Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Number of levels for a Numbered Outline List
The number of levels available for a numbered outline list should be not be
limited to 9. Ideally the number of available levels should ultimately be up to the user, but I am sure that this would present a resource or managability limitation. In any case, I would think that the limit shouldn't be any less than 18. ---------------- 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
|
|||
|
|||
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for people to agree with you.
-- Hope this helps. Please reply to the newsgroup unless you wish to avail yourself of my services on a paid consulting basis. Doug Robbins - Word MVP "F. James Little" wrote in message ... The number of levels available for a numbered outline list should be not be limited to 9. Ideally the number of available levels should ultimately be up to the user, but I am sure that this would present a resource or managability limitation. In any case, I would think that the limit shouldn't be any less than 18. ---------------- 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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
You obviously disagree. Why?
"Doug Robbins" wrote: I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for people to agree with you. -- Hope this helps. Please reply to the newsgroup unless you wish to avail yourself of my services on a paid consulting basis. Doug Robbins - Word MVP "F. James Little" wrote in message ... The number of levels available for a numbered outline list should be not be limited to 9. Ideally the number of available levels should ultimately be up to the user, but I am sure that this would present a resource or managability limitation. In any case, I would think that the limit shouldn't be any less than 18. ---------------- 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
|
|||
|
|||
Hi F. James,
Because with an average of 5 items under each heading, 9 levels give you about two million numbered items. If you find that the nine levels don't suffice, the hierarchical structure of your document is likely poor. Also, those levels should help readers to orient themselves. With more than nine levels, I can't imagine any reader that can follow the hierarchy. Regards, Klaus "F. James Little" wrote: You obviously disagree. Why? "Doug Robbins" wrote: I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for people to agree with you. -- Hope this helps. Please reply to the newsgroup unless you wish to avail yourself of my services on a paid consulting basis. Doug Robbins - Word MVP "F. James Little" wrote in message ... The number of levels available for a numbered outline list should be not be limited to 9. Ideally the number of available levels should ultimately be up to the user, but I am sure that this would present a resource or managability limitation. In any case, I would think that the limit shouldn't be any less than 18. ---------------- 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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Klaus,
I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you. While it is true the 5 raised to the power of 9 does equal 1,953,125, I believe this argument to be specious in that you are suggesting that the average numbered outline would actually contain an average of 5 items each. While that may be a reasonable level to assume at the upper or even middle levels, I believe that number would fall off sharply as you reach lower level. It would of course have a lot to do with the structure of your outline, and clearly you could have a structure that could push the application to its limits. If indeed the issue is question of available resources, then perhaps I would be willing to concede the point. To date, however, the only resource limitation that I have been able to find from Microsoft is a limitation of 256 list template styles and 2,304 formatting combinations. (256 templates * 9 levels) As to your second observation that the hierarchical structure of my document €śis likely poor€ť, I would have to say that in my defense one has to consider the subject matter being dealt with and that there likely could be a great many circumstances where a deep and complex hierarchical structure is both necessary and also completely comprehensible. The situation I am dealing with is just such a case. In my case I am attempted to document an object oriented programming algorithm through pseudopodia. An Example of this might be: 1. If A then: a. Instantiate Child Object b. Insert Child Object into database c. Add Child object to Parent Collection. d. For each Child object in Parent Collection Do: i. Set Property A to €śa value€ť ii. If Property B = €śSome Value€ť then: 1. Instantiate Sibling Object 2. Insert Sibling object into to database 3. Add Sibling Object to Sibling Collection 4. If Property W = Truen Then: a. For each Sibling Object In Sibling Collection: i. If Property Z is True then: 1. Set reference to Grandparent Object. ii. Set Property X to €śSome Value€ť. e. Do something else with Child Object. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Hi F. James,
Sorry: Maybe the last post came across a bit harsh... The "you" wasn't meant personally. Outline numbering was meant for outlines, and even large books rarely need 4 levels. In your case, you try to use outline numbering to document some given, deep hierarchy. That's probably not what the developers had in mind, although I can understand very well that you'd like to use outline numbering for that purpose. I think you got a reference to ListNum fields in another thread? Not quite 100% automatic, admittedly. The reason for much of the negativity you saw in my (and probably also Doug's) response is due to the fact that the current implementation of outline numbering is so bad that making it more complicated seems unpalatable. Word currently saves 9 list levels for even most simple lists, and I think I've seen cases where it even saved one list template with 9 levels for each level of an outline. The list gallery is a nightmare, and you have to follow some rigorous, non-intuitive methods to get outline numbering working at all. I hope that outline numbering will get a radical renovation some time. In that case, it might be good if developers would take into