Best to have all one's styles in "Normal Template" ?

[Norm]

I assume one can save styles to other than one's Normal Template.

Do the experts recommend also saving any added styles to the Normal
Template so that one Template contains all of one's styles?

Or perhaps, if it is advisable to have one template have them all, it is
best to have that repository be a template other than the Normal
Template?

Thanks for any advice.

 

[John McGhie]

Hi Norm:

I recommend having different templates for the different types of documents
that you create.

In them, I suggest keeping the built-in styles defined for each document
type.

I rarely create a new style: I customise the existing ones for each document
type.

This makes copy/pasting simple, because the same styles are available in
each different document type: but they have the formatting appropriate to
that document type, so when I paste text in, it's automatically formatted
for the document it lands in.

In the Normal.dotm I keep a full set of styles for the most common kind of
document that I create (and all my Macros and toolbars and AutoTexts, in the
versions of Word that support those...)

The entire object of this exercise is to reduce work. For you! So the more
often you use it, the closer you should keep it: and Normal Template is the
"closest" to any document that you can get. Always look to keep things as
simple as possible: don't make a maintenance chore for yourself by trying to
be "correct", there's no advantage in it and you'll waste a lot of time.

Cheers

I assume one can save styles to other than one's Normal Template.

Do the experts recommend also saving any added styles to the Normal
Template so that one Template contains all of one's styles?

Or perhaps, if it is advisable to have one template have them all, it is
best to have that repository be a template other than the Normal
Template?

Thanks for any advice.

--

The email below is my business email -- Please do not email me about forum
matters unless I ask you to; or unless you intend to pay!

John McGhie, Microsoft MVP (Word, Mac Word), Consultant Technical Writer,
McGhie Information Engineering Pty Ltd
Sydney, Australia. | Ph: +61 (0)4 1209 1410
+61 4 1209 1410, mailto:[email protected]

 

[Norm]

Hi John:

I recommend having different templates for the different types of documents
that you create.

Is this a different case than your earlier (13-11-09) when you stated:

"I now advise users to keep everything in Normal template, and
effectively
that's what I do myself. Doing this means customisations will
automatically
be accessible to all open documents. Which means you do not need to
bother
creating your own toolbars, because you can simply customise the built-in
set." John McGhie 13-10-09 newsgroup post

In them, I suggest keeping the built-in styles defined for each document
type.

Lost me. Don't understand what you mean by "built-in styles defined for
each document type."

I rarely create a new style: I customise the existing ones for each document
type.

As I recall, you and Clive differ on this point.

This makes copy/pasting simple, because the same styles are available in
each different document type: but they have the formatting appropriate to
that document type, so when I paste text in, it's automatically formatted
for the document it lands in.

I'm missing something very basic. If you create a style and save to
Template JM 1, then isn't it only available to docs you create based on
JM 1?

In the Normal.dotm I keep a full set of styles for the most common kind of
document that I create (and all my Macros and toolbars and AutoTexts, in the
versions of Word that support those...)

Do you have to copy styles from other templates to Normal?
And do you call the styles for the same purpose (eg Body Text, List
Number, etc) the same name in multiple Templates?

The entire object of this exercise is to reduce work. For you! So the more
often you use it, the closer you should keep it: and Normal Template is the
"closest" to any document that you can get. Always look to keep things as
simple as possible: don't make a maintenance chore for yourself by trying to
be "correct", there's no advantage in it and you'll waste a lot of time.

Here, here.

Thanks much.

 

[John McGhie]

Hi Norm:

Is this a different case than your earlier (13-11-09) when you stated:

"I now advise users to keep everything in Normal template, and
effectively
that's what I do myself. Doing this means customisations will
automatically
be accessible to all open documents. Which means you do not need to
bother
creating your own toolbars, because you can simply customise the built-in
set." John McGhie 13-10-09 newsgroup post

Well, yes, of course it is Now we are talking about "multiple document
types". You can have only a single style of each name in a document or
template. The "Heading" series styles I use for "Reports" and for "Books"
are defined differently.

I usually create Reports, so they're all in Normal. But I also have a
series of "Book" templates for different sizes and shapes of books: same
style names, different definitions.

