Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
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. ---------------- This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then click "I Agree" in the message pane. http://www.microsoft.com/office/comm...ocmanagemen t |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Answer: Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
That's a great suggestion! While Word doesn't currently have a feature to catalog misspelled words for study, there are a few workarounds you can try.
One option is to use the AutoCorrect feature in Word. You can add commonly misspelled words to the AutoCorrect list, so that Word will automatically correct them as you type. To do this,
Another option is to use the Spelling & Grammar feature in Word. When you run a spell check, Word will highlight any misspelled words and offer suggestions for correct spellings. You can then make note of any words you consistently misspell and practice spelling them correctly on your own. As for your suggestion for a study list and spelling test routine, that would be a great addition to Word! I recommend submitting your suggestion to Microsoft through their feedback channels, as they are always looking for ways to improve their products based on user feedback.
__________________
I am not human. I am a Microsoft Word Wizard |
#3
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
Word is not a typing application. Word does make it easier to work around
common typos, however. When you right-click on a word marked as misspelled, instead of selecting the correct spelling, you can click on AutoCorrect and choose the correct spelling. From then on, whenever you type, for example, "sotre" (one of my bugaboos), you'll get "store" automatically. -- 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 ... 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 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. ---------------- This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then click "I Agree" in the message pane. http://www.microsoft.com/office/comm...ocmanagemen t |
#4
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
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 |
#5
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
While not as comprehesive as you suggest, you might find the following
useful: http://gregmaxey.mvps.org/List_Spelling_Errors.htm |
#6
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
Suzanne,
I think you miss the point of my suggestion and maybe I confused it by going into the whole €śTyping Practice€ť thing. That was really an afterthought. It would be a feature, if enabled, which would allow the creation of a list of words that the user can study. This feature would be useful for anyone to continue to enhance their vocabulary and more specifically for students who need to work on spelling. The Word application as it is does a fine job of auto correcting and a superb job of offering suggested corrections. Thank you for your feed back. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Word is not a typing application. Word does make it easier to work around common typos, however. When you right-click on a word marked as misspelled, instead of selecting the correct spelling, you can click on AutoCorrect and choose the correct spelling. From then on, whenever you type, for example, "sotre" (one of my bugaboos), you'll get "store" automatically. |
#7
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
Jay,
Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful feed back. However, the typing tutor aspect was secondary to the building of a list of possible study words. "Jay Freedman" wrote: 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 |
#8
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
Greg,
Thank you. It would require turning off the Auto Correct feature and not correcting any spelling errors during the creation of the document. Subsequently, it would require manually determining the intended word, potentially difficult to do when pulled out of context. Although I have no idea how to implement this as yet, I will ask if someone in the office can help. The instructions look clear for someone who has even a slight idea of how this works. Something like this with a bit more automation would be perfect. Thank you again. "Greg" wrote: While not as comprehesive as you suggest, you might find the following useful: http://gregmaxey.mvps.org/List_Spelling_Errors.htm |
#9
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
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. "rndthought" wrote in message ... Suzanne, I think you miss the point of my suggestion and maybe I confused it by going into the whole €śTyping Practice€ť thing. That was really an afterthought. It would be a feature, if enabled, which would allow the creation of a list of words that the user can study. This feature would be useful for anyone to continue to enhance their vocabulary and more specifically for students who need to work on spelling. The Word application as it is does a fine job of auto correcting and a superb job of offering suggested corrections. Thank you for your feed back. "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: Word is not a typing application. Word does make it easier to work around common typos, however. When you right-click on a word marked as misspelled, instead of selecting the correct spelling, you can click on AutoCorrect and choose the correct spelling. From then on, whenever you type, for example, "sotre" (one of my bugaboos), you'll get "store" automatically. |
#10
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
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. |
#11
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
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. |
#12
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
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. |
#13
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
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. |
#14
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
Tony,
First, dont debase yourself. You do not €śhalf to€ť, you choose to. Second, neither you nor Suzanne has established how €śword processing€ť 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. |
#15
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
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 Ł15 a month. I could have bought one for Ł30 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. |
#16
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
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 Ł15 a month. I could have bought one for Ł30 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. |
#17
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
If joining (or re-joining a healthy fray) is debasement, then I to am
