", saving, and then clearing this setting (or by selecting the offending text and clicking ctrl + space). Does this make sense? IMO, the arguments against using Normal are pretty weak. That said, I don't think the arguments against Body Text are strong either; six of one and half a dozen of the other. In any case, is there any good reason to use "Body Text", but still base it on "Normal"? I have seen this in some templates, but it just doesn't make any sense to me. Thanks, Adrian |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Body Text vs Normal
Adrian wrote:
IMO, the arguments against using Normal are pretty weak. That said, I don't think the arguments against Body Text are strong either; six of one and half a dozen of the other. In any case, is there any good reason to use "Body Text", but still base it on "Normal"? I have seen this in some templates, but it just doesn't make any sense to me. The question really boils down to what you want to do, and what's the best (or most convenient) means to achieve that. And so I use Normal, because I want to maintain consistency if ever there's need to alter the font or formatting. But if I wanted styles to be completely independent, I would be sure to decouple them from the Normal style. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Body Text vs Normal
Thanks Charles,
I've already read all these great articles and will certainly be putting a fair number of their suggestions into practice. It's really just this pesky Normal vs Body Text thing that is niggling me :-) Cheers, Adrian "Charles Kenyon" wrote in message ... I use Body Text. I would urge you to read Suzanne's short article as well as the longer articles she links to. The http://www.mvps.org/word/FAQs/Custom...platePart2.htm is especially important if you are trying to build company-wide templates. Also, if automatic numbering will play a part in your templates, look at: How to create numbered headings or outline numbering in your Word document http://www.shaunakelly.com/word/numb...Numbering.html. (For bullets see http://www.shaunakelly.com/word/bull...olbullets.html, the subject is related.) This is based on ... Word's Numbering Explained http://www.mvps.org/word/FAQs/Number...gExplained.htm It sounds as if you already have a much better feel for styles and their importance than most. Good luck. -- Charles Kenyon Word New User FAQ & Web Directory: http://addbalance.com/word Intermediate User's Guide to Microsoft Word (supplemented version of Microsoft's Legal Users' Guide) http://addbalance.com/usersguide See also the MVP FAQ: http://word.mvps.org/FAQs/ which is awesome! --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- This message is posted to a newsgroup. Please post replies and questions to the newsgroup so that others can learn from my ignorance and your wisdom. "Adrian" wrote in message ... Hi, My company has undergone a few mergers and I am now tasked with standardizing our style sheets across offices. I'd like some advice on this. The templates I have been using till now use "Normal" as body text rather than a specific style called "Body Text" or similar. (One of our offices uses "Body Text".) Most tech authors seem to advocate staying away from Normal, but I don't see any problem with it as long as you follow these simple rules: i. You base any styles you don't want to change if Normal changes on "no style" or another style. ii. If more than one person will work on the same master document, you EITHER give strict orders never to select "Automatically update document styles" in the Templates dialog box OR you make sure that everyone in the authoring team has the same definition of "Normal" in their "Normal" template OR you attach the document to a template on a shared network folder that you know will always be available, and in which the "Normal" style matches that of the document. I don't see any problem with copy/pasting from other documents or emails that use Normal, particularly with the latest versions of Word where you get a dropdown menu that allows you to choose whether to retain source or target formatting when you paste. To me this is easier than reformatting imported Normal text as Body Text. Even if somebody accidentally chooses "retain source formatting" when pasting, as far as I can see you can easily tidy this up by selecting "Automatically update document styles", saving, and then clearing this setting (or by selecting the offending text and clicking ctrl + space). Does this make sense? IMO, the arguments against using Normal are pretty weak. That said, I don't think the arguments against Body Text are strong either; six of one and half a dozen of the other. In any case, is there any good reason to use "Body Text", but still base it on "Normal"? I have seen this in some templates, but it just doesn't make any sense to me. Thanks, Adrian |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Body Text vs Normal
Thanks Suzanne. I saw your FAQ already, but all of its arguments are based
