A Microsoft Office (Excel, Word) forum. OfficeFrustration

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.

Go Back   Home » OfficeFrustration forum » Microsoft Word » General Discussion
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read  

Word should catalog misspelled words to study.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old December 7th, 2005, 06:55 PM posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Word should catalog misspelled words to study.

Yes I keep up to date on that blog. And I do accept, in part, the rationale
for the new UI but I see more benefit to MS from a redesign than I really
do to customers en masse.

As (I thought) I said and as you seem to to also be saying, the new UI seems
to be all there is - there isn't any news of real feature correction or
improvement or addition.

--
Enjoy,
Tony


"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote in message
...
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.














  #32  
Old December 8th, 2005, 12:29 AM posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Word should catalog misspelled words to study.

I think the new UI will be much more helpful to new users and casual users
than to established users. I am told, however (and must accept, since I
haven't yet had a chance to play with it), that users tend to resist the new
UI at first but surprisingly quickly come to be comfortable with it and love
it. Usability studies have been very encouraging, I'm told. Time will tell.
Many corporate giants are still using Office 2000 because the UI change in
Office XP was too much for them; this dramatic paradigm shift will really
rock their world!

--
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
...
Yes I keep up to date on that blog. And I do accept, in part, the

rationale
for the new UI but I see more benefit to MS from a redesign than I really
do to customers en masse.

As (I thought) I said and as you seem to to also be saying, the new UI

seems
to be all there is - there isn't any news of real feature correction or
improvement or addition.

--
Enjoy,
Tony


"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote in message
...
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.















  #33  
Old December 8th, 2005, 11:09 AM posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Word should catalog misspelled words to study.

There are aspects of this that I find very interesting. I remember the first
time I used Word (in 1994). I worked as an IT professional and had
previously used PCs (and WordPerfect for DOS) - the only unfamiliar thing to
me was the GUI and the mouse. I found it extremely difficult to get used to
the mouse and all the different things I could click (very few by modern
standards) and routinely clicked in the wrong place. Over time I have
adapted to the ever more complex interfaces and I'm sure I will adapt to the
new one, but I see beginners completely confused by what they can do and
unable to recall how to do what I consider basic. I hope the new UI helps
them both to work more easily and to produce better documents in the
process; I'm still not sure what if offers to experienced users. Time, as
you say, will tell.

--
Enjoy,
Tony


"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote in message
...
I think the new UI will be much more helpful to new users and casual users
than to established users. I am told, however (and must accept, since I
haven't yet had a chance to play with it), that users tend to resist the

new
UI at first but surprisingly quickly come to be comfortable with it and

love
it. Usability studies have been very encouraging, I'm told. Time will

tell.
Many corporate giants are still using Office 2000 because the UI change in
Office XP was too much for them; this dramatic paradigm shift will really
rock their world!

--
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
...
Yes I keep up to date on that blog. And I do accept, in part, the

rationale
for the new UI but I see more benefit to MS from a redesign than I

really
do to customers en masse.

As (I thought) I said and as you seem to to also be saying, the new UI

seems
to be all there is - there isn't any news of real feature correction or
improvement or addition.

--
Enjoy,
Tony


"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote in message
...
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.

















  #34  
Old December 8th, 2005, 03:41 PM posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Word should catalog misspelled words to study.

I well remember what happened when my dad first tried to use TurboTax on my
computer. He has an IBM PS/2 and had been using TurboTax for DOS until
Intuit stopped making it. My version, of course, was for Windows and
required use of the mouse. He has a mouse with his computer, but I hadn't
realized that he never used it and didn't know how. I belatedly realized
that he was pointing the mouse at the text box where he wanted to enter
numbers and then typing, but, since he hadn't clicked first, the insertion
point was still somewhere else on the screen even though the mouse pointer
was where he wanted to type. What a mess!

In future, I had him sit beside me and feed me the numbers, which I input.

--
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
...
There are aspects of this that I find very interesting. I remember the

first
time I used Word (in 1994). I worked as an IT professional and had
previously used PCs (and WordPerfect for DOS) - the only unfamiliar thing

to
me was the GUI and the mouse. I found it extremely difficult to get used

to
the mouse and all the different things I could click (very few by modern
standards) and routinely clicked in the wrong place. Over time I have
adapted to the ever more complex interfaces and I'm sure I will adapt to

the
new one, but I see beginners completely confused by what they can do and
unable to recall how to do what I consider basic. I hope the new UI helps
them both to work more easily and to produce better documents in the
process; I'm still not sure what if offers to experienced users. Time, as
you say, will tell.

--
Enjoy,
Tony


"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote in message
...
I think the new UI will be much more helpful to new users and casual

users
than to established users. I am told, however (and must accept, since I
haven't yet had a chance to play with it), that users tend to resist the

new
UI at first but surprisingly quickly come to be comfortable with it and

love
it. Usability studies have been very encouraging, I'm told. Time will

tell.
Many corporate giants are still using Office 2000 because the UI change

in
Office XP was too much for them; this dramatic paradigm shift will

really
rock their world!

