[Khoshravan]

I have to change the spacing for "Normal" style due to publisher requirement.
from 12 pt single to exactly 12pt, to decrease the white space between lines.
By this change, drwaings become shorten so much that they are almost
invisible. How can solve this problem?
--
Rasoul Khoshravan Azar
Civil Engineer, Osaka, Japan

changing line space, shrinks the drawings

[Robert M. Franz (RMF)]

Khoshravan wrote:
I have to change the spacing for "Normal" style due to publisher requirement.
from 12 pt single to exactly 12pt, to decrease the white space between lines.
By this change, drwaings become shorten so much that they are almost
invisible. How can solve this problem?

Choose "at least" instead of "exactly". Word will increase the size when
it encounters a character which it judges would not fit otherwise, and
your supposedly inline pictures are treated as such.

HTH
Robert
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | MS
\ / | MVP
X Against HTML | for
/ \ in e-mail & news | Word

[Khoshravan]

Thanks. It was exactly as you told. It solved my problem.
I understanf the difference between "at least" and "exact".
Could you please tell me when shall we use Exact?
--
Rasoul Khoshravan Azar
Civil Engineer, Osaka, Japan


"Robert M. Franz (RMF)" wrote:

Khoshravan wrote:
I have to change the spacing for "Normal" style due to publisher requirement.
from 12 pt single to exactly 12pt, to decrease the white space between lines.
By this change, drwaings become shorten so much that they are almost
invisible. How can solve this problem?

Choose "at least" instead of "exactly". Word will increase the size when
it encounters a character which it judges would not fit otherwise, and
your supposedly inline pictures are treated as such.

HTH
Robert
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | MS
\ / | MVP
X Against HTML | for
/ \ in e-mail & news | Word

[Robert M. Franz (RMF)]

Khoshravan wrote:
Thanks. It was exactly as you told. It solved my problem.
I understanf the difference between "at least" and "exact".
Could you please tell me when shall we use Exact?

I use exact almost exclusively for normal/bodytext styles, and "at
least" for a unique inline-picture style.

When the documents you are preparing templates for have different font
heights or special symbol characters in a larger paragraph, it's not
always clear which of the two solutions works better.

Greetinx
Robert
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | MS
\ / | MVP
X Against HTML | for
/ \ in e-mail & news | Word

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

"At least" spacing will not accomplish what the publisher wants, which is to
reduce the leading, since 12 pt type will end up with 14+-pt line spacing.
But the Exact line spacing should be used for Body Text only. Headings
(which are in a larger font size) and pictures should use different styles
that are differently defined. The style for pictures should be set to Single
line spacing to allow the picture to define its own height.

--
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.

"Robert M. Franz (RMF)" wrote in message
...
Khoshravan wrote:
I have to change the spacing for "Normal" style due to publisher
requirement.
from 12 pt single to exactly 12pt, to decrease the white space between
lines.
By this change, drwaings become shorten so much that they are almost
invisible. How can solve this problem?

Choose "at least" instead of "exactly". Word will increase the size when
it encounters a character which it judges would not fit otherwise, and
your supposedly inline pictures are treated as such.

HTH
Robert
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | MS
\ / | MVP
X Against HTML | for
/ \ in e-mail & news | Word

[Khoshravan]

Thanks for your reply. Have a question regarding your reply.

"At least" spacing will not accomplish what the publisher wants, which is to
reduce the leading, since 12 pt type will end up with 14+-pt line spacing.
But the Exact line spacing should be used for Body Text only.

Body text: I am using "normal" style for normal text which I suppose is the
default and I am not using "Body text" style. Are they show same result in
line space?

Headings
(which are in a larger font size) and pictures should use different styles
that are differently defined. The style for pictures should be set to Single
line spacing to allow the picture to define its own height.

Does this mean that it is better to define a new style for pictures.
I use "Normal" style for them and set "In line with text" in paragraph. when
I changed the space for normal to 12, pictures shrinked so I changed the
space to atleast for normal style for pictures and exactly for texts and it
was solved.
Isn't this a good way?

[Robert M. Franz (RMF)]

Khoshravan wrote:
[..]
"At least" spacing will not accomplish what the publisher wants, which is to
reduce the leading, since 12 pt type will end up with 14+-pt line spacing.
But the Exact line spacing should be used for Body Text only.

If the font size is 12 pt, that's correct. I doubt a serious publisher
would want 12/12 (font size/leading), so I did not interpret the OP like
that. Who knows ... :-)


Body text: I am using "normal" style for normal text which I suppose is the
default and I am not using "Body text" style. Are they show same result in
line space?

It doesn't matter whether "Normal" or "Body text" is your "bread and
butter" style (there are pros and cons in using either, personally I
tend to use the latter). The paragraph settings in them will have the
same effect.