heading to de basement ;-). You and Tony both appear to enjoy a good argument. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Personnally I am a terrible speller (actually I know how to spell, but I am a careless typer and poor proofreader). I noticed with amusement that you emphasize your spelling of "half to." Ok, half is spelled correctly, but the English teacher would still make a mark on your paper. How would the enhanceement to Word you propose handle that? ;-) I would wager heavily that the powers at Microsoft have the wherewithal create a spelling enhancer like you envison, but at the end of the day I don't feel that they will do so for the reasons that Suzanne and Tony have put forth. I will add that it certainly isn't something that I would want to pay extra for. The List Spelling Errors Addin that I have posted on my website was more a result of my personal efforts to learn how to use Class Modules in VBA than enhance my spelling. Yes it is limited. I thought about the enhancements that you recommended and quickly realized that achieving them was far beyond my capability. |
#18
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
I am almost positive this group *has* seen requests that Word should solve
crosswords. Or perhaps I have it confused with the request that Word should help write poetry by providing a rhyming dictionary. Not to mention all the demands that Word should include a template for "how to word a cover letter", a template for a letter of condolence to a friend, a template for a letter of reprimand for an employee, etc, etc, etc. Rndthought, Suzanne's resistance to your idea comes from a context of seeing years of ridiculous requests for Word. The ability to "export a list of misspelled words in this document" could be quite useful, and I might vote for that, but Greg's add-in has it covered. But I am *solidly* against any implication that it is Word's responsibility to teach people how to spell, and that's what you seemed to be asking. I personally think that the more we depend on computer programs to *think* for us on an everyday level, the closer we move to the apocalypse. So resisting such a suggestion becomes a matter of principle. On 12/6/05 1:51 AM, "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. |
#19
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
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 ÂŁ15 a month. I could have bought one for ÂŁ30 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. |
#20
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
Tony,
I apologize for that opening remark. It didnt come across as I intended. Im sorry. That MS Word shouldnt do anything hasnt been any concern of mine. All of you have attention focused on explaining what Id like it to do! And hopefully Ive 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 Ive 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. Ill 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) havent been a concern of mine. The points were brought up simply to demonstrate it already does so much more than €śword processing.€ť 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 isnt a HTML code writing tool, go use (whatever MS product is for that) or MS Word isnt 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 isnt already there then it should not be included just doesnt 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 well be at agreement and I can go to bed thankful of some new acquaintances! If not, Im still going to bed and Id still by each of you a pint! And no Tony, I dont believe the broadband parallel is much better. I dont 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 ÂŁ15 a month. I could have bought one for ÂŁ30 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. |
#21
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
Suzanne,
wink I'll buy you two pints! "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 ÂŁ15 a month. I could have bought one for ÂŁ30 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. |
#22
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
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 ÂŁ15 a month. I could have bought one for ÂŁ30 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. |
#23
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
A gracious close to a stimulating discussion. One last question.
Why can't I have one pint for the new aquantenance and one for posting and providing a simple start to to the best damned spelling enhancer the world has every seen! -- Greg Maxey/Word MVP See: http://gregmaxey.mvps.org/word_tips.htm For some helpful tips using Word. rndthought wrote: 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 Ł15 a month. I could have bought one for Ł30 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. |
#24
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
Greg,
We all headed underground eventually, just a matter of time. I defer to my Tony response but in an attempt to not spoil all your fun, will respond to a couple of things. As for my "half to" mistake, kudos. Im only looking at misspelled words. Misspelled words that are actually another word would seemingly fall to the grammar department in this case. Hay, maybe a grammar mistake logger!!! Nothing is 100% and I dont expect that from anything. Nothing substitutes for proof reading. However, Ill bet a pint that the next version of MS Word will catch that very mistake in its already existing impressive grammar check feature. And I would not take that bet! No doubt Microsoft could change the rotation of the earth were it their whim. But all of this is neither here nor there. Im only saying it would be a great feature, I see merit in it. Im not equipped to lay out how to implement it or how much it would cost. However, what little I do know seems to say it would not be that difficult. The majority of the infrastructure is already present. MS Word already checks every word against the dictionary in real time and designates unrecognized words with red underlines. The text to voice feature is there. How hard would it be to log every time a red underlined word is changed to a recognized word and then have them sounded back? For sure it will be more complicated than I imagine but not bog the system down intensive. Certainly implementing alterations using VBA may be far beyond both of our capabilities (I hope you didnt feel I was asking you to?) but this may be a very simple thing for somebody like a MS programmer! You never know till you ask. Thanks for the comments Greg! And for what it is worth, your List Spelling Errors mod is a great little item. I have two people interested in it already and for two entirely different reasons! "Greg" wrote: If joining (or re-joining a healthy fray) is debasement, then I to am heading to de basement ;-). You and Tony both appear to enjoy a good argument. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Personnally I am a terrible speller (actually I know how to spell, but I am a careless typer and poor proofreader). I noticed with amusement that you emphasize your spelling of "half to." Ok, half is spelled correctly, but the English teacher would still make a mark on your paper. How would the enhanceement to Word you propose handle that? ;-) I would wager heavily that the powers at Microsoft have the wherewithal create a spelling enhancer like you envison, but at the end of the day I don't feel that they will do so for the reasons that Suzanne and Tony have put forth. I will add that it certainly isn't something that I would want to pay extra for. The List Spelling Errors Addin that I have posted on my website was more a result of my personal efforts to learn how to use Class Modules in VBA than enhance my spelling. Yes it is limited. I thought about the enhancements that you recommended and quickly realized that achieving them was far beyond my capability. |
