|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> You really have no idea how Word is used in the real world, do you?
You're right. My place of work isn't the real world at all.
> A few things you didn't mention which are used *extensively* by most
> companies I've dealt with:
>
> - Document templates
> - Reviewing/markup
> - Styles
> - Spell check
> - Page breaks
> - Tables
> - Picture editing (brightness/contrast)
> - Table-of-contents
> - Cross-referencing
> - Forms and document protection
> - Drawings/diagrams
And how many of these features aren't in Word 2.0?
(I don't recall it having templates or styles, and it likely didn't have
picture editing, but I'm pretty sure everything else on that list was
there.)
As an aside, at work we try to avoid document templates to the maximum
extent possible because they cause Word to crash. I'm also 98% sure none
of the Word power users know about styles.
> - General VB scripting
> - Mail merge
> - Columns
> - Address label creation
> - Thesaurus
> - Automatic emailing of form data
> - Simple formulae in form boxes
Now at least we come to some things Word 2.0 didn't have - specifically
I don't recall it having VB. Or address label creation. Or forms. I'd be
really surprised if anybody out there actually uses VB though.
> What I hate most is people who don't know how to use Word, and treat it
> like WordPad. There is so much power there I don't understand why
> people don't take just a small amount of training for something they
> probably use almost every day.
Because M$ tells us that "Word is easy". Why would you need training for
something that is "easy"?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
487efeda$1@news.povray.org...
> And M$ somehow "knows" what features people do and don't use?
They have this:
http://www.microsoft.com/usability/studies.mspx
Also, when they don't get something right or when something's missing they
have gazillions of users who tell them a piece of their mind, like this guy:
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/141821.asp
G.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You're right. My place of work isn't the real world at all.
Exactly, you seem to base your assumptions of how the whole world uses Word
based on how the people in your company use it. You regularly present lots
of evidence about how screwed up IT is in your company, so don't you think
that there might actually be other companies out there that are a tad more
organised in this sort of thing?
> As an aside, at work we try to avoid document templates to the maximum
> extent possible because they cause Word to crash.
See, it's comments like that that really show a completely screwed up IT
mentality. Does it not occur to you that something else might have been
causing the crashes, given that it is likely millions of people actually do
use templates daily without Word crashing? How on Earth do you keep
consistent looking documents without using templates? Don't you think it
would be headline news on every IT website if nobody could use document
templates without Word crashing? Don't you think MS would release a fix
straight away if there was such a problem?
> I'm also 98% sure none of the Word power users know about styles.
WTF? You really need to send your "Word power users" on a beginners course
for Word. And be concerned that they are happy to manually change the font
styles for every heading/caption/sub-heading and never ever consider that
there might be a faster way to do it. What else are they doing in their job
so stupidly that they could be doing much more effectively?
> Now at least we come to some things Word 2.0 didn't have - specifically I
> don't recall it having VB. Or address label creation. Or forms. I'd be
> really surprised if anybody out there actually uses VB though.
Googling "VBA in Word" gives 5460000 results, seems like a lot of people
have something to say about it.
> Because M$ tells us that "Word is easy". Why would you need training for
> something that is "easy"?
I think it says more about the mentality of the user if they don't seek to
find more efficient ways to work. Not just in using software, but in other
things too.
Even though we did two MS Office courses at work ages ago, I still quite
regularly think to myself "oh there *must* be a quicker way to do this,
surely someone else has needed to do this before" - and 99% of the time,
sure enough, there is functionality built-in to Word/Excel to do this.
That's what is the difference between Office 2008 and Word 2.0 / WordPad /
whatever.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> In other words, *all* the features that are in Word are there because
>> there are a significant number of people who use them.
>
> Really?
>
> And M$ somehow "knows" what features people do and don't use?
Of course they do, I can't believe you would think otherwise. THey don't
just sit there in a closed off building, and out pops a new version of
Office every few years.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> In other words, *all* the features that are in Word are there because
>>> there are a significant number of people who use them.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> And M$ somehow "knows" what features people do and don't use?
>
> Of course they do, I can't believe you would think otherwise. THey
> don't just sit there in a closed off building, and out pops a new
> version of Office every few years.
Are you suggesting that somebody somewhere *wanted* The Paperclip??
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> You're right. My place of work isn't the real world at all.
>
> Exactly, you seem to base your assumptions of how the whole world uses
> Word based on how the people in your company use it. You regularly
> present lots of evidence about how screwed up IT is in your company, so
> don't you think that there might actually be other companies out there
> that are a tad more organised in this sort of thing?
