If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 12th, 2005 11:30 PM |