Word should catalog misspelled words to study.

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

And I emphasize that by this I meant a third-party add-in, not something
provided by Microsoft. There is a thriving community of Word developers
outside of Microsoft, people like Bill Coan, with his DataPrompter add-in
(which I find very helpful since I'm VBA-less). In addition to commercial
add-ins (sold to anyone who's interested), these developers also provide
custom solutions to those who require them (and are willing to pay). The
bottom line on all of this is economic: we've been told repeatedly that
every proposed function requires a business case, that is, what is the ratio
of the cost to develop to the demand for the feature? Would a feature be
attractive to enough people to sell enough extra copies of Office to make it
worth the cost to develop it?

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so
all may benefit.

 

[Greg Maxey]

A gracious close to a stimulating discussion. One last question.

Why can't I have one pint for the new aquantenance and one for posting and
providing a simple start to to the best damned spelling enhancer the world
has every seen!

 

[Guest]

Greg,

We all headed underground eventually, just a matter of time. I defer to my
Tony response but in an attempt to not spoil all your fun, will respond to a
couple of things.

As for my "half to" mistake, kudos. I’m only looking at misspelled words.
Misspelled words that are actually another word would seemingly fall to the
grammar department in this case. Hay, maybe a grammar mistake logger!!!
Nothing is 100% and I don’t expect that from anything. Nothing substitutes
for proof reading. However, I’ll bet a pint that the next version of MS Word
will catch that very mistake in its already existing impressive grammar check
feature.

And I would not take that bet! No doubt Microsoft could change the rotation
of the earth were it their whim. But all of this is neither here nor there.
I’m only saying it would be a great feature, I see merit in it. I’m not
equipped to lay out how to implement it or how much it would cost.

However, what little I do know seems to say it would not be that difficult.
The majority of the infrastructure is already present. MS Word already
checks every word against the dictionary in real time and designates
unrecognized words with red underlines. The text to voice feature is there.
How hard would it be to log every time a red underlined word is changed to a
recognized word and then have them sounded back? For sure it will be more
complicated than I imagine but not bog the system down intensive.

Certainly implementing alterations using VBA may be far beyond both of our
capabilities (I hope you didn’t feel I was asking you to?) but this may be a
very simple thing for somebody like a MS programmer!

You never know till you ask.

Thanks for the comments Greg! And for what it is worth, your List Spelling
Errors mod is a great little item. I have two people interested in it
already and for two entirely different reasons!

 

[Guest]

Daiya,

The requests you and all the rest have witnessed, my wildest fantasies
wouldn’t come close. But talk of apocalypses and such just doesn’t fit the
simple thing I’ve suggested. Quite the contrary to your concern it is a way
to improve spelling, to become less dependent on computer programs. Imagine
taking pen to paper with no spell check safety net! Spelling is the base of
producing meaningful communication and if providing an option to improve this
ability is an absurd request of a word processing program as extensive as MS
Word, well I just don’t see it.

Spell checker is the single most important advancement to the basic text
editor. This speaks directly to the importance of spelling. (All of this is
my opinion only, lest you think someone is holding a gun to my head telling
me to type this <wink>)

The addition of a spelling tutor feature or module would no more belabor MS
Word with the responsibility of teaching spelling than the automatic spell
check or grammar check features do now. In fact one could argue that MS Word
is a bad citizen, anti-education and pro-lazy by allowing users to simply
guess and stab to get close to words, auto correcting typing mistakes and
pointing out grievous grammatical errors.

I’m not advocating a mallet pop out of the monitor and box the user about
the head until the correct spelling is entered or poor spellers be logged in
a national database. If you don’t want to pursue better spelling, then don’t
enable the feature. You are your own captain.

And what you call the apocalypse, Mr. Bill Gates calls productivity.

Thank you for the thoughtful comments. Will you please join me in a pint?

 

[Guest]

Suzanne,

I bow to you the MS bean counters and pray that third party bean counters
have less acumen.

Thank you for the clarification lest I believe you yielded even one small
point to me! (Flurries of arms and deepest of bows)

Can we have that pint now?