--
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
...
Yes I keep up to date on that blog. And I do accept, in part, the

rationale
for the new UI but I see more benefit to MS from a redesign than I

really
do to customers en masse.

As (I thought) I said and as you seem to to also be saying, the new UI

seems
to be all there is - there isn't any news of real feature correction

or
improvement or addition.

--
Enjoy,
Tony


"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote in message
...
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.


















  #35  
Old December 8th, 2005, 05:43 PM posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Word should catalog misspelled words to study.

My Dad's a bit like that :-)

I think he's doing fine and he seems to get by, but then he rings me up with
a really simple problem and I have to be very slow and precise with any
instructions I give him - it doesn't help that he has everything so large on
the screen in order to see it that there is actually very little content. I
keep meaning to see if I can somehow access his PC over the web but never
get round to it.

--
Enjoy,
Tony


"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote in message
...
I well remember what happened when my dad first tried to use TurboTax on

my
computer. He has an IBM PS/2 and had been using TurboTax for DOS until
Intuit stopped making it. My version, of course, was for Windows and
required use of the mouse. He has a mouse with his computer, but I hadn't
realized that he never used it and didn't know how. I belatedly realized
that he was pointing the mouse at the text box where he wanted to enter
numbers and then typing, but, since he hadn't clicked first, the insertion
point was still somewhere else on the screen even though the mouse pointer
was where he wanted to type. What a mess!

In future, I had him sit beside me and feed me the numbers, which I input.

--
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
...
There are aspects of this that I find very interesting. I remember the

first
time I used Word (in 1994). I worked as an IT professional and had
previously used PCs (and WordPerfect for DOS) - the only unfamiliar

thing
to
me was the GUI and the mouse. I found it extremely difficult to get used

to
the mouse and all the different things I could click (very few by modern
standards) and routinely clicked in the wrong place. Over time I have
adapted to the ever more complex interfaces and I'm sure I will adapt to

the
new one, but I see beginners completely confused by what they can do and
unable to recall how to do what I consider basic. I hope the new UI

helps
them both to work more easily and to produce better documents in the
process; I'm still not sure what if offers to experienced users. Time,

as
you say, will tell.

--
Enjoy,
Tony


"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote in message
...
I think the new UI will be much more helpful to new users and casual

users
than to established users. I am told, however (and must accept, since

I
haven't yet had a chance to play with it), that users tend to resist

the
new
UI at first but surprisingly quickly come to be comfortable with it

and
love
it. Usability studies have been very encouraging, I'm told. Time will

tell.
Many corporate giants are still using Office 2000 because the UI

change
in
Office XP was too much for them; this dramatic paradigm shift will

really
rock their world!

--
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
...
Yes I keep up to date on that blog. And I do accept, in part, the
rationale
for the new UI but I see more benefit to MS from a redesign than I

really
do to customers en masse.

As (I thought) I said and as you seem to to also be saying, the new

UI
seems
to be all there is - there isn't any news of real feature correction

or
improvement or addition.

--
Enjoy,
Tony


"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote in message
...
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.




















  #36  
Old January 23rd, 2008, 03:28 AM posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
Dilbert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Word should catalog misspelled words to study.

I agree. WORD is too complex already.

BUT,

I'd really like to have the option of removing a few "correct" spellings
from the dictionary.

Fro some reason, I just can't type the word fro - fro- (I mean FOR).
Word likes "fro" but if any us are being poetic, it is easy to ADD words to
the dictionary.

Just impossible to remove pesky ones.
--
-Dilbert


"Jay Freedman" wrote:

rndthought wrote:
For the purpose of becoming a better speller, Word should have the
option to catalog misspelled words. Words that the user more
commonly typed correctly can be treated as "mistypes" and removed
from the list. Then one could come back to this list for further
study. Maybe a simple interface that can print a study list and does
a spelling test type routine: Computer says the word, you type the
word. Maybe even have a Typing Practice interface that takes the
common mistypes and builds a practice routine to improve typing
skills.


I don't agree that Word should be cluttered with this sort of thing. If you
want a typing tutor, look for the "Mavis Beason Teaches Typing" program from
Broderbund.

--
Regards,
Jay Freedman
Microsoft Word MVP FAQ: http://word.mvps.org



  #37  
Old January 23rd, 2008, 04:24 AM posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
Suzanne S. Barnhill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31,786
Default Word should catalog misspelled words to study.

This option already exists. See
http://word.mvps.org/FAQs/General/Ex...ordFromDic.htm

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

"Dilbert" wrote in message
...
I agree. WORD is too complex already.

