TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:"Strict" Word template for end-users? (take III) From:"Eddie VanArsdall" <evanarsdall -at- comcast -dot- net> To:<techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> Date:Sat, 3 Feb 2007 13:07:34 -0500
Geoff and all, I have a few comments to contribute to the ongoing template
conversation. The quotes are from Geoff's last post on this subject:
REGARDING WORD AND TEMPLATE CUSTOMIZATIONS:
QUOTE: <<If you're going to the trouble of creating your own template, you
should NOT use the default styles. The problem is that it's easy for someone
to inadvertently reapply the styles from their own version of (say) the
Normal template.>> END QUOTE
Not so. Templates are individual containers, and as long as you set them up
properly, what users do and what keys they press will not affect the Normal
template unless the document (.doc file)--not the underlying template (.dot
file)--is based on Normal. True, Normal is Word's base template, and it's
the starting file for creating other templates. So, when you create your
first template, you'll most likely open Normal (or a file based on it). As
long as you save the new file with a .dot extension and give it a new name,
documents based on the new template have no relationship with Normal
whatsoever.
>From that point, you'll probably base custom templates on other custom
templates that you have developed. I recommend that all templates use the
built-in styles as core styles for such things as headings and body text,
but that you add customized styles to fulfill the ad hoc purposes for each
template. As long as you have set up a proper .dot file for each template,
you can modify the core styles to your heart's content without having them
affect other templates.
You can also map specific keystrokes in each template, and those keystrokes
will have no bearing on the default keystrokes used by Normal nor any other
template. If you have several documents open at once and each is based on a
different template, the customizations from each template take over when the
document based on that template is active. Of course, you should maintain as
much consistency as possible--in style naming and in keystroke mapping--to
avoid confusing users.
REGARDING WORD AND PDF:
Distiller is great for producing generic PDFs, but if you want to control
the left-pane bookmark navigation and the clickable cross-references in the
PDF file, the PDF Maker macro that ships with Acrobat Writer and installs
itself in Word is the better choice for Word documents. The combination of
Word 2003 and Acrobat 7 is the best yet. Acrobat makes certain assumptions
about the hierarchy based on built-in heading styles, but the Customize PDF
options offer great controls for fine-tuning the PDF output.
REGARDING LINKED STYLES:
ORIGINAL QUOTE: <<3. The default styles are linked.>> GEOFF'S RESPONSE:
Badly. In what world does it make sense to define the properties of the
heading styles based on the Normal style (i.e., based on body text)? I long
ago stopped counting the number of people who have written to various
discussion groups to complain that they edited the Normal style and all
their headings were suddenly screwed up. In any event, you can create your
own (more intelligent) hierarchy quickly and easily by defining the "based
on" and "next paragraph" properties for each style when you define the
style.>> END QUOTE
I completely agree. Word treats Normal as if it's the HTML <body> tag and
everything should inherit from it. The first thing you should do when you
set up any style definition, and especially for Word headings, is to set the
Based on property to No Style. Don't even base them on each other. I have
seen Heading implementations where all lower-level headings are based on
Heading 1. That invites disaster, too. If you WANT headings to inherit from
each other, then do it for a logical reason. For example, I often use an
indented version of the Caption style, and I set it to allow inheritance.
This ensures that if I change the font style or size for the main Caption
style, the indented version takes on the same properties.
CROSS-REFERENCES:
QUOTE: <<...the usual (and easy) solution is to define bookmarks for each
heading you want to link to. That's analogous to using "anchor" tags in HTML
for jumps within a page. This approach has several advantages over relying
on the default styles, including the fact that you can create bookmarks
using a standardized, logical, easy to remember system that makes it easier
to define the target of a cross-reference.>>
Yes. Unfortunately, Microsoft just doesn't get it on this one. Unlike
FrameMaker, which shows ALL styles in its cross-reference dialog box, Word
limits your choices to built-in styles, so bookmarking is the better choice.
The downside is that it's more memory-intensive. Just take care not to
accidentally delete your bookmarks, and caution your users about this, too.
I realize that VBA is not part of the equation that started this discussion,
but for those of you who are interested, the book Word Hacks has great code
examples, and one of them shows you how to create a customized
cross-reference dialog box that will show all styles. I haven't used the
solution because it's so labor-intensive, but it's there if you want to try
it. You'll find the book on Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/Word-Hacks-Tips-Tools-Taming/dp/0596004931/sr=1-1/qid=
1170523846/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-7507634-8744652?ie=UTF8&s=books.
Referring to providing template documentation or building documentation into
the templates, Geoff wrote the following: QUOTE <<In my experience, only
editors read such documents, as well as the occasional new writer who's just
been hired. As noted in my previous message in this thread, the goal is to
make your own styles so much easier to use than the default styles that
people have no incentive not to use them. As in software interface design,
the need to document something is a strong clue that the something is far
less usable than it should be. You can never wholly eliminate documentation,
but you shouldn't depend exclusively on it.>> END QUOTE
Sorry, but I don't see it this way. Creating all customized styles without
taking advantage of the built-in styles not only creates a lot of
unnecessary extra work; it adds more confusion for the users. If they open
up a blank Word document and see Normal, Body Text, and Heading styles, then
they expect to see those styles in other documents. To the extent that you
can, use the built-in styles and add some of your own. Establish a naming
convention for custom style names so that users know they're custom styles.
(I have sometimes used custom prefixes to denote custom styles, which also
places them together on the styles list.) Launch a pro-active training
initiative. If several writers are using the templates, meet with them
individually and answer their questions.
Seriously, most of the failed Word template initiatives I have seen are
those where template developers reinvent the wheel. I'm not saying that
reinvention isn't necessary, but most of what I have seen is overkill. Many
people don't understand the purpose of the built-in styles, and that's
Microsoft's fault. MS has never promoted nor encouraged the use of styles
except in help topics and tutorials. They could easily make the built-in
toolbar buttons apply styles, but they don't. They have created formatting
nightmares by encouraging users to apply formatting overrides: bullets and
numbers attached to non-numbered styles, and direct formatting used for bold
and italics, rather than using character styles. When I build templates, I
try to use mostly identical button toolbar images, but I ensure that buttons
such as Bold actually apply the Strong character style.
Anyway, that's my two cents for today.
Eddie
Edward VanArsdall
Information Design and Development
Technical Writing and Editing | Training | Instructional Design |
Informational Analysis
Senior Member, Society for Technical Communication
evanarsdall -at- comcast -dot- net
H: 703-486-2952
C: 703-201-6433
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Create HTML or Microsoft Word content and convert to Help file formats or
printed documentation. Features include single source authoring, team authoring,
Web-based technology, and PDF output. http://www.DocToHelp.com/TechwrlList
Now shipping: Help & Manual 4 with RoboHelp(r) import! New editor,
full Unicode support. Create help files, web-based help and PDF in up
to 106 languages with Help & Manual: http://www.helpandmanual.com
---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- infoinfocus -dot- com -dot-
