Got to keep a clear head now--I'm working on my Rotary bulletin for
tomorrow's meeting--but thanks!

--
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,

I bow to you the MS bean counters and pray that third party bean counters
have less acumen.

Thank you for the clarification lest I believe you yielded even one small
point to me! (Flurries of arms and deepest of bows)

Can we have that pint now?



"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:

And I emphasize that by this I meant a third-party add-in, not something
provided by Microsoft. There is a thriving community of Word developers
outside of Microsoft, people like Bill Coan, with his DataPrompter
add-in
(which I find very helpful since I'm VBA-less). In addition to
commercial
add-ins (sold to anyone who's interested), these developers also provide
custom solutions to those who require them (and are willing to pay). The
bottom line on all of this is economic: we've been told repeatedly that
every proposed function requires a business case, that is, what is the
ratio
of the cost to develop to the demand for the feature? Would a feature be
attractive to enough people to sell enough extra copies of Office to
make it
worth the cost to develop 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
...
Thank you Suzanne.

"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:

Following up on this, the spelling function would be a perfect
application
for a Word add-in, to be added in only by those interested in using
it
(and
willing to take the performance hit that would inevitably result).

--
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
...
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