BUT,

I'd really like to have the option of removing a few "correct" spellings
from the dictionary.

Fro some reason, I just can't type the word fro - fro- (I mean FOR).
Word likes "fro" but if any us are being poetic, it is easy to ADD words
to
the dictionary.

Just impossible to remove pesky ones.
--
-Dilbert


"Jay Freedman" wrote:

rndthought wrote:
For the purpose of becoming a better speller, Word should have the
option to catalog misspelled words. Words that the user more
commonly typed correctly can be treated as "mistypes" and removed
from the list. Then one could come back to this list for further
study. Maybe a simple interface that can print a study list and does
a spelling test type routine: Computer says the word, you type the
word. Maybe even have a Typing Practice interface that takes the
common mistypes and builds a practice routine to improve typing
skills.


I don't agree that Word should be cluttered with this sort of thing. If
you
want a typing tutor, look for the "Mavis Beason Teaches Typing" program
from
Broderbund.

--
Regards,
Jay Freedman
Microsoft Word MVP FAQ: http://word.mvps.org





  #38  
Old January 23rd, 2008, 06:05 PM posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
Dilbert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Word should catalog misspelled words to study.

GREAT.
Thank you!

Now is there any way top solve the same problem in Outlook?
It must not share the same dictionaries.
--
-Dilbert


"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:

This option already exists. See
http://word.mvps.org/FAQs/General/Ex...ordFromDic.htm

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

"Dilbert" wrote in message
...
I agree. WORD is too complex already.

BUT,

I'd really like to have the option of removing a few "correct" spellings
from the dictionary.

Fro some reason, I just can't type the word fro - fro- (I mean FOR).
Word likes "fro" but if any us are being poetic, it is easy to ADD words
to
the dictionary.

Just impossible to remove pesky ones.
--
-Dilbert


"Jay Freedman" wrote:

rndthought wrote:
For the purpose of becoming a better speller, Word should have the
option to catalog misspelled words. Words that the user more
commonly typed correctly can be treated as "mistypes" and removed
from the list. Then one could come back to this list for further
study. Maybe a simple interface that can print a study list and does
a spelling test type routine: Computer says the word, you type the
word. Maybe even have a Typing Practice interface that takes the
common mistypes and builds a practice routine to improve typing
skills.

I don't agree that Word should be cluttered with this sort of thing. If
you
want a typing tutor, look for the "Mavis Beason Teaches Typing" program
from
Broderbund.

--
Regards,
Jay Freedman
Microsoft Word MVP FAQ: http://word.mvps.org






  #39  
Old January 24th, 2008, 12:53 AM posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
Suzanne S. Barnhill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31,786
Default Word should catalog misspelled words to study.

I think Outlook does use the same dictionary but perhaps is not capable of
using an exclusion dictionary. But you'd need to ask in an Outlook NG.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

"Dilbert" wrote in message
...
GREAT.
Thank you!

Now is there any way top solve the same problem in Outlook?
It must not share the same dictionaries.
--
-Dilbert


"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:

This option already exists. See
http://word.mvps.org/FAQs/General/Ex...ordFromDic.htm

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

"Dilbert" wrote in message
...
I agree. WORD is too complex already.

BUT,

I'd really like to have the option of removing a few "correct"
spellings
from the dictionary.

Fro some reason, I just can't type the word fro - fro- (I mean FOR).
Word likes "fro" but if any us are being poetic, it is easy to ADD
words
to
the dictionary.

Just impossible to remove pesky ones.
--
-Dilbert


"Jay Freedman" wrote:

rndthought wrote:
For the purpose of becoming a better speller, Word should have the
option to catalog misspelled words. Words that the user more
commonly typed correctly can be treated as "mistypes" and removed
from the list. Then one could come back to this list for further
study. Maybe a simple interface that can print a study list and
does
a spelling test type routine: Computer says the word, you type the
word. Maybe even have a Typing Practice interface that takes the
common mistypes and builds a practice routine to improve typing
skills.

I don't agree that Word should be cluttered with this sort of thing.
If
you
want a typing tutor, look for the "Mavis Beason Teaches Typing"
program
from
Broderbund.

--
Regards,
Jay Freedman
Microsoft Word MVP FAQ: http://word.mvps.org








 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Word 97 in Windows XP to maintain formatting Charlie''s Word VBA questions General Discussion 21 October 24th, 2005 09:49 PM
Please add an outlining feature like WordPerfect's. zaffcomm General Discussion 1 September 20th, 2005 07:21 PM
Word2000 letterhead merge BAW Mailmerge 3 June 25th, 2005 01:17 PM
is word perfect compatible with office word? Noreen General Discussion 1 May 11th, 2005 11:17 PM
How do I create & merge specific data base & master documents? maggiev New Users 2 January 13th, 2005 12:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 OfficeFrustration.
The comments are property of their posters.