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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Adrian

Adrian wrote:
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?

My (admittedly not very strong) reasoning in this case is: I don't
really care whether such a textbox contains Normal if I use Bodytext
(and build up many styles upon bt), so if the formatting and/or
positioning of those boxes is not plain _ugly_, I will not want to
reformat it.

I can still change my bt style and this ripples through the document,
and if I get really lucky, I don't have to touch the textboxes. But if
normal is used for bt also, then the textboxes will most probably reflow
differently.

And, you are right, when you set up a template and do not want to use
Normal, then you have to touch a lot of styles and break the connection
to Normal (set it to "none" with a few styles, to bt in some, maybe to a
heading style for that hierarchy -- though I've seen this discouraged
before, probably of fear of spreading numbering dependencies that way).
But this makes sure you have really looked into all styles you intend to
use ... ;-)

Greetinx
Robert
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | MS
\ / | MVP
X Against HTML | for
/ \ in e-mail & news | Word

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

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

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.