Line spacing and page count

[Michael A. Burstein]

I've had such good luck asking questions here before, I thought I'd
try again.

I've found something bizzare involving double-spacing. I had a
document I converted over from Word 5.1, which had double-spacing in
it. When I opened the formatting palate, I noticed that for some
reason, none of the spacing options were highlighted. So I selected
all the text and highlighted the double-space icon, since that's what
it was anyway.

The document suddenly changed pagination. It now has fewer lines per
page, and what's worse, it got pushed from a 77-page document to an
87-page document. Can anyone explain to me what happened, and what I
can do to fix it?

I've also noticed that when I emailed the document to a friend to
print, the pagination changes, making the document longer than the way
I had it. I wonder if this is related.

 

[Elliott Roper]

I've had such good luck asking questions here before, I thought I'd
try again.

I've found something bizzare involving double-spacing. I had a
document I converted over from Word 5.1, which had double-spacing in
it. When I opened the formatting palate, I noticed that for some
reason, none of the spacing options were highlighted. So I selected
all the text and highlighted the double-space icon, since that's what
it was anyway.

The document suddenly changed pagination. It now has fewer lines per
page, and what's worse, it got pushed from a 77-page document to an
87-page document. Can anyone explain to me what happened, and what I
can do to fix it?

Well, it depends on what you mean by fix. Was it 77 pages in 5.1?
Was it double-spaced when 87 pages?
Did both have the same printer?

I've also noticed that when I emailed the document to a friend to
print, the pagination changes, making the document longer than the way
I had it. I wonder if this is related.

Indeed it is. You are using Word in all three cases.
There is no way that pagination is going to stay the same from machine
to machine, unless all the fonts are identical (not just the same
names, but the same width tables too), all the templates in use are the
same, all the page margins and paper sizes are the same and all the
printer characteristics are the same. You may also have to consider the
phase of the moon, the way the goat's entrails fall, and the pattern of
leaves in the bottom of your teacup.

You are on a hiding to nothing. If the pagination is really important,
distribute the document as a PDF once it looks OK to you on your
machine.

To be fair to Word's programmers, pagination stability has never been a
design goal for Word. There are far too many variables. Word has almost
no idea of page boundaries until it prints the document (or pretends
to, as in making a table of contents)
I think that if you asked Word to lock page boundaries, so many other
things would break after minor editing that you would rather wish you
hadn't.

 

[Michael A. Burstein]

Well, it depends on what you mean by fix. Was it 77 pages in 5.1?
Was it double-spaced when 87 pages?
Did both have the same printer?

It was double-spaced at all times, and I didn't actually print, I just
print previewed.

Indeed it is. You are using Word in all three cases.
There is no way that pagination is going to stay the same from machine
to machine, unless all the fonts are identical (not just the same
names, but the same width tables too), all the templates in use are the
same, all the page margins and paper sizes are the same and all the
printer characteristics are the same. You may also have to consider the
phase of the moon, the way the goat's entrails fall, and the pattern of
leaves in the bottom of your teacup.

You are on a hiding to nothing. If the pagination is really important,
distribute the document as a PDF once it looks OK to you on your
machine.

To be fair to Word's programmers, pagination stability has never been a
design goal for Word. There are far too many variables. Word has almost
no idea of page boundaries until it prints the document (or pretends
to, as in making a table of contents)
I think that if you asked Word to lock page boundaries, so many other
things would break after minor editing that you would rather wish you
hadn't.

Hmm...then I guess I'll just leave the whole thing alone.

 

[Jon May]

I think my problem is related to this, but it isn't a cross machine issue. I am
using Word v.X and Word 2004 on the same machine, with the same fonts,
and the same OS X 10.3.5, at the same time, and I open the same
document, and lo and behold, the pagination in the 2004 version is longer
than the pagination in the v.X version.

It looks as if there is something different with the line spacing.

My Normal has 12pt Times face with Single line spacing, which in v.X
appears to be 12pt (at least, if I click 'Exactly', that is what is filled in by
default). If I alter the 2004 Normal to Excatly 11.5pt spacing, the body text
styles look the same (unfortunately all of the Headers that were based on
Normal but which have larger faces are also now exactly 11.5 pt too so I
can't confirm the pagination aspects).

The only difference in the (horrid, still horrid) Format Styles dialogue is that
the Normal style now has a '(Default)' in it after 'Font:' and before 'Times'.

 

[Paul Berkowitz]

I think my problem is related to this, but it isn't a cross machine issue. I
am
using Word v.X and Word 2004 on the same machine, with the same fonts,
and the same OS X 10.3.5, at the same time, and I open the same
document, and lo and behold, the pagination in the 2004 version is longer
than the pagination in the v.X version.

It looks as if there is something different with the line spacing.