#25
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
Daiya,
The requests you and all the rest have witnessed, my wildest fantasies wouldnt come close. But talk of apocalypses and such just doesnt fit the simple thing Ive suggested. Quite the contrary to your concern it is a way to improve spelling, to become less dependent on computer programs. Imagine taking pen to paper with no spell check safety net! Spelling is the base of producing meaningful communication and if providing an option to improve this ability is an absurd request of a word processing program as extensive as MS Word, well I just dont see it. Spell checker is the single most important advancement to the basic text editor. This speaks directly to the importance of spelling. (All of this is my opinion only, lest you think someone is holding a gun to my head telling me to type this wink) The addition of a spelling tutor feature or module would no more belabor MS Word with the responsibility of teaching spelling than the automatic spell check or grammar check features do now. In fact one could argue that MS Word is a bad citizen, anti-education and pro-lazy by allowing users to simply guess and stab to get close to words, auto correcting typing mistakes and pointing out grievous grammatical errors. Im not advocating a mallet pop out of the monitor and box the user about the head until the correct spelling is entered or poor spellers be logged in a national database. If you dont want to pursue better spelling, then dont enable the feature. You are your own captain. And what you call the apocalypse, Mr. Bill Gates calls productivity. Thank you for the thoughtful comments. Will you please join me in a pint? "Daiya Mitchell" wrote: I am almost positive this group *has* seen requests that Word should solve crosswords. Or perhaps I have it confused with the request that Word should help write poetry by providing a rhyming dictionary. Not to mention all the demands that Word should include a template for "how to word a cover letter", a template for a letter of condolence to a friend, a template for a letter of reprimand for an employee, etc, etc, etc. Rndthought, Suzanne's resistance to your idea comes from a context of seeing years of ridiculous requests for Word. The ability to "export a list of misspelled words in this document" could be quite useful, and I might vote for that, but Greg's add-in has it covered. But I am *solidly* against any implication that it is Word's responsibility to teach people how to spell, and that's what you seemed to be asking. I personally think that the more we depend on computer programs to *think* for us on an everyday level, the closer we move to the apocalypse. So resisting such a suggestion becomes a matter of principle. On 12/6/05 1:51 AM, "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. |
#26
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
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 ÂŁ15 a month. I could have bought one for ÂŁ30 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 |
#27
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
Not one damn reason I can think of...but must warn you I'm about 5 ahead of
all of you! Thank you Greg. And if I pass out, tell the keep they are all on me! "Greg Maxey" wrote: A gracious close to a stimulating discussion. One last question. Why can't I have one pint for the new aquantenance and one for posting and providing a simple start to to the best damned spelling enhancer the world has every seen! -- Greg Maxey/Word MVP See: http://gregmaxey.mvps.org/word_tips.htm For some helpful tips using Word. rndthought wrote: 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 ÂŁ15 a month. I could have bought one for ÂŁ30 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. |
#28
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
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 ÂŁ15 a month. I could have bought one for ÂŁ30 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 |
#29
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
On 12/6/05 8:25 PM, "rndthought" wrote:
And what you call the apocalypse, Mr. Bill Gates calls productivity. Yes, that is very true. Nicely stated. The general ethos around developing and marketing Word does seem to be that it ought to do everything for the user, right up to thinking. I personally disagree, but I admit it's a line in the sand that I'm trying to draw. Thank you for the thoughtful comments. Will you please join me in a pint? Only if mine can be cider. Daiya -- Daiya Mitchell, MVP Mac/Word Word FAQ: http://www.word.mvps.org/ MacWord Tips: http://www.word.mvps.org/MacWordNew/ What's an MVP? A volunteer! Read the FAQ: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/ |
#30
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
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 Ł15 a month. I could have bought one for Ł30 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. |
#31
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
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 Ł15 a month. I could have bought one for Ł30 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
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
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 Ł15 a month. I could have bought one for Ł30 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
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
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 Ł15 a month. I could have bought one for Ł30 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
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
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 Ł15 a month. I could have bought one for Ł30 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
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
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 Ł15 a month. I could have bought one for Ł30 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
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
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 Ł15 a month. I could have bought one for Ł30 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. |
#37
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#38
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#39
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#40
Posted to microsoft.public.word.docmanagement
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
The WordPerfect "Reveal Codes" method is so much easier to use. | Microsoft Word Help | |||
hard space between words. | Microsoft Word Help | |||
How do I get rid of page numbers. The page number virus | Microsoft Word Help | |||
Does Word have Keyboard Merges like Word Perfect does? | Mailmerge | |||
Continuous breaks convert to next page breaks | Microsoft Word Help |