The people who work in IT are pretty screwed up. The regular users at
the UK site are just normal people trying to get their job done. In
particular, we have two report writers who spend practically their
entire way working with M$ Word and do almost nothing else.
>> As an aside, at work we try to avoid document templates to the maximum
>> extent possible because they cause Word to crash.
>
> See, it's comments like that that really show a completely screwed up IT
> mentality.
> Does it not occur to you that something else might have been
> causing the crashes, given that it is likely millions of people actually
> do use templates daily without Word crashing?
I'm still waiting to see hard evidence that "millions of people actually
do use templates without Word crashing".
Word's tendancy to crash at the slightest provocation is the stuff of
legend, to the point that nobody even bothers to *try* to fix it any
more. We just placidly accept that if you use Word it *will* crash, and
there's essentially nothing you can do about it.
> How on Earth do you keep
> consistent looking documents without using templates?
Hint: It's very slow and tedious.
(Actually, I didn't say we *don't* use templates. I said we *avoid*
using them. Some customers demand that we use the templates they supply.
From what I understand, some of these templates work OK, and others
cause endless crashes, much to the frustration of people trying to get
their job done...)
> Don't you think
> it would be headline news on every IT website if nobody could use
> document templates without Word crashing? Don't you think MS would
> release a fix straight away if there was such a problem?
I thought it *was* headline news that Word is cripplingly unreliable?
Again, Word has a selection of "well known" bugs that have never
actually been fixed. For example
http://word.mvps.org/FAQs/AppErrors/PageXofY.htm
http://word.mvps.org/FAQs/Numbering/WordsNumberingExplained.htm
Just two articles explaining ways to cope with Word brokenness. (And
written by MVPs, no less.)
>> I'm also 98% sure none of the Word power users know about styles.
>
> WTF? You really need to send your "Word power users" on a beginners
> course for Word. And be concerned that they are happy to manually
> change the font styles for every heading/caption/sub-heading and never
> ever consider that there might be a faster way to do it. What else are
> they doing in their job so stupidly that they could be doing much more
> effectively?
Spending many, many hours correcting formatting glitches *is*
practically their entire job description.
[That's slightly unfair - they also made corrections, add new
information, rearrange sections, etc. Since they use Word every single
day, for hours on end, they know way more about Word than I do. For
example, they apparently comprehend how Track Changes is actually
supposed to work. But I've never seen them attempt to use styles...]
>> I'd be really surprised if anybody out there actually uses VB though.
>
> Googling "VBA in Word" gives 5460000 results, seems like a lot of people
> have something to say about it.
On second thoughts, allow me to clarify: I'd be really surprised if
anybody who's job is to "use Word" actually sits down to *write* VB.
There probably are a number of users who *use* VB that somebody else has
written for them...
>> Because M$ tells us that "Word is easy". Why would you need training
>> for something that is "easy"?
>
> I think it says more about the mentality of the user if they don't seek
> to find more efficient ways to work. Not just in using software, but in
> other things too.
Seems to me they're all just resigned to the fact that Word is horribly
awkward to use? *shrugs*
But you have to admit, when M$ spends millions telling us how "easy"
their software is to use and how it will "effortlessly transform the way
you work", it does seem counterintuitive to think that you would need to
expend effort to "learn" it. (Personally I'd suggest that M$ is vastly
exaggerating just how "easy" their software is...)
> Even though we did two MS Office courses at work ages ago, I still quite
> regularly think to myself "oh there *must* be a quicker way to do this,
> surely someone else has needed to do this before" - and 99% of the time,
> sure enough, there is functionality built-in to Word/Excel to do this.
> That's what is the difference between Office 2008 and Word 2.0 / WordPad
> / whatever.
I, personally, don't spent enough time using Word for this to crop up.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Are you suggesting that somebody somewhere *wanted* The Paperclip??
A woman in my office uses it. That's 1 out of 8 people, or 12.5%. When
you have millions of users, that kind of percentage translates to a
*lot* of users.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I'm still waiting to see hard evidence that "millions of people actually
> do use templates without Word crashing".
Well most of the people in my company worldwide use our standard corporate
templates, as did everyone at the previous company I worked for. Plus
everything I've seen coming out of companies like Nokia, Sony Ericson, BMW,
Ford, Daimler is in standard format - I *highly* doubt they have not used
templates to create these documents. That's probably well over a million
people using templates in just the area of industry I work in. Do you
really think all these people would use templates if they were always prone
to crashing?
