How to: Page 1 - two columns, Page 2(ff) - one column

[Gerry]

Let me start by stating that I have succeeded in formatting my
document as indicated in the subject line: Page 1 has two columns and
Page 2 (and all pages following) have one column. The problem is that
the approach used to achieve this must be wrong.

Starting with an existing document, configured the document for two
columns. I then inserted a section break (continuous) and formatted
the second section for one column. By moving the location of the
section break, I am able to format the document exactly as desired.

However, I cannot believe that MS Word 2003 is so poorly designed that
each time I edit the text on page 1, that I have to move the section
break to keep the formatting as desired. There must be a 'correct'
approach for formatting the document as specified.

I look forward to your suggestions. Thank you.

 

[DeanH]

When you say "move the section break to keep the formatting as desired" do
you mean the text in section 2 needs to be moved, ie to the start of the next
page?
If so, either insert a page break just after the Continuous break, or apply
the Page Break Before setting to the first text on page 2 (section 2), this
can be found under Format, Paragraph, Line and Page Breaks Tab.
If I have misunderstood what you mean, apologies.
DeanH

 

[Jean-Guy Marcil]

When you say "move the section break to keep the formatting as desired" do
you mean the text in section 2 needs to be moved, ie to the start of the next
page?
If so, either insert a page break just after the Continuous break, or apply

???
Why not just insert a Next Page Section Break instead of a Page Break after
a Continuous Section Break? (You can convert a Continuous Section Break to a
Next Page one in the Page Set up dialogue...)

 

[Jean-Guy Marcil]

Let me start by stating that I have succeeded in formatting my
document as indicated in the subject line: Page 1 has two columns and
Page 2 (and all pages following) have one column. The problem is that
the approach used to achieve this must be wrong.

Starting with an existing document, configured the document for two
columns. I then inserted a section break (continuous) and formatted
the second section for one column. By moving the location of the
section break, I am able to format the document exactly as desired.

However, I cannot believe that MS Word 2003 is so poorly designed that
each time I edit the text on page 1, that I have to move the section
break to keep the formatting as desired. There must be a 'correct'
approach for formatting the document as specified.

You need to describe what kind changes occur that are undesirable to you...
In other words: what do you do, the expected results and the observed
behaviours...

 

[StevenM]

To: Gerry,

I'm unsure exactely what problem you're experiencing, so, for what it might
be worth, many people would be better off using a one-row, two-column, table
(with "None" border), rather than using Word's columns. Word's columns are
Newspaper-like snaking columns. If that is what one wants, then they're
great, but in my opinion, the columns menu should have a choice for (a)
newspaper-like snaking columns, and (b) non-snaking columns.

Steven Craig Miller

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

You are all missing the ponit that what Gerry want is exactly what he
described: two snaking columns on the first page, followed by a single
column on subsequent pages. This is not terribly unusual formatting for
certain kinds of documents, but it is impossible to achieve in Word until
editing is complete because any change in the first-page copy is going to
result in a difference in where the page breaks, and that is where the
section break has to fall.

 

[Gerry]

Suzanne,

Given that you are a MVP, I will assume that you are correct. This
means that the manner in which the document is formatted is correct
(which sucks). Doesn't seem that this would be a terribly hard feature
to implement - wonder why this hasn't been done.

 

[Doug Robbins - Word MVP]

You can fudge it by using linked textboxes.

--
Hope this helps.

Please reply to the newsgroup unless you wish to avail yourself of my
services on a paid consulting basis.

Doug Robbins - Word MVP

Suzanne,

Given that you are a MVP, I will assume that you are correct. This
means that the manner in which the document is formatted is correct
(which sucks). Doesn't seem that this would be a terribly hard feature
to implement - wonder why this hasn't been done.

 

[DeanH]

Of course you can always have a section break instead of a page break,
whatever is necessary for the document structure.
I tend to have a Continuous break after Columns to help balance the columns
lengths, I have found that this tends not to happen with a New Page Section
Break.
As with most things in Word (and other MS products) there is usually more
than one way to skin-a-cat
TTFN
DeanH

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

If the section break falls at the bottom of the page (as desired), then the
columns will be balanced by virtue of the fact that the section break has
been inserted where the page is filled with both columns. But this is really
difficult to do, and unless a paragraph ends where the page breaks, it
probably will be necessary to use a Continuous break.

 

[Jean-Guy Marcil]

Of course you can always have a section break instead of a page break,
whatever is necessary for the document structure.
I tend to have a Continuous break after Columns to help balance the columns
lengths, I have found that this tends not to happen with a New Page Section
Break.
As with most things in Word (and other MS products) there is usually more
than one way to skin-a-cat

Good point, it is a shame that Continuous and Next Page section breaks have
a different impact on preceding page lay out. They should have the same
impact...

In such a case, I would set the first paragraph following the Continous
section break to have its paragraph setting "Page Break Before" set to true.
Easier to handle than
a page break immediatley following a section break. But, as you wrote, there
is more than one way to...