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
£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.