My Normal has 12pt Times face with Single line spacing, which in v.X
appears to be 12pt (at least, if I click 'Exactly', that is what is filled in
by
default). If I alter the 2004 Normal to Excatly 11.5pt spacing, the body text
styles look the same (unfortunately all of the Headers that were based on
Normal but which have larger faces are also now exactly 11.5 pt too so I
can't confirm the pagination aspects).

The only difference in the (horrid, still horrid) Format Styles dialogue is
that
the Normal style now has a '(Default)' in it after 'Font:' and before 'Times'.

They're not actually the "same fonts" in Word X and Word 2004 even if the
_names_ of the fonts are the same, or not all of them. And - equally
important - the text layout engine has changed to accommodate Unicode
characters. Word 2004 is making accommodations with both ATSUI - the Apple
text layout for Unicode - and also trying to keep compatible with Word
Windows for cross-platform issues. Word X did only the latter.

The reason why you now get "(Default)" is because your own Normal template,
probably automatically imported from Word X if you upgraded to 2004 on the
same machine, contained Times font as part of its Normal style. That was the
default default, so to speak, back in Word X and earlier Mac versions. The
new default default, for people who install Word 2004 clean on a new
computer without earlier versions, is now Times New Roman - one of the four
Unicode fonts. So your own differing Times default is noted.

--
Paul Berkowitz
MVP MacOffice
Entourage FAQ Page: <http://www.entourage.mvps.org/faq/index.html>
AppleScripts for Entourage: <http://macscripter.net/scriptbuilders/>

Please "Reply To Newsgroup" to reply to this message. Emails will be
ignored.

PLEASE always state which version of Microsoft Office you are using -
**2004**, X or 2001. It's often impossible to answer your questions
otherwise.

 

[Jon May]

They're not actually the "same fonts" in Word X and Word 2004 even if the
_names_ of the fonts are the same, or not all of them.

The font I'm using is Times, and I only have one Times.dfont on my
machine, in /System/Library/Fonts, so I think that they are the same.
There isn't one in my user/Library/Fonts.

And - equally
important - the text layout engine has changed to accommodate Unicode
characters. Word 2004 is making accommodations with both ATSUI - the Apple
text layout for Unicode - and also trying to keep compatible with Word
Windows for cross-platform issues. Word X did only the latter.

This sounds more like the reason. A different layout metric. But
different means incompatible! This isn't a minor annpoyance. At the
moment, we are holding off moving 100+ users from X to 2004 because we
have a legacy of departmental brochures/handbooks that will all need
revising to correct the pagination if we do so.

I also notice that if I print the same doc from the X and 2004 onto
acetates and overlay them, then each word is idenitcal, but
occasionally 2004 will decide to break a line a word earlier than X,
and hence increase inter-word spacing when I'm using justified
alignment. The last (unjustified) line on a para also takes up more
horizontal space even when it has the same words on it.

The
new default default, for people who install Word 2004 clean on a new
computer without earlier versions, is now Times New Roman - one of the four
Unicode fonts. So your own differing Times default is noted.

Euw - so the default default is to use a MS font that isn't in our
postscript printers' ROMS, so they replace it woth Times, and then
they don't print some quotes and accents, or is that fixed as part of
the Unicode move?

 

[Elliott Roper]

This isn't a minor annpoyance. At the moment, we are holding off
moving 100+ users from X to 2004 because we have a legacy of
departmental brochures/handbooks that will all need revising to
correct the pagination if we do so.

I also notice that if I print the same doc from the X and 2004 onto
acetates and overlay them, then each word is idenitcal, but
occasionally 2004 will decide to break a line a word earlier than X,
and hence increase inter-word spacing when I'm using justified
alignment. The last (unjustified) line on a para also takes up more
horizontal space even when it has the same words on it.

Your procedures are broken. You should not be relying on Word to
preserve line breaks or pagination. Save all your brochures/handbooks
as PDF (without losing the Word originals) then as you modify a
document, it matters not what version of Word, or which variant of
which font you choose, or Word forces on you, your official copy for
printing and distribution is the PDF you produce at the end of the
revision cycle.

Depending on the typographical quality you require, it may be cost
effective to pass the documents through a professional layout program
such as InDesign before freezing the PDFs. Word to InDesign works
rather well in my limited experience.

So make all the PDFs, get sign-off on quality, then shove everyone on
2004 as fast as you can. Future revisions will then be a simple matter.
If the PDF passes QA, then it's perfect, with everyone on 2004, old
errors won't propagate too far.

Euw - so the default default is to use a MS font that isn't in our
postscript printers' ROMS, so they replace it woth Times, and then
they don't print some quotes and accents, or is that fixed as part of
the Unicode move?

You are asking for trouble if you rely on your printers' fonts and
width tables no matter what software you use. If you go down that road,
your QA is worth nothing unless the procedure includes which physical
printer was used to produce the final. What happens if you outsource
brochure printing to a different print shop?