consideration some models that don't put any fixed limit on the number of levels. With that in mind, I'll even vote for your suggestion, hoping that someone from Microsoft will read it if it gets enough votes! Regards, Klaus "F. James Little" wrote: Klaus, I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you. While it is true the 5 raised to the power of 9 does equal 1,953,125, I believe this argument to be specious in that you are suggesting that the average numbered outline would actually contain an average of 5 items each. While that may be a reasonable level to assume at the upper or even middle levels, I believe that number would fall off sharply as you reach lower level. It would of course have a lot to do with the structure of your outline, and clearly you could have a structure that could push the application to its limits. If indeed the issue is question of available resources, then perhaps I would be willing to concede the point. To date, however, the only resource limitation that I have been able to find from Microsoft is a limitation of 256 list template styles and 2,304 formatting combinations. (256 templates * 9 levels) As to your second observation that the hierarchical structure of my document "is likely poor", I would have to say that in my defense one has to consider the subject matter being dealt with and that there likely could be a great many circumstances where a deep and complex hierarchical structure is both necessary and also completely comprehensible. The situation I am dealing with is just such a case. In my case I am attempted to document an object oriented programming algorithm through pseudopodia. An Example of this might be: 1. If A then: a. Instantiate Child Object b. Insert Child Object into database c. Add Child object to Parent Collection. d. For each Child object in Parent Collection Do: i. Set Property A to "a value" ii. If Property B = "Some Value" then: 1. Instantiate Sibling Object 2. Insert Sibling object into to database 3. Add Sibling Object to Sibling Collection 4. If Property W = Truen Then: a. For each Sibling Object In Sibling Collection: i. If Property Z is True then: 1. Set reference to Grandparent Object. ii. Set Property X to "Some Value". e. Do something else with Child Object. . . . z. End Process 2. Else a. End Process As you can see in this simple example, we have already gone 7 levels deep, and the potential to follow the logic a great deal deeper should be readily apparent. Granted, this is a rather industry specific use of the Word application, and as has been pointed out by others; Word is geared towards appealing to the mass market. I would counter by saying that first, there are no doubt a great many other scientific, engineering, medical, legal, and governmental requirements that could and would benefit from and make use of enhanced multilevel capability. As evidence of this, I would direct you to the several references to this subject on this very web site, and the number of engineered workarounds that have been forwarded that enable this very functionality. Unfortunately, the time and effort to find these workarounds, especially for those whose primary function are not to be an expert in MS Word, makes this an expensive and time consuming undertaking. All I am saying is that this functionality should be available on a non workaround basis. My second argument is simply this: It is the purpose of software to enable users to greatest extent possible within the boundaries of available resources and defined application requirements. If there is a documented resource requirement which precludes enabling this functionality, then I wish that someone would cite it. Otherwise, the Microsoft Word development team should look at this issue with an eye toward enabling user, not limiting them. Thanks! F. James Little Sr. Software Engineer "Klaus Linke" wrote: Hi F. James, Because with an average of 5 items under each heading, 9 levels give you about two million numbered items. If you find that the nine levels don't suffice, the hierarchical structure of your document is likely poor. Also, those levels should help readers to orient themselves. With more than nine levels, I can't imagine any reader that can follow the hierarchy. Regards, Klaus "F. James Little" wrote: You obviously disagree. Why? "Doug Robbins" wrote: I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for people to agree with you. -- Hope this helps. Please reply to the newsgroup unless you wish to avail yourself of my services on a paid consulting basis. Doug Robbins - Word MVP "F. James Little" wrote in message ... The number of levels available for a numbered outline list should be not be limited to 9. Ideally the number of available levels should ultimately be up to the user, but I am sure that this would present a resource or managability limitation. In any case, I would think that the limit shouldn't be any less than 18. ---------------- 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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Klaus
I'll vote for this one, too. I don't want to read a document with a heading numbered 13.3.2.5.1.2(a)(i)(iii) -- and that's only 9 levels. But I have seen cases where I needed something like: Chapter 1 History of Transport 1. Air transport 1.1 Jet planes 1.1.1 Boeing Table 1 (a) A footnote under Table 1 Data source: A History of Flight Figure 1 (a) A footnote under Figure 1 Figure source: Something else That's not an unreasonable layout. But it's 10 levels, so it's not doable. And if there were appendixes with roughly the same structure, and we relied on the usual method of hijacking heading levels for the appendixes, then I'd need 20 levels. On the other hand, with the current incarnation of numbering, I can't begin to imagine the messes that might be created if we had more than 9 levels! Shauna Shauna Kelly. Microsoft MVP. http://www.shaunakelly.com/word "Klaus Linke" wrote in message ... Hi F. James, Sorry: Maybe the last post came across a bit harsh... The "you" wasn't meant personally. Outline numbering was meant for outlines, and even large books rarely need 4 levels. In your case, you try to use outline numbering to document some given, deep hierarchy. That's probably not what the developers had in mind, although I can understand very well that you'd like to use outline numbering for that