> Spending many, many hours correcting formatting glitches *is* practically
> their entire job description.
So surely they should have been on numerous training courses to get the
absolute maximum out of Word as efficiently as possible? But they don't
know how to use styles? I still can't believe that.
> But I've never seen them attempt to use styles...]
Why don't you teach them? It will save them hours of work - per day!
Really, are they manually setting the font size, alignment, style etc for
EVERY single heading/subheading/caption in every document? What a complete
and utter waste of time.
> Seems to me they're all just resigned to the fact that Word is horribly
> awkward to use? *shrugs*
But it just smacks of complete incompetence when a) they should have been
trained for this if it's their main job, and b) they don't ask anyone if
there's a more efficient way to do it. Especially when there usually *is* a
more efficient way than just typing as if it is wordpad.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I'm still waiting to see hard evidence that "millions of people
>> actually do use templates without Word crashing".
>
> Well most of the people in my company worldwide use our standard
> corporate templates, as did everyone at the previous company I worked
> for. Plus everything I've seen coming out of companies like Nokia, Sony
> Ericson, BMW, Ford, Daimler is in standard format - I *highly* doubt
> they have not used templates to create these documents. That's probably
> well over a million people using templates in just the area of industry
> I work in. Do you really think all these people would use templates if
> they were always prone to crashing?
Well we churn out seemingly identical documents every month. Word
crashes quite a lot, but the poor souls using it just start again. And
again. And again. Until eventually they get to the finished product. All
the reports look identical because a dedicated team scrutinises every
individual page, line by line, before the document is allowed to be
released. (This has nothing to do with Word - the regulations require
such scrutiny to check that there are no erroneous statements or
ambiguities in the text.)
Presumably Word crashes like hell for everybody else too, and they just
work around it.
>> Spending many, many hours correcting formatting glitches *is*
>> practically their entire job description.
>
> So surely they should have been on numerous training courses to get the
> absolute maximum out of Word as efficiently as possible? But they don't
> know how to use styles? I still can't believe that.
Training? You think the company I work for offers TRAINING? Have you not
been reading lately? ;-)
>> But I've never seen them attempt to use styles...]
>
> Why don't you teach them?
Because *I* can't get Word styles to work either?
(Last time I tried it, my copy of Word ended up permanently broken until
I erased my normal template and deleted a chunk of my per-user registry.)
> It will save them hours of work - per day!
I can see that happening - I mean, if styles could be made to be
reliable and stuff...
> Really, are they manually setting the font size, alignment, style etc
> for EVERY single heading/subheading/caption in every document? What a
> complete and utter waste of time.
Well no, they start with a blank report document that contains all the
section headings and standard text, already formatted. Then they change
all the appropriate fields, insert the data for this specific project,
etc., and then clean up all the formatting that breaks in the process.
>> Seems to me they're all just resigned to the fact that Word is
>> horribly awkward to use? *shrugs*
>
> But it just smacks of complete incompetence when a) they should have
> been trained for this if it's their main job, and b) they don't ask
> anyone if there's a more efficient way to do it. Especially when there
> usually *is* a more efficient way than just typing as if it is wordpad.
Training? I won't argue with that one.
As to whether it's possible to use Word efficiently, I'm not so sure.
But I imagine it could probably be _more_ efficient than what they
currently do, sure.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Presumably Word crashes like hell for everybody else too,
No.
> (Last time I tried it, my copy of Word ended up permanently broken until I
> erased my normal template and deleted a chunk of my per-user registry.)
Never heard of that before. Put your pointer inside a heading, then click
the arrow next to that little box that says "Normal" at the top, and choose
"Heading 1". Do that for all the titles. Then, to change that style, go to
Format->Styles, click the little menu arrow next to the one you want to
change and "Modify...". ANd then, once you've made your changes, it applies
them to everything in the document with that style!!!! Clever eh?
> I can see that happening - I mean, if styles could be made to be reliable
> and stuff...
You really mean the above explanation doesn't work on any of your computers?
It's not complicated!
> Well no, they start with a blank report document that contains all the
> section headings and standard text, already formatted.
So it's not blank then ;-) Sounds to me like maybe that document is corrupt
somehow, so every single "new" document they make still is based on this
corrupt file. Try, just once, opening the file with "Open and repair" and
then save it again. Then get them to use this one in future.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|