Lost me. Don't understand what you mean by "built-in styles defined for
each document type."

Keep the built-in styles. Define their formatting for the document they are
in.

Step back, Norm. See the big picture. You're looking at everything from
ground-level and getting lost in conflicting detail. Look at it from the
50,000-foot view:

Norm creates documents

Those documents are Letters, Reports, and Books.

The documents Norm most often creates are Reports. So set the Normal
Template up to assist the work-flow he uses when creating a report.

Now, set up a different Template to pre-format Letters. Particularly,
letters to the Tax Man and other impertinent types who become loud and
demanding...

Now, set up another Template for the Great European Novel, which Norm will
eventually get around to writing (after spelling class...)

Step waaaay back, and Bend Word in such a way that you do the least possible
work to create each kind of document.

As I recall, you and Clive differ on this point.

I doubt it. Clive re-names them, because he's still keystroke-oriented. I
don't, because I am mouse-oriented. Otherwise, no difference. Neither of
us creates styles from scratch unless we HAVE to, because that's work.
Laziness is an important career skill in learning and using Word. The
lazier you are, the better you will use Word.

I'm missing something very basic. If you create a style and save to
Template JM 1, then isn't it only available to docs you create based on
JM 1?

If you use built-in styles, they will be available in EVERY document,
regardless of its template. So when you paste text from a
correctly-formatted document, it will automatically adopt the formatting of
the document you paste it into. You don't have to consider whether you
might introduce new, non-standard styles to the destination document: you
won't, because you're using only built-in styles that exist in every
document.

Nor will you ever have to consider whether the source document styles are
"correct". It doesn't matter, because the formatting of those styles is
specified in the destination document. When the text comes in, it will
automatically adopt the correct formatting for each style.

Do you have to copy styles from other templates to Normal?

I don't recall having done so in the past five years or so. If I needed to,
I would. But I always use the built-in styles, so they're always present
already, I don't have to think about it.

And do you call the styles for the same purpose (eg Body Text, List
Number, etc) the same name in multiple Templates?

Yes. That's a key part of this strategy. I use the default names of the
built-in styles. It's Clive who re-names styles: I never do.

Cheers

--

The email below is my business email -- Please do not email me about forum
matters unless I ask you to; or unless you intend to pay!

John McGhie, Microsoft MVP (Word, Mac Word), Consultant Technical Writer,
McGhie Information Engineering Pty Ltd
Sydney, Australia. | Ph: +61 (0)4 1209 1410
+61 4 1209 1410, mailto:[email protected]

 

[Norm]

Hi John:

Well, yes, of course it is

student asking prof if prof is paying attention

Now we are talking about "multiple document
types". You can have only a single style of each name in a document or
template. The "Heading" series styles I use for "Reports" and for "Books"
are defined differently.

So there is no list that has all the styles for one user since a user
can have multiple definitions of one style if they are in different
templates. Correct?

Keep the built-in styles. Define their formatting for the document
they are
in.

Are "built-in styles" the same as styles pre-defined by MS Word? That is
the styles one sees when launching Word for the first time?

Do you "Delete" the ones you don't use in a template?

Step back, Norm. See the big picture. You're looking at everything from
ground-level and getting lost in conflicting detail. Look at it from the
50,000-foot view:

Got it..... not the first time that I've got lost in the trees when I
should have been looking at the forest. I seem to have a liking for the
"trees."

Now, set up another Template for the Great European Novel, which Norm will
eventually get around to writing (after spelling class...)

I think my spelling coach left while I was learning Word.

Step waaaay back, and Bend Word in such a way that you do the least possible
work to create each kind of document.

OK... OK....

If you use built-in styles, they will be available in EVERY document,
regardless of its template. So when you paste text from a
correctly-formatted document, it will automatically adopt the formatting of
the document you paste it into. You don't have to consider whether you
might introduce new, non-standard styles to the destination document: you
won't, because you're using only built-in styles that exist in every
document.

But if you redefined a built-in style in JM 1 template it is not going
to be available in JM 2 or in Normal. Is it?

And if you paste from one to another it seems to me they will take on
different formatting if you've defined styles differently.

snip

I don't recall having done so in the past five years or so. If I needed to,
I would. But I always use the built-in styles, so they're always present
already, I don't have to think about it.

