[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

Oh, ouch! That's much worse than my example! But at least your problems are
triggered by an ordinary hyphen and a space, which I can't really object to;
it's treating optional hyphens as "punctuation" that really burns me up,
since you are usually inserting an optional hyphen in the middle of a word
that's already been typed.

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

"Weyana" wrote in message
...
Ugh...I've done that one. I have one doctor whose favorite word seems to
be
"regarding". I need to change that entry from "re" to "reg" or something
else ("reg:" maybe...can't do "" since that would get typed
intentionally)
because of that very reason...if I type "re-examined", I get
"regarding-examined"..."you're" yields "you'regarding". :P

"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:

Many users suggest beginning the prompts with a semicolon or slash, which
I
would find much easier to type, but I'd be concerned that those might
occur
in the text normally at some point.

One caveat about AutoCorrect entries that are just letters. I had not
realized that an optional hyphen would trigger an AutoCorrect. When I'm
laying out a book, I don't use automatic hyphenation, but I scan pages
for
loose lines and then insert optional hyphens as needed to tighten up the
lines. One time I inserted a hyphen in the middle of a word without
realizing that the portion of the word before the hyphen was the prompt
for
an AutoCorrect entry. This expanded (into several words) without my
noticing
it and not only made a mess of the formatting but also made complete
nonsense of the paragraph. Luckily the client noticed it when the proofs
came back from the printer!

This has been reported to MS, and it has been strenuously pointed out
that
optional hyphens should not trigger AutoCorrect, but it's a glitch I
won't
hold my breath waiting to see corrected.

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

"Weyana" wrote in message
...
I might consider doing that, actually...although typing for a living,
speed
counts--and symbols slow me down because I have to peek, too. But
for a
couple I do have that get messed up when I type something similar, that
would
still be quicker than Ctrl-Z and retyping after I realize what I did.

"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:

If I were not so clumsy typing on the top row (I have to peek), I'd do
that,
too. As it is, I don't really have very many AutoCorrect entries of
that
type any more, and they tend to be assigned for specific projects and
then
(if I remember) deleted. Sometimes I forget and months later run into
an
expansion that completely surprises me!

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

"Graham Mayor" wrote in message
...
Indeed. I always use autocorrect with a prefix such as #, %, or @ to
avoid
accidental triggering - except for correcting words I have a
tendency
to
misspell when typing.

--

Graham Mayor - Word MVP

My web site www.gmayor.com
Word MVP web site http://word.mvps.org



Suzanne S. Barnhill wrote:
But that's not to say that you couldn't save the "sodfarm" AutoText
entry as an AutoCorrect entry with a different name, such as #sdf.


"Weyana" wrote in message
...
Well, for starters, you can use AutoText to insert several
formatted
paragraphs (for example) by typing one word that is an
abbreviation
for that
template. If you use AutoCorrect, then you have to hit 'Undo' or
'Alt-Z' if
you need to refer to that template by name without referring to
it.

E.g., a doctor I transcribe for can ask me to jot a note on his
log
that he
needs to do the 'sodfarm' for Patient X, and then as he's
dictating
the report, when he starts that template, I can type "sodfarm" and
hit F3 (or Enter in 2003) to pull up the template. If "sodfarm"
were an AutoCorrect for
this 1/2 page long bit, then I would constantly be having to undo
the
correction in notes he dictates.

As a general rule, I use AutoCorrect for unique acronyms or
capitalization...mris for MRIs; ncs for nerve conduction studies;
clt for cervical, lumbar, and thoracic; cspine for cervical
spine...things that I would never intend to be left as it is.
While
on the other hand, as I said,
I use AutoText for phrases that I may or may not intend to insert
when I type
its trigger.


"Graham Mayor" wrote:

It depends what you mean by 'more powerful'. I can't off-hand
think
of anything that Autotext can hold that Autocorrect cannot.
Suzanne
is correct
in suggesting that you still have to remember the trigger keys,
but
it is not imposible to make logical combinations that are easy
enough to remember,
but if you prefer autotext/quickparts that's fine. There is no
'autocomplete' in Word 2007.

--

Graham Mayor - Word MVP

My web site www.gmayor.com
Word MVP web site http://word.mvps.org



Weyana wrote:
Precisely. AutoCorrect can only do so much. AutoText can be
far
more powerful. As it turns out, I think the F3 thing may prove
a
bit easier after all...as AutoText's AutoComplete suggestion
disengages after you type too many characters. With 2007's
QuickParts, it seems you can type more of the prompt instead of
just 6 characters, or whatever.

"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:

But then you have to remember the prompt for the AutoCorrect
entries, which is just as much trouble as remembering the names
of
the AutoText entries!

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

"Graham Mayor" wrote in message
...
You might consider investigating autocorrect instead as this
inserts immediately.

--

Graham Mayor - Word MVP

My web site www.gmayor.com
Word MVP web site http://word.mvps.org



Weyana wrote:
n/m. Crisis averted. Had a fairly recent backup that I
remembered about, but slapping Word around a bit got it
working
right again anyway. Still...what an inconvenience. I don't
know about you, but I don't actually have the 'titles' of all
my AT's memorized, and have relied on that prompt. I think I
may just switch back to XP for transcription and save the new
developer/"PageMaker" format for fiddle-farting around with
in
my spare time. Thank you both again for putting heads
together
to
discuss this!