(which are in a larger font size) and pictures should use different styles
that are differently defined. The style for pictures should be set to Single
line spacing to allow the picture to define its own height.

Does this mean that it is better to define a new style for pictures.
I use "Normal" style for them and set "In line with text" in paragraph. when
I changed the space for normal to 12, pictures shrinked so I changed the
space to atleast for normal style for pictures and exactly for texts and it
was solved.
Isn't this a good way?

Well, it's using direct formatting, or: the same style for different
things -- which means: no, it's not a good way in a longer/structured
document.

It's probably best if you create a picture style, set the leading to "at
least" there, and to "exact" for "Normal". What is your current font
size? [Just curious ... :-)]

Greetinx
Robert
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | MS
\ / | MVP
X Against HTML | for
/ \ in e-mail & news | Word

[Khoshravan]

It is 10 pt Times New Roman. It is not easy to read it, very dense, but this
is what they have asked me.
--
Rasoul Khoshravan Azar
Civil Engineer, Osaka, Japan


"Robert M. Franz (RMF)" wrote:

Khoshravan wrote:
[..]
"At least" spacing will not accomplish what the publisher wants, which is to
reduce the leading, since 12 pt type will end up with 14+-pt line spacing.
But the Exact line spacing should be used for Body Text only.

If the font size is 12 pt, that's correct. I doubt a serious publisher
would want 12/12 (font size/leading), so I did not interpret the OP like
that. Who knows ... :-)


Body text: I am using "normal" style for normal text which I suppose is the
default and I am not using "Body text" style. Are they show same result in
line space?

It doesn't matter whether "Normal" or "Body text" is your "bread and
butter" style (there are pros and cons in using either, personally I
tend to use the latter). The paragraph settings in them will have the
same effect.


(which are in a larger font size) and pictures should use different styles
that are differently defined. The style for pictures should be set to Single
line spacing to allow the picture to define its own height.

Does this mean that it is better to define a new style for pictures.
I use "Normal" style for them and set "In line with text" in paragraph. when
I changed the space for normal to 12, pictures shrinked so I changed the
space to atleast for normal style for pictures and exactly for texts and it
was solved.
Isn't this a good way?

Well, it's using direct formatting, or: the same style for different
things -- which means: no, it's not a good way in a longer/structured
document.

It's probably best if you create a picture style, set the leading to "at
least" there, and to "exact" for "Normal". What is your current font
size? [Just curious ... :-)]

Greetinx
Robert
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | MS
\ / | MVP
X Against HTML | for
/ \ in e-mail & news | Word

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

The default line spacing for 10-pt TNR is 12 points, so that's okay. I would
tend to avoid the use of Normal style for anything (see
http://word.mvps.org/FAQs/Formatting...odyStyles.htm), but in my
previous post I should have written "body text" rather than "Body Text,"
i.e., the regular document text as opposed to headings, pictures, etc. I
would advise having a separate style for any formatting you use more than
once or twice, and this would include pictures. Whether the picture style is
formatted as Single (Auto) or "At least" doesn't really matter, as it will
expand as needed for the picture height.

--
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.

"Khoshravan" wrote in message
...
It is 10 pt Times New Roman. It is not easy to read it, very dense, but
this
is what they have asked me.
--
Rasoul Khoshravan Azar
Civil Engineer, Osaka, Japan


"Robert M. Franz (RMF)" wrote:

Khoshravan wrote:
[..]
"At least" spacing will not accomplish what the publisher wants, which
is to
reduce the leading, since 12 pt type will end up with 14+-pt line
spacing.
But the Exact line spacing should be used for Body Text only.

If the font size is 12 pt, that's correct. I doubt a serious publisher
would want 12/12 (font size/leading), so I did not interpret the OP like
that. Who knows ... :-)


Body text: I am using "normal" style for normal text which I suppose
is the
default and I am not using "Body text" style. Are they show same
result in
line space?

It doesn't matter whether "Normal" or "Body text" is your "bread and
butter" style (there are pros and cons in using either, personally I
tend to use the latter). The paragraph settings in them will have the
same effect.


(which are in a larger font size) and pictures should use different
styles
that are differently defined. The style for pictures should be set to
Single
line spacing to allow the picture to define its own height.

Does this mean that it is better to define a new style for pictures.
I use "Normal" style for them and set "In line with text" in
paragraph. when
I changed the space for normal to 12, pictures shrinked so I changed
the
space to atleast for normal style for pictures and exactly for texts
and it
was solved.
Isn't this a good way?

Well, it's using direct formatting, or: the same style for different
things -- which means: no, it's not a good way in a longer/structured
document.

It's probably best if you create a picture style, set the leading to "at
least" there, and to "exact" for "Normal". What is your current font
size? [Just curious ... :-)]

Greetinx
Robert
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | MS
\ / | MVP
X Against HTML | for
/ \ in e-mail & news | Word