I'm still missing something.

You say you modify built-in styles and they are always present. That
would seem to be mutually exclusive. Confused. :-(

Yes. That's a key part of this strategy. I use the default names of the
built-in styles. It's Clive who re-names styles: I never do.

So your Body Text style in Books is different than Body Text in Reports
or Normal?


Thanks.

 

[Jim Gordon Mac MVP]

The lazier you are, the better you will use Word.

This quotation deserves a prominent place in the MVP word site!

 

[John McGhie]

Hi Norm:

student asking prof if prof is paying attention

If you got to class on time and didn't sit up until all hours carousing, you
would have a better chance of catching me out

So there is no list that has all the styles for one user since a user
can have multiple definitions of one style if they are in different
templates. Correct?

Yes, that's right. If you wanted to prepare such a list, you would have to
start with a list of Templates (i.e. A list of the document types you work
with) and then within each template, you would show the styles that could be
used, and within each style, you would show how the formatting is defined in
that style.

The Production Manager on a large project will compile exactly such a list,
because the interrelationships and inheritances can become complex. Home
users would never bother: just keep a template for each of your common
document types.

Are "built-in styles" the same as styles pre-defined by MS Word? That is
the styles one sees when launching Word for the first time?

When Word is running, there are at least 147 styles in it. There can be a
few more, if anyone has created any additional styles in any of the
documents it has open.

Do you "Delete" the ones you don't use in a template?

No: Why bother? Unless they have been applied to text, they're invisible
and empty: they take up practically zero room and it's a chore to go hunting
for them. Out of sight = out of mind.

But if you redefined a built-in style in JM 1 template it is not going
to be available in JM 2 or in Normal. Is it?

The style will be available: it's available in every document or template
that exists. The formatting it contains will be different. You are
confusing the container (the style) with the formatting (the properties)
that it contains. You need to separate the two in your mind: a "Style" is a
can, you can put anything you like in there.

And if you paste from one to another it seems to me they will take on
different formatting if you've defined styles differently.

Yes: they will. That's the whole point. That's what you want to happen.
Before you began working on the document, you did a few things to ensure
that it was formatted the way you want it. So the document you are working
on, "The Destination Document", is correctly formatted. Text you get from
"somewhere else" may have different formatting. Often, it comes from a
different application and it may not even have styles.

When you paste text in, you neither know nor particularly care how it was
formatted in the source. We can assume that the other guy did an OK job for
what he wanted to do. That has no relation to what you want to do now.

So you want incoming text to adopt the formatting of the destination, which
is correct for what you want to do NOW.

I usually REMOVE all the formatting from text I paste, using Edit>Paste
Special>Unformatted text. Never would I allow someone else to control the
formatting in MY document: pigs might fly!

I'm still missing something.

You say you modify built-in styles and they are always present. That
would seem to be mutually exclusive. Confused. :-(

Again, you are confusing the Style with what it contains. The Style is
always present. What it contains will often (usually?) be different between
two documents.

The built-in styles will always be present. User-created styles may not be
present.

If you paste formatted text from one document to another, the formatting of
the styles in the destination is used, for those styles already in the
destination.

For styles not already in the destination, these are copied into to the
document with their formatting, which is imported from the source document.
There is a rich opportunity for conflicts and surprises when that happens,
so I try not to allow it.

So your Body Text style in Books is different than Body Text in Reports
or Normal?

Absolutely! That's the whole point of having different templates

Cheers

--

The email below is my business email -- Please do not email me about forum
matters unless I ask you to; or unless you intend to pay!

John McGhie, Microsoft MVP (Word, Mac Word), Consultant Technical Writer,
McGhie Information Engineering Pty Ltd
Sydney, Australia. | Ph: +61 (0)4 1209 1410
+61 4 1209 1410, mailto:[email protected]

 

[Norm]

Hi John:

Absolutely! That's the whole point of having different templates

OK.... now I think I better understand.

But one other.... do you create a new style when you create a body text
for JM 2 for instance?

Or do you modify the built in style "Body Text" so the number of styles
remains the same but they have different formatting?

I gather you do the latter.

