Mac and PC Word

[Daniel Cohen]

I believe that not every character in Mac Word remains the same
character when the document is trabsferred to a PC.

Am I correct about this? I know that happens with other programs.

I am particularly concerned about em dashes and en dashes, but it wouls
be useful to know about other characters

 

[jbc]

Daniel, I would think that em dashes and en dashes would remain the
same, since they are available on both Macs and PCs. However, certain
special characters are not available on both operating systems.

Check out this chart:

http://www.typeart.com/special_characters.asp

As you scroll through it, you will see certain characters are
"inaccessible" on one operating system or another. These are the
characters that will give you trouble.

-jbc

 

[Klaus Linke]

OTOH, such problems vanish (or should vanish) with Unicode (PC since Word97
or even older?, Mac since Word2004).

Old versions sometimes had problems because they wrote wrong RTF files that
the other platform couldn't interpret correctly (even though the characters
were available on both). I remember there were tools to fix those RTF files.

Klaus

 

[Phillip M. Jones, CE.T.]

Another thing that helps is use a font that is the same on both
platforms such as Arial, Times New Roman, Courier New. even wingdings.
Use a common font in Word that is the same on both Platforms.

Although, doing so gives some rather boring "put you to sleep text".

In letter writing and creating forms, and things such as Bylaws and
Working Rules, I'd a whole lot rather use Benguait. Be cause its a
unique style that definitely will wake you up, and you won't get the
snoozes reading it.

But unless your PC has Benguait it will not translate well unless you
transform to PDF before sending.

I find that if I have to read very long text in Arial, or Helvetica I am
drifting off to sleep in a heart beat.

OTOH, such problems vanish (or should vanish) with Unicode (PC since Word97
or even older?, Mac since Word2004).

Old versions sometimes had problems because they wrote wrong RTF files that
the other platform couldn't interpret correctly (even though the characters
were available on both). I remember there were tools to fix those RTF files.

Klaus

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |LIFE MEMBER: VPEA ETA-I, NESDA, ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112 |[email protected], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto[email protected]

<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/90th_Birthday/index.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Fulcher/default.html>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Harris/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Jones/default.htm>

<http://www.vpea.org>

 

[Helpful Harry]

Another thing that helps is use a font that is the same on both
platforms such as Arial, Times New Roman, Courier New. even wingdings.
Use a common font in Word that is the same on both Platforms.

Although, doing so gives some rather boring "put you to sleep text".

In letter writing and creating forms, and things such as Bylaws and
Working Rules, I'd a whole lot rather use Benguait. Be cause its a
unique style that definitely will wake you up, and you won't get the
snoozes reading it.

But unless your PC has Benguait it will not translate well unless you
transform to PDF before sending.

I find that if I have to read very long text in Arial, or Helvetica I am
drifting off to sleep in a heart beat.

The "rule" is / was to use a sans-serif font (Arial, Verdana) for
titles ad a serif font (Times) for the main text. SUPPOSEDLY the little
tails on the serif fonts make them easier to read in large chunks than
the sans-serif (no tailed) fonts.

BUT like all "rules" of design, this is often ignored. )


Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

 

[Beth Rosengard]

It's my understanding that serif fonts are (supposed to be) easier to read
on the printed page and sans serif fonts on a computer screen.

Beth

 

[Helpful Harry]

It's my understanding that serif fonts are (supposed to be) easier to read
on the printed page and sans serif fonts on a computer screen.

Yep, that's right. The "rule" I was talking about was for printing, but
I forgot to actually say that - D'OH! \



Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

 

[Clive Huggan]

Yep, that's right. The "rule" I was talking about was for printing, but
I forgot to actually say that - D'OH! \



Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

Any specific sources you'd like to cite? ;-)

Clive Huggan
============

 

[CyberTaz]

Hi Clive-

Have been following the thread & couldn't help noticing your 'addendum'.
Thought this might be an interesting read:

http://www.webreference.com/dlab/9802/sansserif.html

Regards |:>)

 

[Clive Huggan]

Thanks, General! -- an eloquently written article that includes (I notice)
the conundrum "Was it that Times was chosen as the basic computer typeface
because of its neutral character, or we perceive it as neutral because we
got used to seeing it everywhere?"

And "The well-known fonts are almost 'transparent' for perception not
because they're primitive, but on the contrary, because their complexity is
well balanced, because they're carefully polished by their creators and by
the centuries of use".

