G
Guest
how do i reply to an email using word editor. have have just upgraded to
word and outlook 2007. also does any one know how to run auto text in word
2007
word and outlook 2007. also does any one know how to run auto text in word
2007
G
Graham Mayor
Outlook now has its own Word-like editor, which has its own set of autotext
entries. Add the building Blocks organizer to the Outlook Editor QAT.
Entries are saved in NormalEmail.dotm. Word is not available for use as an
Outlook editor (though you can create e-mail messages in Word.)
Autotext entries in Word also are easiest picked from the building blocks
organizer as the autocomplete is missing from 2007. Or use autocorrect
instead.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP
My web site www.gmayor.com
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
entries. Add the building Blocks organizer to the Outlook Editor QAT.
Entries are saved in NormalEmail.dotm. Word is not available for use as an
Outlook editor (though you can create e-mail messages in Word.)
Autotext entries in Word also are easiest picked from the building blocks
organizer as the autocomplete is missing from 2007. Or use autocorrect
instead.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP
My web site www.gmayor.com
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
B
Beth Melton
Graham Mayor said:
.....or add the AutoText gallery to the Quick Access Toolbar which is far
easier than attempting to find them in the Building Blocks Organizer.
Please post all follow-up questions to the newsgroup. Requests for
assistance by email cannot be acknowledged.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Beth Melton
Microsoft Office MVP
Coauthor of Word 2007 Inside Out:
http://www.microsoft.com/MSPress/books/9801.aspx#AboutTheBook
Word FAQ: http://mvps.org/word
TechTrax eZine: http://mousetrax.com/techtrax/
MVP FAQ site: http://mvps.org/
G
Graham Mayor
That works too, though not all building blocks are in the Autotext gallery
The building blocks organizer can be put in aplhabetical order by clicking
its header (much like Windows Explorer) ... now if only it would stay that
way
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP
My web site www.gmayor.com
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
The building blocks organizer can be put in aplhabetical order by clicking
its header (much like Windows Explorer) ... now if only it would stay that
way
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP
My web site www.gmayor.com
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
B
Beth Melton
The only "AutoText" in Word 2007 is the AutoText gallery that is available
when creating/organizing Building Blocks.
If you're referring to Building Blocks, and not the AutoText gallery, then
if the entry is something you created and added to the Quick Parts gallery
then accessing the Quick Parts gallery would be faster than the Building
Blocks Organizer. Otherwise, it's usually faster to access those Building
Blocks that belong to a specific gallery from that gallery on the Ribbon,
such as Headers, Footers, Page Numbers, etc. (The key to quick insertion for
those you frequently use is to assign them to a category so they'll sort to
the top. For example I have a category called "(Beth)".) The other option is
use your own custom galleries and add the respective gallery to your Quick
Access Toolbar. If you really want to scroll through the Building Blocks
Organizer than by all means, do so but I can't see where it would be the
easiest choice or the fastest choice. I've been using Word 2007 for about 2
years, now, I've never used the Building Blocks Organizer to insert Building
Blocks - it's far too cumbersome even with the ability to sort.
Please post all follow-up questions to the newsgroup. Requests for
assistance by email cannot be acknowledged.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Beth Melton
Microsoft Office MVP
Coauthor of Word 2007 Inside Out:
http://www.microsoft.com/MSPress/books/9801.aspx#AboutTheBook
Word FAQ: http://mvps.org/word
TechTrax eZine: http://mousetrax.com/techtrax/
MVP FAQ site: http://mvps.org/
when creating/organizing Building Blocks.
If you're referring to Building Blocks, and not the AutoText gallery, then
if the entry is something you created and added to the Quick Parts gallery
then accessing the Quick Parts gallery would be faster than the Building
Blocks Organizer. Otherwise, it's usually faster to access those Building
Blocks that belong to a specific gallery from that gallery on the Ribbon,
such as Headers, Footers, Page Numbers, etc. (The key to quick insertion for
those you frequently use is to assign them to a category so they'll sort to
the top. For example I have a category called "(Beth)".) The other option is
use your own custom galleries and add the respective gallery to your Quick
Access Toolbar. If you really want to scroll through the Building Blocks
Organizer than by all means, do so but I can't see where it would be the
easiest choice or the fastest choice. I've been using Word 2007 for about 2
years, now, I've never used the Building Blocks Organizer to insert Building
Blocks - it's far too cumbersome even with the ability to sort.