purpose. I think you got a reference to ListNum fields in another thread? Not quite 100% automatic, admittedly. The reason for much of the negativity you saw in my (and probably also Doug's) response is due to the fact that the current implementation of outline numbering is so bad that making it more complicated seems unpalatable. Word currently saves 9 list levels for even most simple lists, and I think I've seen cases where it even saved one list template with 9 levels for each level of an outline. The list gallery is a nightmare, and you have to follow some rigorous, non-intuitive methods to get outline numbering working at all. I hope that outline numbering will get a radical renovation some time. In that case, it might be good if developers would take into consideration some models that don't put any fixed limit on the number of levels. With that in mind, I'll even vote for your suggestion, hoping that someone from Microsoft will read it if it gets enough votes! Regards, Klaus "F. James Little" wrote: Klaus, I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you. While it is true the 5 raised to the power of 9 does equal 1,953,125, I believe this argument to be specious in that you are suggesting that the average numbered outline would actually contain an average of 5 items each. While that may be a reasonable level to assume at the upper or even middle levels, I believe that number would fall off sharply as you reach lower level. It would of course have a lot to do with the structure of your outline, and clearly you could have a structure that could push the application to its limits. If indeed the issue is question of available resources, then perhaps I would be willing to concede the point. To date, however, the only resource limitation that I have been able to find from Microsoft is a limitation of 256 list template styles and 2,304 formatting combinations. (256 templates * 9 levels) As to your second observation that the hierarchical structure of my document "is likely poor", I would have to say that in my defense one has to consider the subject matter being dealt with and that there likely could be a great many circumstances where a deep and complex hierarchical structure is both necessary and also completely comprehensible. The situation I am dealing with is just such a case. In my case I am attempted to document an object oriented programming algorithm through pseudopodia. An Example of this might be: 1. If A then: a. Instantiate Child Object b. Insert Child Object into database c. Add Child object to Parent Collection. d. For each Child object in Parent Collection Do: i. Set Property A to "a value" ii. If Property B = "Some Value" then: 1. Instantiate Sibling Object 2. Insert Sibling object into to database 3. Add Sibling Object to Sibling Collection 4. If Property W = Truen Then: a. For each Sibling Object In Sibling Collection: i. If Property Z is True then: 1. Set reference to Grandparent Object. ii. Set Property X to "Some Value". e. Do something else with Child Object. . . . z. End Process 2. Else a. End Process As you can see in this simple example, we have already gone 7 levels deep, and the potential to follow the logic a great deal deeper should be readily apparent. Granted, this is a rather industry specific use of the Word application, and as has been pointed out by others; Word is geared towards appealing to the mass market. I would counter by saying that first, there are no doubt a great many other scientific, engineering, medical, legal, and governmental requirements that could and would benefit from and make use of enhanced multilevel capability. As evidence of this, I would direct you to the several references to this subject on this very web site, and the number of engineered workarounds that have been forwarded that enable this very functionality. Unfortunately, the time and effort to find these workarounds, especially for those whose primary function are not to be an expert in MS Word, makes this an expensive and time consuming undertaking. All I am saying is that this functionality should be available on a non workaround basis. My second argument is simply this: It is the purpose of software to enable users to greatest extent possible within the boundaries of available resources and defined application requirements. If there is a documented resource requirement which precludes enabling this functionality, then I wish that someone would cite it. Otherwise, the Microsoft Word development team should look at this issue with an eye toward enabling user, not limiting them. Thanks! F. James Little Sr. Software Engineer "Klaus Linke" wrote: Hi F. James, Because with an average of 5 items under each heading, 9 levels give you about two million numbered items. If you find that the nine levels don't suffice, the hierarchical structure of your document is likely poor. Also, those levels should help readers to orient themselves. With more than nine levels, I can't imagine any reader that can follow the hierarchy. Regards, Klaus "F. James Little" wrote: You obviously disagree. Why? "Doug Robbins" wrote: I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for people to agree with you. -- Hope this helps. Please reply to the newsgroup unless you wish to avail yourself of my services on a paid consulting basis. Doug Robbins - Word MVP "F. James Little" wrote in message ... The number of levels available for a numbered outline list should be not be limited to 9. Ideally the number of available levels should ultimately be up to the user, but I am sure that this would present a resource or managability limitation. In any case, I would think that the limit shouldn't be any less than 18. ---------------- 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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Klaus,
