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 £15 a month.
I could have bought one for £30 a month (AOL, say) but I didn't want
most of the facilities (all, loosely, related to internet
connection) that were included in the AOL package; I didn't want
them running on my machine and I didn't want to pay for them. Your
suggestion (not unreasonable for a separately purchased addon) would
be attractive to a fairly small subset of current, or prospective,
Word users but all would have to pay for it.

--
Enjoy,
Tony


"rndthought" wrote in message
...
Tony,

First, don't debase yourself. You do not "half to", you choose to.
Second, neither you nor Suzanne has established how "word
processing" explicitly excludes building a personalized list of
misspelled words for further study, personal development.

You and Suzanne have chosen a difficult point to argue (and for no
reason). If MS Word can manipulate HTML with web page previews,
embed Excel tables able to be edited from within the document and
manipulate image characteristics; the word processor has shattered
the complexity barrier it would take to build a simple list file -
if the option was selected - of misspelled words. The text to
voice feature is already in place. The argument that my request
would add too much complexity is simply absurd and baseless. My
suggestion is not unreasonable and certainly not close to the
horrible washer parallel. Trying to negate a "spelling is to word
processing" relationship? You will half to try very hard.

While MS Word is ubiquitous, not just CEOs and MPV use the program
daily but it is on essentially every school computer in my
district, it is not always possible to rely on the crutch of spell
check and auto replace in the real word. This spelling tutor
feature is one from which my children and I believe many children
and adults would greatly benefit.

The cause for so much resistance and the need to voice it still
baffling. It is just a list of misspelled words. Why would this be
so disconcerting?

As always, except for the washer thing, thank you for the
thoughtful comments.


"Tony Jollans" wrote:

I'd have to agree with Suzanne here. Word Processing is what Word
does. Just because it uses words does not mean that it does, or
should, provide every imaginable function that might also use
words; before you know it someone will be suggesting that it solve
crosswords.

It is generally true that adding essentially unrelated
functionality is likely to bring problems. Imagine trying to add a
dish-washing facility to your washing machine; they both use water
and detergent to get things clean, so why not?

--
Enjoy,
Tony


"rndthought" wrote in
message ...
Suzanne, spelling is Fundamental to this purpose. Period.

Again, why so much resistance and the need to voice it?


"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:

A word processor is a way for people who know what they want to
say and how to say it to put those words on paper. Some of the
functions you mention (such as automatic creation of TOCs) are
fundamental to this purpose. Auto formatting certainly
facilitates it. Keep in mind that a huge target market for
Microsoft is "knowledge workers" (secretaries and the like) and
executives in large corporations. They need to be able to create
letters and reports and easily and quickly as possible. It is
assumed that they either know how to spell or will depend on
spell check to correct their spelling. I'll grant you that this
is an unreasonable assumption in the first instance and a
dangerous one in the second, but there you have it.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the
newsgroup so all may benefit.

"rndthought" wrote in
message
...
Suzanne,

You make a good observation in regards to trying to be all
things. As for keeping MS Word from loosing sight of the
"primary functions" (or focus)... I believe even a cursory
overview of the options and abilities in Word show's the ship
has set sail (Invoicing with macros, auto creation of TOC, auto
formatting, Auto fill forms, creating HTML documents, altering
Image attributes - all on a word processor???). It seems to
me that MS Word most definitely has higher aspirations than
that of a functioned word processor or computerize type writer.

If a spelling tutor, I like that term Suzanne, doesn't belong
in a program whose primary purpose is to type words in the
creation of documents, presumably for purpose of communicating
information accurately...where then?

This isn't a fundamental change in the program or a complete
change in the interface (which is coming in the next
version)...simply an option (or if possible a macro as Greg has
shown in a limited fashion) that could be enabled for those
that wish to expand their spelling abilities.
Why
so
much
resistance and need to voice it?

Thank you again for the thoughtful comments.

"Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote:

Where Word most often gets into trouble is through trying to
be all things to all people. I don't imagine, however, that
the Word
developers
will
ever
so far lose sight of the primary functions of Word as to
incorporate features that make it a spelling tutor.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
Word MVP FAQ site: http://word.mvps.org
Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to
the newsgroup so all may benefit.