Please post all follow-up questions to the newsgroup. Requests for
assistance by email cannot be acknowledged.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Beth Melton
Microsoft Office MVP
Coauthor of Word 2007 Inside Out:
http://www.microsoft.com/MSPress/books/9801.aspx#AboutTheBook
Word FAQ: http://mvps.org/word
TechTrax eZine: http://mousetrax.com/techtrax/
MVP FAQ site: http://mvps.org/
G
Graham Mayor
Agreed - however, for those familiar with earlier Word versions, an
'autotext' entry created by using ALT+F3 is not (by default) stored as
'autotext' but is stored in Building Blocks in the Quick Parts General
category and this does not appear in the autotext gallery, which could cause
some confusion. It certainly confused me until I got my head around it
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP
My web site www.gmayor.com
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
'autotext' entry created by using ALT+F3 is not (by default) stored as
'autotext' but is stored in Building Blocks in the Quick Parts General
category and this does not appear in the autotext gallery, which could cause
some confusion. It certainly confused me until I got my head around it
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP
My web site www.gmayor.com
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
B
Beth Melton
Perhaps if you called them Building Blocks instead of AutoText it would be
less confusing. <grin>
Please post all follow-up questions to the newsgroup. Requests for
assistance by email cannot be acknowledged.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Beth Melton
Microsoft Office MVP
Coauthor of Word 2007 Inside Out:
http://www.microsoft.com/MSPress/books/9801.aspx#AboutTheBook
Word FAQ: http://mvps.org/word
TechTrax eZine: http://mousetrax.com/techtrax/
MVP FAQ site: http://mvps.org/
less confusing. <grin>
Please post all follow-up questions to the newsgroup. Requests for
assistance by email cannot be acknowledged.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Beth Melton
Microsoft Office MVP
Coauthor of Word 2007 Inside Out:
http://www.microsoft.com/MSPress/books/9801.aspx#AboutTheBook
Word FAQ: http://mvps.org/word
TechTrax eZine: http://mousetrax.com/techtrax/
MVP FAQ site: http://mvps.org/
G
Graham Mayor
You could be right, but it wasn't me who hijacked a perfectly good system to
produce something barely compatible with earlier versions
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP
My web site www.gmayor.com
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
produce something barely compatible with earlier versions
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP
My web site www.gmayor.com
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
B
Beth Melton
I'd have to disagree with this assessment. This is the first time in which
Microsoft changed the file format and actually made the effort to maintain
compatibility with previous versions. Previously, such as the switch from
Word 95 to Word 97, you couldn't just open a document created in a previous
version without upgrading it and you couldn't open a document saved in a
later version in the earlier version. Granted they later came out with the
capability to do this but it was much, much later - so late that most still
don't know this functionality exists.
For the Word dev team, compatibility was one of their top priorities and I
commend them for this. Sure, there are still a few flaws but as a whole I
think they did a great job - especially with the Compatibility Checker which
tells you specifically what will not convert and the outcome should you
choose to not make the recommended changes. This is the first time we've had
such a utility.
Please post all follow-up questions to the newsgroup. Requests for
assistance by email cannot be acknowledged.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Beth Melton
Microsoft changed the file format and actually made the effort to maintain
compatibility with previous versions. Previously, such as the switch from
Word 95 to Word 97, you couldn't just open a document created in a previous
version without upgrading it and you couldn't open a document saved in a
later version in the earlier version. Granted they later came out with the
capability to do this but it was much, much later - so late that most still
don't know this functionality exists.
For the Word dev team, compatibility was one of their top priorities and I
commend them for this. Sure, there are still a few flaws but as a whole I
think they did a great job - especially with the Compatibility Checker which
tells you specifically what will not convert and the outcome should you
choose to not make the recommended changes. This is the first time we've had
such a utility.