He goes on to describe the absence of that quality in some sans serif
fonts...

And "The trends that were hinted at in Frutiger were later fully developed
in a family of [sans serif] fonts now extremely popular both on the Web and
in print design. The original typeface of this family, called Meta, was
developed in 1984 by German designer Erik Spiekermann. In Meta and its
offsprings, strokes have slightly varying width (the creator's goal was that
in small sizes, thinner strokes should not "drop out" but, on the contrary,
become undistinguishable from the thicker ones) and, in compensation for the
missing serifs, vigorously bent-off tips of vertical strokes in letters like
"d" or "n." Both uppercase and lowercase characters are narrower than in
most other sans serif fonts (i.e. letters are inscribed into rectangles, not
squares)."

It's the variation in widths of sans serif strokes that the computer screen
can't pick up in, say, 12-point font size that make me sceptical of the view
that sans serif is more readable on screen. But if anyone has some good
research evidence I'd not only be gratified to learn about it; I'd be glad
to modify my view.

I have similar scepticism about much of the assumed benefit of the Dvorak
keyboard, derived from having studied the flawed research methodology (if
one can use that word in this case) of the original research.

Now, back to work...

Cheers,
Clive
=======

 

[Helpful Harry]

It's the variation in widths of sans serif strokes that the computer screen
can't pick up in, say, 12-point font size that make me sceptical of the view
that sans serif is more readable on screen. But if anyone has some good
research evidence I'd not only be gratified to learn about it; I'd be glad
to modify my view.

Sans serif fonts don't have to have different stroke widths, and not
all serif fonts have the same stroke widths (within that font's
letters).

The serifs are the little tails on the edges of letters and those can
make them appear blurry and indistinct on a screen at small sizes,
while the "tailess" sans serif fonts have nice cleanly defined lines.

Meanwhile the tails on the serif fonts cause the eye to "flow" along
the line when reading text on a piece of paper.

SUPPOSEDLY anyway. )

I'm not sure about American magazines, but many UK magainzes these days
don't follow the "rule" and do use sans serif fonts for their main text
- partly because they think it makes them look modern and smart (the
same reason many logos are appearing with the name all in lower case
.... and then they wonder why kids today don't know their grammar proper
like we's oldies do).


Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

 

[John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]]

Yup: Professor Eagleson at Sydney Uni (I think...) did some research on it.

Older readers accustomed to serif will read faster and with greater
retentivity with Serif fonts at small point sizes.

Younger readers accustomed to sans-serif will prefer and read better with
sans-serif regardless of point size.

Readers who need glasses will probably do better with serif.

Cheers

Any specific sources you'd like to cite? ;-)

Clive Huggan
============

--

Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie <[email protected]>
Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Consultant Technical Writer
Sydney, Australia +61 4 1209 1410

 

[John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]]

Daniel:

This is "not supposed to be" correct any longer. Unicode is supposed to be
the common language right across the world, on every computer on every OS in
every application.

A Unicode character is a 16-bit integer. Same integer for that character in
any font on any platform.

Microsoft moved to Unicode in Word 95 and Windows 95. Apple moved in OS X,
but some applications are still catching up. Word 2004 is fully Unicode, so
any document created in Word 2004 should be Unicode from top to bottom.

Unfortunately, text pasted in from older documents or from some other
applications may contain Macintosh International Character Set characters.
If so, sadly, they will be transcoded, either by Word on the Mac or Word on
the PC.

Generally, you will get very few problems, and generally it will occur only
with text edited in pre-Word 2004 copies of Mac Word.

Hope this helps

I believe that not every character in Mac Word remains the same
character when the document is trabsferred to a PC.

Am I correct about this? I know that happens with other programs.

I am particularly concerned about em dashes and en dashes, but it wouls
be useful to know about other characters

--

Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie <[email protected]>
Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Consultant Technical Writer
Sydney, Australia +61 4 1209 1410

 

[Roger Morris]

[snip]

Microsoft moved to Unicode in Word 95 and Windows 95. Apple moved in OS X,
but some applications are still catching up. Word 2004 is fully Unicode, so
any document created in Word 2004 should be Unicode from top to bottom.

Unfortunately, text pasted in from older documents or from some other
applications may contain Macintosh International Character Set characters.
If so, sadly, they will be transcoded, either by Word on the Mac or Word on
the PC.