I completely concur with your observation that any modification to increase the number of available levels in Numbered Outline Lists should be a part of an overall larger effort to rework the underlying architecture of Numbered Outline Lists in particular and Bullets and Numbering in general. Thanks! F. James Little Sr. Software Engineer "Klaus Linke" wrote: Hi F. James, Sorry: Maybe the last post came across a bit harsh... The "you" wasn't meant personally. Outline numbering was meant for outlines, and even large books rarely need 4 levels. In your case, you try to use outline numbering to document some given, deep hierarchy. That's probably not what the developers had in mind, although I can understand very well that you'd like to use outline numbering for that purpose. I think you got a reference to ListNum fields in another thread? Not quite 100% automatic, admittedly. The reason for much of the negativity you saw in my (and probably also Doug's) response is due to the fact that the current implementation of outline numbering is so bad that making it more complicated seems unpalatable. Word currently saves 9 list levels for even most simple lists, and I think I've seen cases where it even saved one list template with 9 levels for each level of an outline. The list gallery is a nightmare, and you have to follow some rigorous, non-intuitive methods to get outline numbering working at all. I hope that outline numbering will get a radical renovation some time. In that case, it might be good if developers would take into consideration some models that don't put any fixed limit on the number of levels. With that in mind, I'll even vote for your suggestion, hoping that someone from Microsoft will read it if it gets enough votes! Regards, Klaus "F. James Little" wrote: Klaus, I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you. While it is true the 5 raised to the power of 9 does equal 1,953,125, I believe this argument to be specious in that you are suggesting that the average numbered outline would actually contain an average of 5 items each. While that may be a reasonable level to assume at the upper or even middle levels, I believe that number would fall off sharply as you reach lower level. It would of course have a lot to do with the structure of your outline, and clearly you could have a structure that could push the application to its limits. If indeed the issue is question of available resources, then perhaps I would be willing to concede the point. To date, however, the only resource limitation that I have been able to find from Microsoft is a limitation of 256 list template styles and 2,304 formatting combinations. (256 templates * 9 levels) As to your second observation that the hierarchical structure of my document "is likely poor", I would have to say that in my defense one has to consider the subject matter being dealt with and that there likely could be a great many circumstances where a deep and complex hierarchical structure is both necessary and also completely comprehensible. The situation I am dealing with is just such a case. In my case I am attempted to document an object oriented programming algorithm through pseudopodia. An Example of this might be: 1. If A then: a. Instantiate Child Object b. Insert Child Object into database c. Add Child object to Parent Collection. d. For each Child object in Parent Collection Do: i. Set Property A to "a value" ii. If Property B = "Some Value" then: 1. Instantiate Sibling Object 2. Insert Sibling object into to database 3. Add Sibling Object to Sibling Collection 4. If Property W = Truen Then: a. For each Sibling Object In Sibling Collection: i. If Property Z is True then: 1. Set reference to Grandparent Object. ii. Set Property X to "Some Value". e. Do something else with Child Object. . . . z. End Process 2. Else a. End Process As you can see in this simple example, we have already gone 7 levels deep, and the potential to follow the logic a great deal deeper should be readily apparent. Granted, this is a rather industry specific use of the Word application, and as has been pointed out by others; Word is geared towards appealing to the mass market. I would counter by saying that first, there are no doubt a great many other scientific, engineering, medical, legal, and governmental requirements that could and would benefit from and make use of enhanced multilevel capability. As evidence of this, I would direct you to the several references to this subject on this very web site, and the number of engineered workarounds that have been forwarded that enable this very functionality. Unfortunately, the time and effort to find these workarounds, especially for those whose primary function are not to be an expert in MS Word, makes this an expensive and time consuming undertaking. All I am saying is that this functionality should be available on a non workaround basis. My second argument is simply this: It is the purpose of software to enable users to greatest extent possible within the boundaries of available resources and defined application requirements. If there is a documented resource requirement which precludes enabling this functionality, then I wish that someone would cite it. Otherwise, the Microsoft Word development team should look at this issue with an eye toward enabling user, not limiting them. Thanks! F. James Little Sr. Software Engineer "Klaus Linke" wrote: Hi F. James, Because with an average of 5 items under each heading, 9 levels give you about two million numbered items. If you find that the nine levels don't suffice, the hierarchical structure of your document is likely poor. Also, those levels should help readers to orient themselves. With more than nine levels, I can't imagine any reader that can follow the hierarchy. Regards, Klaus "F. James Little" wrote: You obviously disagree. Why? "Doug Robbins" wrote: I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for people to agree with you. -- Hope this helps. Please reply to the newsgroup unless you wish to avail yourself of my services on a paid consulting basis. Doug Robbins - Word MVP "F. James Little" wrote in message ... The number of levels available for a numbered outline list should be not be limited to 9. Ideally the number of available levels should ultimately be up to the user, but I am sure that this would present a resource or managability limitation. In any case, I would think that the limit shouldn't be any less than 18. ---------------- 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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Why are outline numbered list limited to 9 levels? | Microsoft Word Help | |||
Fix your bullet list, number list and outline features | Page Layout | |||
Is there a way to change the default outline number list in Word? | Page Layout | |||
Outline Numbered List | Page Layout | |||
Outline Numbered List | Page Layout |