"Strict" Word template for end-users? (take III)

[Geoff Hart]

Eddie VanArsdall provided some valuable clarifications to my previous  
post. I said "The problem is that it's easy for someone to  
inadvertently reapply the styles from their own version of (say) the  
Normal template". Eddie noted: <<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.>>

Sloppy wording on my part. If you've defined your own styles (e.g.,  
Eddie Heading 1), and the user of the template has memorized the  
Control-Alt-1 shortcut to apply Word's Heading 1 (from Normal.dot),  
you can end up with both heading styles in the document. If you've  
edited the built-in styles, or have reassigned the keyboard  
shortcuts, that shouldn't be a major problem.

<<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.>>

Very true. It's also worth noting that templates only define the  
initial condition of a file. Once you've created the file, you can  
abuse the styles to your heart's content, and unless you've defined  
the styles so that they automatically update to reflect the template,  
there's not much you can do to control that.

<<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.>>

Also true. I tend to think of Word solely as a text-generation tool,  
and pour the text into other applications (e.g., InDesign) for final  
production. But you can certainly use Word for the complete authoring  
process, and in that case PDFMaker is a good choice.

<<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... If you WANT headings  
to inherit from each other, then do it for a logical reason.>>

The latter point is important: The purpose of using the "based on"  
setting is that it lets you make global changes to (say) all text in  
a certain category (e.g., headings vs. figure captions vs. body text)  
by modifying the underlying style. If you need (for example) to  
change all your body text (paragraphs, bullets, numbered lists, etc.)  
from serif to sans serif (e.g., if you're publishing one version of  
the document in print and another online), it's much easier to edit  
one style definition and have all styles based on that definition  
update automatically. Of course, you do have to carefully think about  
the relationships between styles for this to work.

<<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.>>

Not just memory intensive: as others have noted, it also requires the  
additional step of inserting a bookmark, and that can be too much  
effort in a heavily hyperlinked document where the links are created  
without using the built-in styles. It also introduces another  
possibility for error: mistyping the bookmark. Easier to select a  
destination from a list of headings.

<<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 suspect it's all a matter of what you're used to. Using the built- 
in styles is certainly easier, but it doesn't take long to learn to  
use custom styles in their place, particularly if you map them to  
familiar keystrokes and provide toolbars or menus to make the use of  
the new styles easy.

<<Many people don't understand the purpose of the built-in styles,  
and that's Microsoft's fault.>

It's certainly true that styles in Word are far more difficult to use  
than they need to be.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

Geoff Hart   ghart at videotron.ca

(try geoffhart at mac.com if you don't get a reply)

www.geoff-hart.com

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Coming soon:  _Effective onscreen editing_ (http://www.geoff-hart.com/ 
home/onscreen-book.htm)