Please post all follow-up questions to the newsgroup. Requests for
assistance by email cannot be acknowledged.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Beth Melton
G
Graham Mayor
You are not seriously telling me that you believe the cock-up over autotext
in 2007 is an improvement? With its inability to display autocomplete texts
and its integration with the building block function - even vba calls to
autotext don't work without modification - this is not my idea of an
'improvement' whatever the merits of the file format (which I hadn't
mentioned). When things aren't broken, they don't need fixing.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP
My web site www.gmayor.com
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
in 2007 is an improvement? With its inability to display autocomplete texts
and its integration with the building block function - even vba calls to
autotext don't work without modification - this is not my idea of an
'improvement' whatever the merits of the file format (which I hadn't
mentioned). When things aren't broken, they don't need fixing.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP
My web site www.gmayor.com
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
B
Beth Melton
Quite serious. Granted, I dislike the removal of the AutoComplete capability
and did my best to persuade them to add it back (as did many others) but I
do think Building Blocks are a definite improvement over the old AutoText.
While it wasn't broken it was in need of improvement and functionality known
only to those who go digging for it needed more discoverability. (Did you
know there are numerous Word users who think AutoText is for text only?).
Perhaps my opinion is swayed by the fact that much of what was implemented
was a very detailed "wish" I filed several years ago. The ability to use a
dialog box to assign entries to categories and such so those in the same
category can be easily displayed independently in the interface, and the
same ability to modify them or "reassign" a category, was at the top of the
list. (Also on the list was the need to make it very clear where newly
created entries were saved and the ability to quickly move them between
templates without using a separate utility such as the Organizer.) My
thought then was for them to add more visibility to what could already be
done using styles and such. Galleries weren't part of my vision but
ultimately I like their ideas better than mine and in the numerous
presentations I've given on Office 2007, the general consensus is Building
Blocks are great time savers.
I accept the fact that certain changes also needed to be made in the Object
model (and there are still outstanding changes that are need regarding the
new functionality because I do think it's a step forward. And, since you
mentioned it, I think the new file formats finally put Office 2007 into the
correct century.
I also tend to keep general Word users in mind when I evaluate the various
new functionalities. Certain functionality needs to be placed in the hands
of every user and not limited to those who are power users or advanced
users. This viewpoint is based on interactions I've had with students for
over 12 years. I realize I see different needs than those who are advanced
users. I tend to see all sides of the situation from the very basic to the
very advanced. To forwarn you, I'm also a forward thinker so I'm fairly
certain you'd disagree with a lot of the "improvements" I feel would be
fantastic changes for Word 14. ;-)
Please post all follow-up questions to the newsgroup. Requests for
assistance by email cannot be acknowledged.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Beth Melton
Microsoft Office MVP
Coauthor of Word 2007 Inside Out:
http://www.microsoft.com/MSPress/books/9801.aspx#AboutTheBook
Word FAQ: http://mvps.org/word
TechTrax eZine: http://mousetrax.com/techtrax/
MVP FAQ site: http://mvps.org/
and did my best to persuade them to add it back (as did many others) but I
do think Building Blocks are a definite improvement over the old AutoText.
While it wasn't broken it was in need of improvement and functionality known
only to those who go digging for it needed more discoverability. (Did you
know there are numerous Word users who think AutoText is for text only?).
Perhaps my opinion is swayed by the fact that much of what was implemented
was a very detailed "wish" I filed several years ago. The ability to use a
dialog box to assign entries to categories and such so those in the same
category can be easily displayed independently in the interface, and the
same ability to modify them or "reassign" a category, was at the top of the
list. (Also on the list was the need to make it very clear where newly
created entries were saved and the ability to quickly move them between
templates without using a separate utility such as the Organizer.) My
thought then was for them to add more visibility to what could already be
done using styles and such. Galleries weren't part of my vision but
ultimately I like their ideas better than mine and in the numerous
presentations I've given on Office 2007, the general consensus is Building
Blocks are great time savers.
