Re: Word should catalog misspelled words to study.

Tech Tip: Click here to run a free scan for Windows Errors and optimize PC performance

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/archive/category/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
news:%23raYxNz%23FHA.1600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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" <rndthought@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:277ACF8A-6C76-494A-9C09-D524C03551D3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > 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" <rndthought@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > > news:291AF79F-EA00-4F73-A192-D365EA5AAAF0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > 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" <rndthought@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
> > > > > news:669AD00B-F1F5-474B-B9CA-D643A8CAFB1C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > 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" <rndthought@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> message
> > > > > > > news:61E72678-924E-421E-8801-E2C112916567@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
    ... Cost first. ... every additional feature adds complexity. ... Tony ... to produce a list of misspelled words would first, ...
    (microsoft.public.word.docmanagement)
  • Re: Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
    ... Not one damn reason I can think of...but must warn you I'm about 5 ahead of ... Thank you Greg. ... >> one exception to you Tony. ... >> back into the text to voice feature that is already a feature in MS ...
    (microsoft.public.word.docmanagement)
  • Re: Install printer for users with mandatory profiles.
    ... It´s a bug, not a feature ... Thats a misunderstanding, you just have to open the "Deploy-Wizard" again, ... Why is the path for the LogFile hardcoded? ... The reason why it failed, is not mentioned, so you don´t need it. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.group_policy)
  • Re: use make and version control system for every project?
    ... > That's a flaw of CVS, not of revision control. ... >> relative to frequent backups (for personal projects, ... >> also a feature I've found extremely little use for. ... and I'm not convinced of the usefulness of Reason A. ...
    (comp.lang.python)
  • Re: Scanning into word
    ... Another way to annoy us so that we will get fed up and switch to computers from the Dark side. ... This nonsense about the numbers are their to make it worth their while is nonsense, When you company makes billions and billions, and billions of dollars its not going to kill your bottom line to put the same exact feature set in software for all Platforms. ... One reason that people don't buy the software is because the feature are not in there and they make silly assumptions about people that use Mac's They assume mac are just strictly used to draw and paint stuff or do Graphics,video or audio editing.People that use Mac's run business es also. ...
    (microsoft.public.mac.office.word)