Re: Resizing the Formatting Palette
From: Phillip M. Jones, CE.T. (pjones_at_kimbanet.com)
Date: 12/31/04
- Next message: MuzikJunky: "Re: Selector bar freezes part 4"
- Previous message: Beth Rosengard: "Re: Saving impossible because disk is full ???"
- In reply to: John McGhie: "Re: Resizing the Formatting Palette"
- Next in thread: Elliott Roper: "Re: Resizing the Formatting Palette"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 17:59:50 -0500
John McGhie wrote:
> Hi Phillip:
>
> {Ooops...} You're too big for me to get on your S list :-)
>
> What I was actually talking about with Microsoft is not a "dumbing down" per
> se. It's a simplification of the user interface.
>
> What I am recommending is something very close to what we have in Mac Word
> 2004 now. This thing is more than enough for home users: they simply don't
> need the extras you find in the Enterprise Edition of Office 2003. They
> can't even begin to use them: XSLT Transforms are the province of
> degree-qualified IT professionals. You won't find too many people trying to
> add one of those to their school project :-)
IF your talking about features that would be strictly used in Enterprise
or Corporate IT. Maybe that, would Okay.
>
> You can't actually "dumb down" Word -- it would cost you more to do that
> than it would to leave it alone. All you do is move the complex and
> technically demanding functions down in the user interface. The product
> still has the features, but they're not cluttering up the user interface and
> terrifying end users. You leave the highly-technical add-ons such as Xdocs
> and InfoPath out of the box (we don't have them on the Mac, and as far as I
> can tell, nobody has missed them yet (except me!).
I can't say to that, because I've never had the ability to see if I
could use it.
>
> Next time you walk past one of those cheap PCs bought in the past year or
> so, have a look at Microsoft Works: this is a fairly good example of what I
> mean. http://www.microsoft.com/products/works/default.mspx
I had MicroSoft Works on Mac until the day it was discontinued. I have
it stuffed wit Stuffit Deluxe on my OS9 partition.
>
> It looks, feels and drives a lot more easily than Word. But under the hood
> thumps the "V-8 on steroids heart" of Word 2002 :-) If you want some
> amusement, open a 2,500-page manual in Works. The disbelieving expression
> on the face of the PC's owner will be worth it :-)
>
> Works is packaged two ways: if you buy the "Suite" package, you actually
> have a full copy of Word in the box. You use Works for the Letters to Mom,
> and fire up the big beastie when you want gee-whizz stuff like Index and
> TOC.
On Mac Microsoft Works was an almost Clone of AppleWorks it even had a
Section on Communications you could actually send email.
> So, really what I am suggesting is that we produce two user interfaces for
> Word, one is labelled "Standard" and the other "Enterprise Developer". You
> can actually do this yourself in Word (and I do, for my Corporate clients).
> In my case, I am removing from the toolbar the widgets we would prefer they
> do NOT use, such as Format Painter and Bullets and Numbering.
I used bullets and numbering in retyping our ByLaws and working Rules
for Association I belong to. I'm Treasurer now (11-12 years) but for
about 6 years I as the Recording Secretary.
> The commands are still in the product, and they can put them back if they
> want to. But if they do, they get to explain to their boss how come they
> corrupted their official document and caused me to spend a day of chargeable
> time de-lousing it for them!!
>
> The real driver for my suggestion is my conviction that people are failing
> to learn to use Word because it is frighteningly complex the first time you
> hit it. People are turning to other products, that eventually will fall
> short of their requirements when their proficiency increases, simply because
> the complexity of Word scares them off :-) From an MVP point of view, I end
> up in here struggling to support users who get themselves into trouble by
> attempting stuff they really should leave to a professional. It's what I
> call the Jumbo Jet argument. Should Boeing stop making the 747 because it
> is "too complicated", or would you rather hire a professional pilot to fly
> you? Just because Microsoft Word "can" exceed the speed of sound does not
> mean it "should", and unless the user is very highly trained and skilled,
> the results when the page count rises above 2,000 are likely to be both
> expensive and messy. Much like a 747 flown by me...
Talk about frighteningly complex use Word 6.0.1.a and Excel 5.0.1.a.
Until I got word 2001 That is what used and I loved it. In fact I miss
the way its laid out and was easy for me to use. And with the exception
of printing envelopes which never worked right. Many of the same named
features actually worked better (and easier) in 6 than in 2004
especially creating TOC's and Indexes.
For those who have not seen either, If you open Word 6.0.1.a or Excel
5.0.1.a on Mac and the Equivalent version on PC and set the two machines
side by side. The Menu bars and Icons on the Menu bars are carbon copy
Identical. They only thing different between the two were key mappings
for commands if you want to use the keyboard. And Oh yes I bought my
first Extended keyboard with my SE/30.
>
> If you think about it, you turned away from MS-DOS because you hated the
> complexity. And you will never go back, because you think Windows is still
> like that. I know damned well that your threat to cross over to the Dark
> Side is just that -- you have no intention of actually going there :-)
>
> Take care
I'll reserve judgement for now. But if a decent version of Word ends up
costing $800 I'll know who's responsible. :-(
> On 31/12/04 11:14 AM, in article uwJOE3s7EHA.1188@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl,
> "Phillip M. Jones, CE.T." <pjones@kimbanet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>John McGhie wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Elliott:
>>>
>>>On 27/12/04 5:25 AM, in article 261220041825458077%nospam@yrl.co.uk,
>>>"Elliott Roper" <nospam@yrl.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Word has gone off to strange places. Word 2005.1a would once have been
>>>>rather nice, but it is too late now. It would not have sufficient
>>>>'features' to be compatible with the Windows version for it to meet the
>>>>needs of a curmudgeonly Mac user in the corporate world. I'll probably
>>>>stick with v.X till some collaboration comes along that forces me to
>>>>look again at whatever I need to be compatible with the other side.