I accept the fact that certain changes also needed to be made in the Object
model (and there are still outstanding changes that are need regarding the
new functionality because I do think it's a step forward. And, since you
mentioned it, I think the new file formats finally put Office 2007 into the
correct century.
I also tend to keep general Word users in mind when I evaluate the various
new functionalities. Certain functionality needs to be placed in the hands
of every user and not limited to those who are power users or advanced
users. This viewpoint is based on interactions I've had with students for
over 12 years. I realize I see different needs than those who are advanced
users. I tend to see all sides of the situation from the very basic to the
very advanced. To forwarn you, I'm also a forward thinker so I'm fairly
certain you'd disagree with a lot of the "improvements" I feel would be
fantastic changes for Word 14. ;-)
Please post all follow-up questions to the newsgroup. Requests for
assistance by email cannot be acknowledged.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Beth Melton
Microsoft Office MVP
Coauthor of Word 2007 Inside Out:
http://www.microsoft.com/MSPress/books/9801.aspx#AboutTheBook
Word FAQ: http://mvps.org/word
TechTrax eZine: http://mousetrax.com/techtrax/
MVP FAQ site: http://mvps.org/
G
Graham Mayor
Not only do some users think autotext is for text only, but some think that
autocorrect is only for making corrections, whereas as you know it will
insert just about anything that you can insert with autotext.
I cannot agree with you that building blocks are an improvement, but I
respect your opinion. No software will suit everyone.
I do appreciate the new file format, which is the best part of the new Word,
but I remain annoyed that the well learned expertise of many Word users has
been squandered to produce the new version. I have been using it for some
months now and while I use it 90% of the time, I still find it infuriating
at times that I cannot find familiar functions quickly. Only this morning,
after digging around looking for 'paste > special' I cheated and used
http://ribboncustomizer.com/ to look in the familiar old menu.
I know we have had this conversation before, but I would have much preferred
for Microsoft to have first attended to functions that have never worked
correctly - master document being one - before completely changing the way
the program works. I would have been more forgiving if they had done this as
well as changing the presentation, but they haven't.
I am not a Luddite, I do embrace new software, but I like to see some real
benefit to justify re-learning something which I could use almost
blindfolded, just to get me back to the starting position. Apart from the
file format, I still only see a pretty face and no great benefit from the
change - and several months along the line, I have still not returned to the
level of productivity I enjoyed at the beginning of the year. I am sure that
many other power users will have similar thoughts.
There's an old military expression 'Bullsh*it baffles brains'. This new
version has more than its share of the bull about it
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP
My web site www.gmayor.com
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>.
autocorrect is only for making corrections, whereas as you know it will
insert just about anything that you can insert with autotext.
I cannot agree with you that building blocks are an improvement, but I
respect your opinion. No software will suit everyone.
I do appreciate the new file format, which is the best part of the new Word,
but I remain annoyed that the well learned expertise of many Word users has
been squandered to produce the new version. I have been using it for some
months now and while I use it 90% of the time, I still find it infuriating
at times that I cannot find familiar functions quickly. Only this morning,
after digging around looking for 'paste > special' I cheated and used
http://ribboncustomizer.com/ to look in the familiar old menu.
I know we have had this conversation before, but I would have much preferred
for Microsoft to have first attended to functions that have never worked
correctly - master document being one - before completely changing the way
the program works. I would have been more forgiving if they had done this as
well as changing the presentation, but they haven't.
I am not a Luddite, I do embrace new software, but I like to see some real
benefit to justify re-learning something which I could use almost
blindfolded, just to get me back to the starting position. Apart from the
file format, I still only see a pretty face and no great benefit from the
change - and several months along the line, I have still not returned to the
level of productivity I enjoyed at the beginning of the year. I am sure that
many other power users will have similar thoughts.
There's an old military expression 'Bullsh*it baffles brains'. This new
version has more than its share of the bull about it
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>
Graham Mayor - Word MVP
My web site www.gmayor.com
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>><<>.