on the assumption that the default styles are based on Normal, whereas I am suggesting breaking this link to Normal for all styles in your document (unless you do really want a style to change if Normal is changed). I am not saying using Normal has any benefits over Body Text, just that I am not convinced by the arguments against using Normal. The biggest argument I can think of against Normal so far is exactly the fact that I would have to spend 30 mins breaking the link to it in all the default styles :-) Thanks, Adrian "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote in message ... My case is at http://word.mvps.org/FAQs/Formatting...BodyStyles.htm -- 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. "Adrian" wrote in message ... Hi, My company has undergone a few mergers and I am now tasked with standardizing our style sheets across offices. I'd like some advice on this. The templates I have been using till now use "Normal" as body text rather than a specific style called "Body Text" or similar. (One of our offices uses "Body Text".) Most tech authors seem to advocate staying away from Normal, but I don't see any problem with it as long as you follow these simple rules: i. You base any styles you don't want to change if Normal changes on "no style" or another style. ii. If more than one person will work on the same master document, you EITHER give strict orders never to select "Automatically update document styles" in the Templates dialog box OR you make sure that everyone in the authoring team has the same definition of "Normal" in their "Normal" template OR you attach the document to a template on a shared network folder that you know will always be available, and in which the "Normal" style matches that of the document. I don't see any problem with copy/pasting from other documents or emails that use Normal, particularly with the latest versions of Word where you get a dropdown menu that allows you to choose whether to retain source or target formatting when you paste. To me this is easier than reformatting imported Normal text as Body Text. Even if somebody accidentally chooses "retain source formatting" when pasting, as far as I can see you can easily tidy this up by selecting "Automatically update document styles", saving, and then clearing this setting (or by selecting the offending text and clicking ctrl + space). Does this make sense? IMO, the arguments against using Normal are pretty weak. That said, I don't think the arguments against Body Text are strong either; six of one and half a dozen of the other. In any case, is there any good reason to use "Body Text", but still base it on "Normal"? I have seen this in some templates, but it just doesn't make any sense to me. Thanks, Adrian |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Body Text vs Normal
I explicitly do want the styles to be based on Normal (at least on the
Normal font), and I want Normal to remain "plain-vanilla" so that I have something unformatted to fall back on. Since Body Text by default has some Spacing After, I need to have a style that doesn't. Or, in many documents I format Body Text (and its derivatives) with Exactly 24-pt. line spacing, but I want Normal to be single-spaced. -- 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. "Adrian" wrote in message ... Thanks Suzanne. I saw your FAQ already, but all of its arguments are based on the assumption that the default styles are based on Normal, whereas I am suggesting breaking this link to Normal for all styles in your document (unless you do really want a style to change if Normal is changed). I am not saying using Normal has any benefits over Body Text, just that I am not convinced by the arguments against using Normal. The biggest argument I can think of against Normal so far is exactly the fact that I would have to spend 30 mins breaking the link to it in all the default styles :-) Thanks, Adrian "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote in message ... My case is at http://word.mvps.org/FAQs/Formatting...BodyStyles.htm -- 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. "Adrian" wrote in message ... Hi, My company has undergone a few mergers and I am now tasked with standardizing our style sheets across offices. I'd like some advice on this. The templates I have been using till now use "Normal" as body text rather than a specific style called "Body Text" or similar. (One of our offices uses "Body Text".) Most tech authors seem to advocate staying away from Normal, but I don't see any problem with it as long as you follow these simple rules: i. You base any styles you don't want to change if Normal changes on "no style" or another style. ii. If more than one person will work on the same master document, you EITHER give strict orders never to select "Automatically update document styles" in the Templates dialog box OR you make sure that everyone in the authoring team has the same definition of "Normal" in their "Normal" template OR you attach the document to a template on a shared network folder that you know will always be available, and in which the "Normal" style matches that of the document. I don't see any problem with copy/pasting from other documents or emails that use Normal, particularly with the latest versions of Word where you get a dropdown menu that allows you to choose whether to retain source or target formatting when you paste. To me this is easier than reformatting imported Normal text as Body Text. Even if somebody accidentally chooses "retain source formatting" when pasting, as far as I can see you can easily tidy this up by selecting "Automatically update document styles", saving, and then clearing this setting (or by selecting the offending text and clicking ctrl + space). Does this make sense? IMO, the arguments against using Normal are pretty weak. That said, I don't think the arguments against Body Text are strong either; six of one and half a dozen of the other. In any case, is there any good reason to use "Body Text", but still base it on "Normal"? I have seen this in some templates, but it just doesn't make any sense to me. Thanks, Adrian |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Body Text vs Normal
Thanks for your reply Robert.