If so, should one leave the original built-in styles alone and only
modify them if you are saving to a new (non-Normal) template so that the
original built-in styles always remain as defined?

Thanks for using your 2 x 4 to get this concept through the thick skull
here.

Appreciate,

Norm

 

[Norm]

Do you "Delete" the ones you don't use in a template?

No: Why bother? Unless they have been applied to text, they're invisible
and empty: they take up practically zero room and it's a chore to go hunting
for them. Out of sight = out of mind.[/QUOTE]

But sometimes there seem to be many, maybe all, styles in the drop-down
window in the formatting toolbar. Not very helpful in finding and
selecting the style one wants.

Does that make sense that all would show?

I thought it would contain those in use and maybe user defined.

Thanks.

 

[Clive Huggan]

Hello Norm,

Early on, I added the styles I use most often, and had built "from scratch",
to the Normal template (and they are still there). There were perhaps a
dozen of them: bt, bti (roman and italic body text); s, ss (sub and sub-sub
paragraphs) and their respectively bulleted and dashed equivalents sb and
ssd; cp (comment paragraphs, so I did not have to use Word's "Comments"
feature) and ct as a character style for within-sentence comments; table
text and table headings; quotes and notes. As time went on I made subtle
changes to such things as leading. When I had established the optimum for my
most frequent type of work I no longer needed to amend them; I added a new
style for a new purpose only on a few occasions.

John mentioned earlier that our operating preferences are very similar, and
that the main differences originate in my being more keyboard-oriented and
he more mouse-oriented. That's true: I prefer to key Command-Shift-s
followed by "bt" to apply my body text style, or followed by "3" for a level
3 heading (or "nt3" for a level 3 style that I don't want to appear in the
table of contents, e.g. in a preface).

It's true when John says I rename styles -- as far as headings are
concerned. I add a suffix after the heading style name, such as in "heading
3,3", so that I can invoke it by Command-Shift-s followed by "3". Like John
and everyone else who doesn't want ransom-note typography (or has this
improved in Word 2008??) I have of course heavily re-defined the
characteristics of each heading style. And such definitions may well vary in
each template or type of document.

But for non-heading styles I don't rename Word's pre-existing styles; I
create them from scratch, all based on style "bt" (one of only 5, I think,
styles to which I haven't given a name-plus-suffix, because I use it so
often) -- and "bt" is based on "no style". I abhor having to hit the Shift
key on the occasions (rare, admittedly) when I type a style name rather than
a suffix, so there is no point in my using "Body Text". As you have
observed, I rely quite heavily for some types of documents on being able to
change the appearance of the entire document by simply swapping, say, the
font of "bt" for a different appearance in hard copy from the screen
version. Since all other [non-heading] styles are based on it, they all
change instantaneously. And similarly with the heading styles by re-defining
the font of "heading 1,1".

I used to have a variety of templates reflecting the different types of
documents I work on. But in due course I would make subtle (sometimes not so
subtle) changes in a particular document and I'd forget to amend the
template. When I wanted to refer back to the formatting I had used on that
document I would invariably remember it was "the technical review of
[whatever company]" but I would have to search around somewhat if I wanted
to find the template I had used -- and that, as I said, would not have all
the styles or AutoText items in.

So nowadays I almost always use as my starting point a *document* of the
same type that I need, not a template. This raises eyebrows among some of
m'learned colleagues and friends, because of the possibility of corruption
occurring and seeping into successive generations of documents. I get around
this by keeping a copy of one of the earlier examples which I could return
to -- and indeed if I haven't made many changes to the formatting I would
use the earliest version I could. And since I never experience corruption,
it's a bit academic anyway. (Part of the reason for that is that, like John,
I never add material to my documents from other people other than as
unformatted text: Edit => Paste Special => Unformatted, although I have a
macro to do it via a keyboard shortcut, which will again be available in
Word 2011 for Mac.)

The upshot of all this is that nowadays I have all my styles in the Normal
template, although I also keep a template specifically with all my
formatting in it. I have never needed to use it but, like my quadruple
backup system, it helps me to sleep soundly at night. ;-)

[To anyone watching this thread as Norm and John forensically unravel the
mysteries of styles: if you need the context for the recommendations and
style naming above, do a "Find" for the terms in "Bend Word to Your Will",
which is available as a free download from the Word MVPs' website
(http://word.mvps.org/Mac/Bend/BendWordToYourWill.html).

