Hello James
JamesDart wrote:
Creating a Template (Part II, by John McGhie)
http://word.mvps.org/FAQs/Customizat...platePart2.htm
Awesome article, made me cry with all that I have done, wish i had this
beforehand. Oh, well.
I remember when I read it first myself. I can relate to that! :-)
[..]
Header: Chapter: "Heading 1" Module: "Heading 2" Section: "Heading 3"
Top right corner: three graphic pictures .25inx.25in, hyperlinked. 1sr one
is to the ToC, 2nd is to the Section Heading, 3rd is to the Appendix
Hyperlinks in headers or footers are not clickable from the main text
story in Word. I don't know what happens if you convert such a document
to PDF (certainly depends in which way you convert whether you get links
at all anywhere :-)).
The Hyperlinks are not in the Header, but in the upper right hand corner,
just below the header. I experimented with Hyperlinks in the Header and
discovered that they are only accessible, if you are in the Header. Don't
want users there. heh. But, this does bring up a question.
I have these "hyperlinks" on every single page, and quite honestly, i have
to replace them with "InsertQuickpartFieldRef" and that's a lot of them,
roughly 582 of them. shivers any suggestions on how to make a very long
document more accessible?
I thought about just putting a statement in the Header or Footer about using
"Ctrl+F" instead of the graphic intense icons. What do you think?
various thoughts: It's easy in Word to repeat anything on "all pages"
(of a section) -- by putting it into the header. If there's any content
you want repeated but not anchored to header or footer area, you are
basically calling for trouble. [In a long, structured document.]
In the best case, and you're finding this out, it's a lot of work. And
every time you change something that alters the pagination on a couple
of pages, it's more work again. Word is not a "page-oriented application".
So, I would invest a great deal of thought (and work :-)) to prevent
that. I don't know exactly what your users/readers are supposed to do
with the document. But there are inherent ways in Word of how to
navigate in a large document, namely the Document Map, and Outline View.
And for some discreet number of places in the document, you might even
create some very small macros and place them on a custom toolbar. Then
you only have to do this once.
Finally, the question: does using extensive, HUGE tables cause problems?
Yes, Word can be slowed down when your tables span many, many pages. I'd
say it's not the sheer length but "complexity" (number of columns/rows,
split/merged cells, and the content, raw text or pictures/objects, etc.)
that makes it struggle. If you can, split up the table every now and
then (where you'd have inserted a Heading 5 previously ... :-)).
Okay, I was not clear enough. I have purposely "Split Table" and "Break
Page" on every page to reduce cells being on 2 pages, etc, but it does create
more work. I removed the "extra" cells. You're going to laugh, but I added
cells above and below each one as spacers. It was recently i discovered that
I could control the height with a click of a button on the Layout Tab. So, I
removed all the extra Cells. Much Cleaner.
You can tell Word not to split a row unto different pages ("Allow Row to
break ..." I think it's called, somewhere in the table/row properties
dialog). The use of hard page breaks is rather discouraged in long
documents. Use the "Page Break Before" property, in a heading style
preferably, as direct formatting in discreet places if you must.
I have done extensive reading on Pictures and Imbedded items into word, but
I can't seem to find my answer. You mentioned making sure to put all my
external items into seperate files and link them to the document. I
understand that works well for Screen Captures and Bitmaps. As far as Visio,
i have many flowcharts and modified Screen Captures that are imbedded (i.e.
Ctrl+Click & Drap) into the document. Do I need to have an individual file
for each one instead?
Well, as long as it works, it's fine. The saying goes: Word is not a
good container for (original) picture material. Meaning: Historically,
Word was not very good with large documents full of pictures, and it was
possible to loose a picture that way, or even the document. That meant
1) to have a backup copy of the picture available (so you can insert it
again, no matter which way), and 2) a good backup history of the file
itself (and, in a long document, this is still a very reasonable practice!).
In effect, I can't really say linking is better than embedding per se.
Linking must be carefully tested and executed and is probably more work.
But keeping the non-text stuff in separate files just in case you need
to re-insert some material seems reasonable. When I do software
documentation, I still do that, because, well, doing the screenshots is
work and if I need to do re-insert some picture, I don't want to make it
again.
Also, if I have FieldRef linked a picture, can I copy & Paste it in another
spot or do I have Link it again to the document?
Well, if you copy it from within the document, I'm pretty sure you're in
fact copying the INCLUDEPICTURE field and hence, yes, that should work
nicely.
I read in one of the MVP logs that if I"m going to insert pictures, several
things need to be done. (1) use a table to provide a frame for the picture,
that way it doesn't wander (2) Convert any Bitmap to a GIF and then
"InsertPictureLink to File."
I'm not familiar with that article. Might be a slightly different context.
Pictures can be setup in two different ways in Word: they can be
floating above/below the main text layer, that's called a Shape. Or they
may be treated as a (usually slightly large) character (InlineShape) and
are then part of the normal text area.
Basically, you use the first method if you need any fancy "text flows
around the picture" layout. In all other cases, you really want
InlineShapes, as their positioning/layout is easier and more "stable."
I finally figured out how to convert my bit
maps, and wow, I have a 3,780 KB bitmap reduced to a 52 KB GIF. Granted the
color quality is less, but it's sufficient. Once one of these GIFs have been
inserted & linked, can I copy & paste them elsewhere?
Office made it very easy to drag'n'drop any material into document. But
there's an old DTP rule, and even though Word is decidedly not a proper
DTP application, it still applies: always think of the outcome, of the
final product. When the file will ultimately converted to HTML, and
picture resolution over 100 dpi is moot. If it's going to be printed,
then it depends on the printer's resolution. BMP is a very large format,
and you can certainly shrink stuff a lot. Whether GIF is the best for
screenshots depends mostly on the colors used on screen.
Yes, well, but users these days should be familiar with hypertext enough
to get along there. Again, the DOC format is hardly the optimal format
for your "publication."
Rut Roh, what would be the suggestion?
All I've read so far (or: read and remember right now :-)) indicates
your users need to read this document, not update it in any kind of way.
Then, I reflexively think that PDF (or: HTML) might be a better format
for giving them access to the material. That doesn't solve the "many
open documents" issue, as this happens in PDF as well (unless, in the
end, you manage to put all into one PDF).
I am creating this Document in Word 2007 Compatibility Mode due to the fact
that our company has 144 Users, 141 of them are using Word 2000.
Well, that would be the good part about converting in PDF in the end:
you can work in 2007 natively ... :-)
Greetinx
Robert
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | MSFT |
\ / | MVP | Scientific Reports
X Against HTML | for | with Word?
/ \ in e-mail & news | Word |
http://www.masteringword.eu/