>>>>Something wonderful in Tiger/Longhorn interoperability perhaps?
>>>>
>>>>One day I will write a thoughtful essay on why Word has gone off the
>>>>rails and send it to you guys quietly. I think I'd be abusing the
>>>>group's hospitality ranting incessantly here.
>>>
>>>
>>>{Sigh...} Yes, I would very much like to see that essay. Sooner, rather
>>>than later... Word 2006 is in design phase now, so we need to get in
>>>soonish.
>>>
>>>If it makes you feel better, I generated considerable blood-pressure on this
>>>subject the last time I visited Mac BU. The poor souls there had to put up
>>>with this Angry Ant from Australia swollen to twice his normal size and
>>>apoplexic with rage in their nice corridors.
>>>
>>>Sadly, they were unable to extract enough bucks out of Steve Ballmer to do
>>>what we want this time around.
>>>
>>>I, like you, work in the mega-document professional workspace. For me, Mac
>>>Word 2004 is a huge improvement on Mac Word X, but it's still not where I
>>>need it to be for professional use.
>>>
>>>The problem is not "just" money. As you correctly surmise, there are a lot
>>>of tectonic plates shifting around in Microsoft right at the moment with the
>>>incipient arrival of Longhorn. In Office 2003 we have a full implementation
>>>of XML. And VBA is going away "real soon now" (just as soon as Microsoft
>>>can persuade the Fortune 500 to let go of it...).
>>>
>>>What I was saying at Mac BU (and have been saying for some time on the PC
>>>Office side as well) is that it's time to split the Microsoft Office
>>>product. We desperately need two versions: one that is straightforward
>>>enough to enable home users to "walk up and use" it, and an Office Pro
>>>product with all the bells and whistles for those of us who have to use the
>>>thing in anger.
>>>
>>>I work with very large corporate documents: around the 2,500 to 5,000 page
>>>mark. For these I specify Microsoft Word 2003 -- it's the only product out
>>>there that will both enable me to achieve the required productivity mark and
>>>keep going with that kind of load. FrameMaker is another possible contender
>>>in that it will at least keep going with very large documents. But its
>>>automation is non-existent, and its ability to import normal corporate files
>>>is very shaky. I haven't tried InDesign yet, keep threatening myself that
>>>"it's time..." However, it's actually quite rare for me to want to "print"
>>>my documents these days. Documents that size are normally shipped in some
>>>electronic format, and for that, Word with its rich automation is the best
>>>weapon there is.
>>>
>>>As a stop-gap, I wonder if we could persuade Product Marketing to include a
>>>copy of Office 2003 along with Windows XP and VPC in Mac Office Pro? That's
>>>how I survive at work with this Mac laptop :-) Yeah, it's only an iBook,
>>>but if you throw enough memory into it, VPC 7/Word 2003 works well enough to
>>>get you out of trouble.
>>>
>>>I tend to run Word 2003 almost entirely for its VBA editor: write the macros
>>>over there then use them in Word 2004 :-)
>>>
>>>But I ramble...
>>>
>>>Happy New Year to You Too
>>>
>>
>>Disagree with you vehemently on the need for a pro version.
>>
>>I've been apoletic with Adobe for creating a Standard and Pro Version of
>>Acrobat.
>>
>>In Order to get forms creation you are 'required" to by the pro version
>>at $150-200 more than Standard just to get the ability to creat forms.
>>
>>Some of the unnecessay junk I have to put up with is some Pre-Press
>>Features I will never use.
>>
>>When I bought word 6.0.1a I found I could actually do more with it than
>>PageMaker.
>>
>>Now your recommending creating a dumbed down version much like
>>Appleworks or MicroSoft Works.
>>
>>What will happen is, if they take you seriously, that in order to get
>>features I need I'll have to buy the Pro Version and pay $800.00 for it.
>>
>>You didn't do me any favors. Software cost too &*$#! much as it is. IT
>>tough enough just to keep up with the hardware. I have to use a machine
>>for at least 7 years or more before I consider upgrading as it is.
>>
>>OF course I could go to the "Darkside" and pickup an excellent Machine
>>for about a month's worth of my Social Security or less.
>>
>>IF they take up your suggestion of creating two forks you'll be on my
>>"S" list forever. :-<
>
>
-- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling 616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868 Martinsville Va 24112-1809 |pjones@kimbanet.com, ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailto:pjones@kimbanet.com <http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm> <http://home.kimbanet.com/~pjones/90th_Birthday/index.htm> <http://vpea.exis.net>
- Next message: MuzikJunky: "Re: Selector bar freezes part 4"
- Previous message: Beth Rosengard: "Re: Saving impossible because disk is full ???"
- In reply to: John McGhie: "Re: Resizing the Formatting Palette"
- Next in thread: Elliott Roper: "Re: Resizing the Formatting Palette"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