 

[Guest]

Not one damn reason I can think of...but must warn you I'm about 5 ahead of
all of you!

Thank you Greg. And if I pass out, tell the keep they are all on me!

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

Got to keep a clear head now--I'm working on my Rotary bulletin for
tomorrow's meeting--but thanks!

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so
all may benefit.

 

[Daiya Mitchell]

And what you call the apocalypse, Mr. Bill Gates calls productivity.

Yes, that is very true. Nicely stated. The general ethos around developing
and marketing Word does seem to be that it ought to do everything for the
user, right up to thinking. I personally disagree, but I admit it's a line
in the sand that I'm trying to draw.

Thank you for the thoughtful comments. Will you please join me in a pint?

Only if mine can be cider.

Daiya

 

[Tony Jollans]

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 ....

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

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

Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so
all may benefit.

 

[Tony Jollans]

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.

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

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

Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so
all may benefit.

 

[Tony Jollans]

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

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

Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so
all may benefit.

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


interface," new
UI into
this newsgroup What should
be

(and

I (although By
and suggests options
but a
look checks
it correct feature better.
I better
than

particular

I

much

as what
you stands.
Word content
and one
for for
it. choose
to.

for

no is
not children
and know
it assumed
that

in

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

I well remember what happened when my dad first tried to use TurboTax on my
computer. He has an IBM PS/2 and had been using TurboTax for DOS until
Intuit stopped making it. My version, of course, was for Windows and
required use of the mouse. He has a mouse with his computer, but I hadn't
realized that he never used it and didn't know how. I belatedly realized
that he was pointing the mouse at the text box where he wanted to enter
numbers and then typing, but, since he hadn't clicked first, the insertion
point was still somewhere else on the screen even though the mouse pointer
was where he wanted to type. What a mess!

In future, I had him sit beside me and feed me the numbers, which I input.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so
all may benefit.

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

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

Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the

newsgroup

so
all may benefit.

of
the some.
What cost
and

and

I (and from
Word

compromised.

By

engine

is

take

a All
I've into
the insipid
math mine.
The for
you particular much did
with

on

my for to
word

it

 

[Tony Jollans]

My Dad's a bit like that

I think he's doing fine and he seems to get by, but then he rings me up with
a really simple problem and I have to be very slow and precise with any
instructions I give him - it doesn't help that he has everything so large on
the screen in order to see it that there is actually very little content. I
keep meaning to see if I can somehow access his PC over the web but never
get round to it.

--
Enjoy,
Tony

I well remember what happened when my dad first tried to use TurboTax on my
computer. He has an IBM PS/2 and had been using TurboTax for DOS until
Intuit stopped making it. My version, of course, was for Windows and
required use of the mouse. He has a mouse with his computer, but I hadn't
realized that he never used it and didn't know how. I belatedly realized
that he was pointing the mouse at the text box where he wanted to enter
numbers and then typing, but, since he hadn't clicked first, the insertion
point was still somewhere else on the screen even though the mouse pointer
was where he wanted to type. What a mess!

In future, I had him sit beside me and feed me the numbers, which I input.

--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA

Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so
all may benefit.

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


the
new and
love

change

in newsgroup the
new

includes

a and The
more compromised. engine time,
but take

spelling

is not
be agree
with images
is reason,
of

activity;

it by
the

shouldn't

be bought
one

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


message
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.


:

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

 

[Dilbert]

I agree. WORD is too complex already.

BUT,

I'd really like to have the option of removing a few "correct" spellings
from the dictionary.

Fro some reason, I just can't type the word fro - fro- (I mean FOR).
Word likes "fro" but if any us are being poetic, it is easy to ADD words to
the dictionary.

Just impossible to remove pesky ones.

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

This option already exists. See
http://word.mvps.org/FAQs/General/ExcludeWordFromDic.htm

 

[Dilbert]

GREAT.
Thank you!

Now is there any way top solve the same problem in Outlook?
It must not share the same dictionaries.

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

I think Outlook does use the same dictionary but perhaps is not capable of
using an exclusion dictionary. But you'd need to ask in an Outlook NG.