Note: "Bend Word to your will" is designed to be used electronically and
most subjects are self-contained dictionary-style entries. It's important
to read the front end of the document -- especially pages 3 and 5 -- so you
can select some Word settings that will allow you to use the document
effectively.

Final note: In Word 2008, which I don't use yet, some of this information
may not apply, or may be accessible through a different interface. If that
causes problems, post back and someone will help you further.]

Cheers,

Clive Huggan
Canberra, Australia
(My time zone is 5-11 hours different from the Americas and Europe, so my
follow-on responses to those regions can be delayed)
====================================================

Your post via Mactopia may not be seen by the volunteer experts in the
Word:Mac newsgroup. To make sure, please see
http://word.mvps.org/Mac/AccessNewsgroups.html
====================================================

 

[John McGhie]

Hi Norm:

But one other.... do you create a new style when you create a body text
for JM 2 for instance?

Or do you modify the built in style "Body Text" so the number of styles
remains the same but they have different formatting?

I gather you do the latter.

Yeah, I do. Having multiple styles for the same kind of paragraph is poor
practice in a template or document you want someone else to work on: you can
bet your "a" that they will choose the wrong one.

Keep it simple: Body Text for Body Text, wherever it goes. So when they
open the document, they don't have to learn anything new: they just use the
"conventional style set everyone uses for Word documents" and they are
automatically correct for that document.

If so, should one leave the original built-in styles alone and only
modify them if you are saving to a new (non-Normal) template so that the
original built-in styles always remain as defined?

No. We keep coming back to this Norm: The "original" styles have NO VALUE.
They are simply containers, and most of them are EMPTY until you put some
properties in them.

There are two ideas you need to let go of:

1) Word has defaults. Basically, in styles, it DOESN'T.

2) The "original styles are valuable". They're not: most of them are
EMPTY. Set them how you want, when you want.

When you come to a new document or template, just jump straight in and
customise the built-in styles to be appropriate to the kind of document you
are creating.

I always start with the Heading Styles. I do this so often, I have a macro
that just runs through and changes every property in every Heading style to
the ones I like. And changes the "Based on" property appropriately.

Then I set up Body Text, Body Text Indent, List Number 1 to 4, List Bullet 1
to 4, Caption, Header, Footer, Page Number.

Fifteen styles, which is about all I use in any document.

Most of which are chains that take very little setting up (The Body Text
chain is one: the Lists are hanging off Body Text, header and Footer are
chained to Heading, blah blah blah...) It's the work of a couple of minutes
(ten minutes, maximum).

I was looking at a template the other day where the Graphics Designer has
set up FOUR sets of Heading styles, and thinking "You idiot! Why are you
making things so difficult for everyone." I know why, of course: he has
Four Levels of Title style that are not, technically, "Headings". He has
numbered headings and non-numbered headings, and within each of those sets
he has TOC and non-TOC styles.

The Title series are used for "labels" in the document parts (this is a huge
document: about 4,000 pages) and are not part of the logical structure.

The Heading series is part of the logical structure, and has numbering.

There's an equivalent set of "Heading Unnumbered" styles for headings he
wants in the TOC that do not have numbers (some volumes of this are not
numbered).

Then there's a set of "Heading non-TOC" styles that do NOT appear in the TOC
but DO have numbering, and a fourth set of "Heading Unnumbered non-TOC"
styles that do NOT appear in the TOC and do NOT have numbering.

I know what he wants to do; but I also know what kind of person he wants to
use these things. This template is designed for construction engineers to
write their own content. There is going to be a disaster of biblical
proportions: I can feel it in my bones

Construction engineers and managers consider that "Notepad" is too complex
for them to use: they would far prefer to hand-write their contribution and
hand it to a "Typist". Sadly, those days are OVER. Nobody employs
"typists" any more. Managerial-level knowledge workers have to write their
own content, and they are expected to be sufficiently skilled with Word to
get it formatted to the company's required specification.

