Re: Word should catalog misspelled words to study.

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" <sbarnhill@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uZw$QZ4#FHA.3096@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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
> news:eJMqPf1%23FHA.3340@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > 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" <sbarnhill@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:eb8L#S0#FHA.4092@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > 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: Publish Web Server behind SBS 2003 Standard
    ... Microsoft CSS Online Newsgroup Support ... When opening a new thread via the web interface, ... |> Method 2: Different ports ... |> "Network Connection". ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: DITCH THE RIBBON!
    ... How about you stop blasting this group with your uninformed comments until you actually read the UI blog - and I mean READ not only looked at the pretty pictures - and played with the new ribbon UI for a few weeks. ... >> First of all the interface should be able to lock down, ... >> You should be able to tear off the toolbars into ONE ...
    (microsoft.public.office.misc)
  • Re: Word should catalog misspelled words to study.
    ... Yes I keep up to date on that blog. ... >> Cost first. ... every additional feature adds complexity. ... >> complexity there is the more core functionality can be compromised. ...
    (microsoft.public.word.docmanagement)
  • RE: Page cannot be displayed in OWA
    ... But from the internet I cannot access the OWA or RWW ... This newsgroup only focuses on SBS technical issues. ... When opening a new thread via the web interface, ... | 25 to the external interface of the server ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: per-interface packet filters
    ... We have a well commented firewall scripts, we store them at RCS, ... I think ppl who runs real-life router with firewall on ... > fbsd will vote for this feature by both hands. ... > With that feature we can select right rules for specific interface ...
    (freebsd-net)