Regarding having to reformat docs that have text boxes, let's assume that, like you say, the author chose to use Normal for such text boxes. Now, if my template body text is "Body Text" and I don't want Normal in my documents, I'm going to have to reformat these text boxes anyway, right? Either changing them to "Body Text" and troubleshooting any resulting text box spacing/cutoff problems OR changing them to another style e.g. a user-defined "Body TextBox" style so I can control their formatting independently. I don't see this as being any different than having my body text as "Normal" and doing the same thing ie. troubleshooting text box problems or changing to another style all together. Maybe I am missing the point of what you are saying? Thanks, Adrian "Robert M. Franz (RMF)" wrote in message ... Hi Adrian Adrian wrote: The templates I have been using till now use "Normal" as body text rather than a specific style called "Body Text" or similar. (One of our offices uses "Body Text".) Most tech authors seem to advocate staying away from Normal, but I don't see any problem with it as long as you follow these simple rules: [..] IMO, the arguments against using Normal are pretty weak. That said, I don't think the arguments against Body Text are strong either; six of one and half a dozen of the other. In any case, is there any good reason to use "Body Text", but still base it on "Normal"? I have seen this in some templates, but it just doesn't make any sense to me. I personally prefer to use "Body Text", but I agree: you can certainly work both ways. [I used to define Normal as something like 16 pt purple, so that whenever I setup a template or work in a corresponding document, I quickly see whethere there's still some paragraph that hasn't been designated its proper style already. But this gets complicated when working with tables, esp. when you _try_ to work with table styles.] The biggest drawback about using normal productively is when you have to deal with documents containing a lot of textboxes and such. Almost 100%, Normal is assigned to their contents. Now, say, this document is pretty unstyled so far and you need to bring it in-line with your company's CI (as good as and ASAP). When you import another normal style from your template, or change it manually, all those textboxes might run havoc. Again, I agree, not a strong case ... :-) Greetinx Robert -- /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | MS \ / | MVP X Against HTML | for / \ in e-mail & news | Word |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Body Text vs Normal
Hi Adrian,
I have made a standard practice of using Body Text and leaving Normal alone as thoroughly as possible for some years, since I discovered that if you set Normal to have anything other than 0pt paragraph spacing before & after, envelopes tend to come out printed double-spaced. I decided that as I could never tell when someone would attempt to select an address in a document based on any kind of template and print an envelope from it, I was far better off not having to remember to explicitly include all the envelope styles in my templates and set them back to 0pt paragraph spacing. In addition, if you attempt to use Table styles, (I rarely do because many of my customers still require Office 2000 compatibility) I understand the Table style definitions sometimes go all strange on you if the Normal style is set away from the factory default. -- 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 "Adrian" wrote in message ... Hi, My company has undergone a few mergers and I am now tasked with standardizing our style sheets across offices. I'd like some advice on this. The templates I have been using till now use "Normal" as body text rather than a specific style called "Body Text" or similar. (One of our offices uses "Body Text".) Most tech authors seem to advocate staying away from Normal, but I don't see any problem with it as long as you follow these simple rules: i. You base any styles you don't want to change if Normal changes on "no style" or another style. ii. If more than one person will work on the same master document, you EITHER give strict orders never to select "Automatically update document styles" in the Templates dialog box OR you make sure that everyone in the authoring team has the same definition of "Normal" in their "Normal" template OR you attach the document to a template on a shared network folder that you know will always be available, and in which the "Normal" style matches that of the document. I don't see any problem with copy/pasting from other documents or emails that use Normal, particularly with the latest versions of Word where you get a dropdown menu that allows you to choose whether to retain source or target formatting when you paste. To me this is easier than reformatting imported Normal text as Body Text. Even if somebody accidentally chooses "retain source formatting" when pasting, as far as I can see you can easily tidy this up by selecting "Automatically update document styles", saving, and then clearing this setting (or by selecting the offending text and clicking ctrl + space). Does this make sense? IMO, the arguments against using Normal are pretty weak. That said, I don't think the arguments against Body Text are strong either; six of one and half a dozen of the other. In any case, is there any good reason to use "Body Text", but still base it on "Normal"? I have seen this in some templates, but it just doesn't make any sense to me. Thanks, Adrian |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Newbie Looking for Help | Little Penny | Using Forms | 6 | December 27th, 2005 08:33 PM |
Word applies direct format on File open | Uriel | General Discussion | 16 | November 27th, 2005 07:22 PM |
Is Access even the right idea? | BMB | New Users | 19 | November 21st, 2005 08:01 PM |
Add New Field to DB | Karen | Database Design | 7 | October 19th, 2005 08:03 PM |
Access reports with a horizontal line after each record??? | Bill via AccessMonster.com | Setting Up & Running Reports | 6 | March 9th, 2005 04:51 PM |