And that's what I am trying to teach you here: how to set up and use Word so
you can email a document over to someone who does not have your level of
skill, and expect the formatting to come back right when they add content to
it.

Your chances improve dramatically if you stick to the "conventional" or
"usual" way of formatting a document. Which basically means "Use the
built-in styles, and try to use ONLY the built-in styles." That way, a
person who has never met you before or seen your document can open it and
edit it and get it back to you without screwing things up.

Of course, you might find an "exception", in a special kind of document. In
a complex document, you "might" have to add one style that is not built-in.
One I sometimes add is "Code". There is a built-in for "HTML Code" but
that's a character style, I sometimes need a paragraph style for formatting
code samples.

But if I find a document in which I have to add more than two custom styles,
I am having a bad day and hopefully I am being paid in telephone numbers to
put up with this nonsense

Keep it simple, keep it standard; "make the right thing the easy thing".
This is ALL about saving work

The built-in styles are there to try to cover everything ordinary users will
ever need in a document, and they come very close. Microsoft expects you to
use the built-in styles. Other users will expect that too, and often they
will assume that you have. Go with the flow: life gets better

I strongly advise you to get out of the habit of creating lots of custom
styles: otherwise you will shortly get bogged down in the detail of keeping
them all internally consistent, and creating documents will take twice as
long as they need to because you have to do all this style management to get
your formatting to work.

Cheers

--

The email below is my business email -- Please do not email me about forum
matters unless I ask you to; or unless you intend to pay!

John McGhie, Microsoft MVP (Word, Mac Word), Consultant Technical Writer,
McGhie Information Engineering Pty Ltd
Sydney, Australia. | Ph: +61 (0)4 1209 1410
+61 4 1209 1410, mailto:[email protected]

 

[John McGhie]

Hi Norm:

If you have your view set to "All Styles", then you will indeed see them all


I never look in that list.

The styles I use are on my personal toolbar: I never have to look anywhere
else.

Once you have applied each style you want to use once, change the list view
to "Available styles" and you will see only the ones you have used.

Cheers

No: Why bother? Unless they have been applied to text, they're invisible
and empty: they take up practically zero room and it's a chore to go hunting
for them. Out of sight = out of mind.

But sometimes there seem to be many, maybe all, styles in the drop-down
window in the formatting toolbar. Not very helpful in finding and
selecting the style one wants.

Does that make sense that all would show?

I thought it would contain those in use and maybe user defined.

Thanks.[/QUOTE]

--

The email below is my business email -- Please do not email me about forum
matters unless I ask you to; or unless you intend to pay!

John McGhie, Microsoft MVP (Word, Mac Word), Consultant Technical Writer,
McGhie Information Engineering Pty Ltd
Sydney, Australia. | Ph: +61 (0)4 1209 1410
+61 4 1209 1410, mailto:[email protected]

 

[CyberTaz]

No: Why bother? Unless they have been applied to text, they're invisible
and empty: they take up practically zero room and it's a chore to go hunting
for them. Out of sight = out of mind.

But sometimes there seem to be many, maybe all, styles in the drop-down
window in the formatting toolbar. Not very helpful in finding and
selecting the style one wants.

Does that make sense that all would show?

I thought it would contain those in use and maybe user defined.

Thanks.[/QUOTE]

It depends on what you have selected in the Styles List of the Formatting
Palette... If "All Styles" that's what shows up in the combo box list on the
Formatting Toolbar as well -- all built-in plus all user-defined. If
"Available Styles", what you get in both lists is just a few standard
built-ins along with any other built-ins that have been applied in the
document. As John had previously said, however, "Available Styles" also
includes all user-defined styles [from the template on which the document is
based] regardless of whether they've been applied in the document.

Regards |:>)
Bob Jones
[MVP] Office:Mac

 

[Norm]

The styles I use are on my personal toolbar: I never have to look anywhere
else.

That sounds very simple.

I'll go back to "Bend..." to see if I can figure out how to add each
style.

Is each style in your personal toolbar a separate icon?

Once you have applied each style you want to use once, change the list view
to "Available styles" and you will see only the ones you have used.

"...applied each style..." does that mean once in Word or once in each
doc.

Thanks much.