Generally, you will get very few problems, and generally it will occur only
with text edited in pre-Word 2004 copies of Mac Word.

[snip]

Is it possible, when editing a Mac Word doc (in Word 2004) that contains
non unicode text to convert the whole contents to unicode?

 

[Daniel Cohen]

Daniel:

This is "not supposed to be" correct any longer. Unicode is supposed to be
the common language right across the world, on every computer on every OS in
every application.

A Unicode character is a 16-bit integer. Same integer for that character in
any font on any platform.

Microsoft moved to Unicode in Word 95 and Windows 95. Apple moved in OS X,
but some applications are still catching up. Word 2004 is fully Unicode, so
any document created in Word 2004 should be Unicode from top to bottom.

Thanks. My version of Word is slightly older, word X. I have a Mac, and
I got hold of a PC that had Wordpad (or is it Notepad) which reads Word
documents. So I was able to test that the characters did transfer.

Unfortunately, text pasted in from older documents or from some other
applications may contain Macintosh International Character Set characters.
If so, sadly, they will be transcoded, either by Word on the Mac or Word on
the PC.

I note (which was why I asked the question originally) that in my email
program, certain characters in received mail are plainly not what the
sender intended.

 

[John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]]

Hi roger:

I had *really* hoped you wouldn't ask that obvious question

The short answer is "No. Not easily".

If it were really critical to you, we "could" find a way to do it, but it
would involve writing code...

The problem is that once the character has been expressed in the document in
a valid fashion, Word will leave it alone. So you would then have to
inspect the document character for character looking for character values
outside the ANSI character set and transposing them into Unicode.

Sorry.

[snip]

Microsoft moved to Unicode in Word 95 and Windows 95. Apple moved in OS X,
but some applications are still catching up. Word 2004 is fully Unicode, so
any document created in Word 2004 should be Unicode from top to bottom.

Unfortunately, text pasted in from older documents or from some other
applications may contain Macintosh International Character Set characters.
If so, sadly, they will be transcoded, either by Word on the Mac or Word on
the PC.

Generally, you will get very few problems, and generally it will occur only
with text edited in pre-Word 2004 copies of Mac Word.

[snip]

Is it possible, when editing a Mac Word doc (in Word 2004) that contains
non unicode text to convert the whole contents to unicode?

--

Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie <[email protected]>
Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Consultant Technical Writer
Sydney, Australia +61 4 1209 1410

 

[John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]]

Hi Daniel:

I note (which was why I asked the question originally) that in my email
program, certain characters in received mail are plainly not what the
sender intended.

Yes: Word X is fine. Documents created in Word X will have the characters
encoded and stored internally in Unicode, even though the Apple libraries
Word X depends upon do not handle Unicode.

Email is a whole different ballgame. Your email program will enable you to
specify which character set to use. If you set that to UTF-8, then your
outgoing email contains Unicode and should work anywhere. If you set that
to any other value, it's going to "not work" *somewhere*

Cheers

--

Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie <[email protected]>
Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Consultant Technical Writer
Sydney, Australia +61 4 1209 1410

 

[Roger Morris]

Hi John,

Don't worry, my question was curiosity rather than indicating an urgent
need to actually do something.

Perhaps Microsoft may put a converter in a future release. (No I'm not
asking for it as a feature myself)

Roger

Hi roger:

I had *really* hoped you wouldn't ask that obvious question

The short answer is "No. Not easily".

If it were really critical to you, we "could" find a way to do it, but it
would involve writing code...

The problem is that once the character has been expressed in the document
in a valid fashion, Word will leave it alone. So you would then have to
inspect the document character for character looking for character values
outside the ANSI character set and transposing them into Unicode.

Sorry.

[snip] > Microsoft moved to Unicode in Word 95 and Windows 95. Apple
moved in OS X, > but some applications are still catching up. Word 2004
is fully Unicode, so > any document created in Word 2004 should be
Unicode from top to bottom. > > Unfortunately, text pasted in from older
documents or from some other > applications may contain Macintosh
International Character Set characters. > If so, sadly, they will be
transcoded, either by Word on the Mac or Word on > the PC. > > Generally,
you will get very few problems, and generally it will occur only > with
text edited in pre-Word 2004 copies of Mac Word. [snip]

Is it possible, when editing a Mac Word doc (in Word 2004) that contains
non unicode text to convert the whole contents to unicode?