 

[Norm]

It depends on what you have selected in the Styles List of the Formatting
Palette... If "All Styles" that's what shows up in the combo box list on the
Formatting Toolbar as well -- all built-in plus all user-defined.

Now I have it. I've tried to stay away from the Palette given
recommendations here. But I must have gone there and changed it to All
Styles at some point. Thanks.

If
"Available Styles", what you get in both lists is just a few standard
built-ins along with any other built-ins that have been applied in the
document.

So "Available Styles" is always document specific. Now this
style-challenged user is getting it.

As John had previously said, however, "Available Styles" also
includes all user-defined styles [from the template on which the document is
based] regardless of whether they've been applied in the document.

Again, only styles one has defined in the document and saved to that
template.

Think the MS concept of All, Available, User-Defined is starting to
break through to the grey matter.

Thanks much.

 

[John McGhie]

Hi Norm:

Is each style in your personal toolbar a separate icon?

Yes. You can just drag them onto the toolbar using Customise.

"...applied each style..." does that mean once in Word or once in each
doc.

Document. Styles are local to each document (they are child objects of the
document object).

Contrast this with the List Templates (we haven't discussed them yet, but
they are what you see in Format>Bullets and Numbering). List Templates are
child objects of the application (Word). Which is not a GREAT piece of
design

Cheers

This email is my business email -- Please do not email me about forum
matters unless you intend to pay!

--

John McGhie, Microsoft MVP (Word, Mac Word), Consultant Technical Writer,
McGhie Information Engineering Pty Ltd
Sydney, Australia. | Ph: +61 (0)4 1209 1410
+61 4 1209 1410, mailto:[email protected]

 

[Norm]

Document. Styles are local to each document (they are child objects of the
document object).

OK. "Think" I've got it.

Thanks.

 

[Norm]

Hello Clive:

Thank you very much for all this info....

It's true when John says I rename styles -- as far as headings are
concerned. I add a suffix after the heading style name, such as in "heading
3,3", so that I can invoke it by Command-Shift-s followed by "3". Like John
and everyone else who doesn't want ransom-note typography (or has this
improved in Word 2008??) I have of course heavily re-defined the
characteristics of each heading style. And such definitions may well vary in
each template or type of document.

In the way you work, you rename they styles rather than retain the
built-in style names. Correct?

John advocates modifying built-in styles and not changing names if I
understand correctly.

But for non-heading styles I don't rename Word's pre-existing styles; I
create them from scratch, all based on style "bt" (one of only 5, I think,
styles to which I haven't given a name-plus-suffix, because I use it so
often) -- and "bt" is based on "no style".

So the built-in remain or you delete but you don't use their names or
their definitions.

I abhor having to hit the Shift
key on the occasions (rare, admittedly) when I type a style name rather than
a suffix, so there is no point in my using "Body Text".

Not sure what you mean but I'm not accustom to your shortcut. I select
Shift-Cmd-s to get the style window.

The upshot of all this is that nowadays I have all my styles in the Normal
template, although I also keep a template specifically with all my
formatting in it.

So you always save a "new" style to Normal?

Not sure what you mean by "also keep a template ........ in it."

I have never needed to use it but, like my quadruple
backup system, it helps me to sleep soundly at night. ;-)

Sounds like me. My wife and boys roll their eyes when I tell them the
various backups I run.

Thanks very much,

Norm

 

[Norm]

Hi John:

There are two ideas you need to let go of:

1) Word has defaults. Basically, in styles, it DOESN'T.

2) The "original styles are valuable". They're not: most of them are
EMPTY. Set them how you want, when you want.

Got it!

I strongly advise you to get out of the habit of creating lots of custom
styles: otherwise you will shortly get bogged down in the detail of keeping
them all internally consistent, and creating documents will take twice as
long as they need to because you have to do all this style management to get
your formatting to work.

So when "we" were doing the list style exercise of creating a list
paragraph style and a list style, we used some made up names. I gather
changing names was just for practice. When you do the real thing you
keep MS's name convention for styles as much as possible. But you may
define that style differently for a specialized purpose and retain that
in a separate template. Correct?

And you don't change the names like Clive does. It seems like you both
start the first step in any linked style from scratch, not linked to
Normal style but Clive changes the names and you don't. Correct?

Thanks very much,

Norm

 

[Clive Huggan]

Hello Clive:

Thank you very much for all this info....




In the way you work, you rename they styles rather than retain the
built-in style names. Correct?

Yes, except for Heading styles, to which I simply add a suffix so I can
easily use a keyboard shortcut.

John advocates modifying built-in styles and not changing names if I
understand correctly.

Yes; and he is wary that at some time in the future, Microsoft may wreak
vengeance on those who do not stick to them by doing some vile coding (John,
in his ever-so-gentle way, will wreak vengeance on me if I have
over-simplified him here ;-) It hasn't happened so far, and I don't care if
it does; I'll deal with it then.

The differences between John's and my preferred ways of working are also
explained by our main working environments: he taking on board huge amounts
of material originated from engineers et al, in part for mega-manuals; me
"considering" far smaller amounts of contributed material from senior
managers and scientists in strategic plans and documents that we all fight
to keep brief, and my deciding what I'll include -- and when I do I modify
it considerably.

So I don't care how the contributors have formatted their material. In fact
I have never been able to get my colleagues to use styles other than those
who knew about them already. Unlike John, therefore, who is capable of, er,
gently persuading his people -- which is why he said:

Quote:
Your chances improve dramatically if you stick to the "conventional" or
"usual" way of formatting a document. Which basically means "Use the
built-in styles, and try to use ONLY the built-in styles." That way, a
person who has never met you before or seen your document can open it and
edit it and get it back to you without screwing things up.
:Unquote

When applied to my situation that becomes inapplicable because [almost]
everyone is incapable ("I'm too busy") of doing anything other than applying
direct formatting to 'Normal' style. So I Paste Special => Unformatted (via
macro) either into the document in the case of short pieces of text, or for
longer text I do the same into a blank document, slash it down and change
it, then copy into my larger document.

I use Compare Documents to see where the new material is if it has been
incorporated into my document; I *never* use a document that has come back
from somebody else.

That situation brings different imperatives from John's; and there are
different imperatives again if you don't need to consider anyone else when
developing a Word document (if only!).>

So the built-in remain or you delete

Remain; I never delete them.

but you don't use their names or their definitions.

Correct, other than Word's default heading styles. Note that "heading"
doesn't include my own "nontoc heading" styles (for anyone else watching
this thread: do a Find command in "Bend Word to Your Will"); they are based
on style "bt").

Not sure what you mean but I'm not accustom to your shortcut. I select
Shift-Cmd-s to get the style window.

I have the style window visible only in order to visually confirm the style
where the insertion point is or to make a small change to the definition of
a style. I never type anything in there. For example, if I want a level 3
heading I key Command-Shift-s followed by 3 followed by the Return key; body
text Command-Shift-s followed by bt followed by the Return key; a bulleted
sub-paragraph Command-Shift-s followed by sb followed by the Return key; and
so on.

By the way, no huge amount of memorizing is required for all this: all I
need to remember are the abbreviations for my 2 body text styles, 2x2 types
of sub-paragraphs, and headings -- which are just the level number. So doing
this isn't just the territory of industrial-level Word users; it is very
easy for a lightweight user of Word to remember too. And as John put it so
brilliantly, "The lazier you are, the better you will use Word."

So you always save a "new" style to Normal?

Almost invariably. But I might modify a style slightly in a particular
document (see my earlier remarks on why I don't bother much with different
templates any more) while leaving the Normal template untouched.

Not sure what you mean by "also keep a template ........ in it."

"The upshot of all this is that nowadays I have all my styles in the Normal
template, although I also keep a template specifically with all my
formatting in it."? -- That template is only a backup resource. It's a junk
heap. I transfer any new styles I create into it (naming them slightly
differently if there are more than one used for the same purpose). On *very*
rare occasions I have gone in and rummage around to see if I want to
retrieve one of them. Like rummaging around my workshop. ;-)

This template also contains the modified toolbars that I created in the
Normal template.

Sounds like me. My wife and boys roll their eyes when I tell them the
various backups I run.

Causing one's spouse and offspring to do that form of exercise brings much
vicarious pleasure, I find. It's a bloke-of-a-certain-age thing... ;-)

Cheers,
Clive