Master Forms/Templates Challenges

[Gracie Gray]

I work in a sales office with agents who have limited Word knowledge and
skills. We are in the process of updating all of our sales forms and need to
set them up as templates. The documents have been saved as .dot and I've set
the server up to include these files as templates (i.e. File, New,
Templates), which works great BUT all of the files (Word, Excel and PDF) can
not be seen at this location. Rather than change the agents' work style and
have them use the templates feature, the sales manager would like to use the
templates directly from their file location. The problem with using the
files directly is that if the file is protected, agents can not modify some
areas that occasionally need modication. If we do not protect the document
then the original is not preserved.

Does any one know how to resolve this issue?????

Gracie Gray

 

[Elliott Roper]

I work in a sales office with agents who have limited Word knowledge and
skills. We are in the process of updating all of our sales forms and need to
set them up as templates. The documents have been saved as .dot and I've set
the server up to include these files as templates (i.e. File, New,
Templates), which works great BUT all of the files (Word, Excel and PDF) can
not be seen at this location. Rather than change the agents' work style and
have them use the templates feature, the sales manager would like to use the
templates directly from their file location. The problem with using the
files directly is that if the file is protected, agents can not modify some
areas that occasionally need modication. If we do not protect the document
then the original is not preserved.

Does any one know how to resolve this issue?????

The logical answer would be to update your sales manager.
You must protect your master templates from user modification.

As far as Word and Excel goes, you *can* arrange things so that that
first things the user sees is the write-protected menu of
write-protected templates they use as a starting point. (set up their
preferences and file locations). Sneaking PDF templates into the mix is
a bit of a challenge however. A lot depends on how you maintain your
PDF templates, and what application you provide your agents for working
on them with.
You might consider an Applescript application which each agent executes
to choose the next document they need to work on. It could be like a
menu for selecting the form, which is then opened by it as a template
by one of Word Excel or Acrobat as defined in your Applescript
application.

Sorry if this is vague, but I haven't a clue what a PDF template looks
like, nor how you would open one for modification or completing.

 

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

Hi Gracie:

Yeah, sorry about that. This is a very defective design bug in Mac Word
that prevents templates being used properly.

I could go on, but it's too boring.

Save the documents to the server as DOCUMENTS and mark the files as
read-only (if it's a Mac Server, mark them as "Stationery"). The users will
then be able to see them in Finder and make a copy of them at will. If you
mark them read-only, they won't be able to alter the originals.

Then you can use Document Protection (look it up in the Help) and Section
Breaks to mark the areas you want users to be able to alter.

Cheers

I work in a sales office with agents who have limited Word knowledge and
skills. We are in the process of updating all of our sales forms and need to
set them up as templates. The documents have been saved as .dot and I've set
the server up to include these files as templates (i.e. File, New,
Templates), which works great BUT all of the files (Word, Excel and PDF) can
not be seen at this location. Rather than change the agents' work style and
have them use the templates feature, the sales manager would like to use the
templates directly from their file location. The problem with using the
files directly is that if the file is protected, agents can not modify some
areas that occasionally need modication. If we do not protect the document
then the original is not preserved.

Does any one know how to resolve this issue?????

Gracie Gray

--

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. Business Analyst, Consultant
Technical Writer.
Sydney, Australia +61 (0) 4 1209 1410

 

[Elliott Roper]

Hi Gracie:

Yeah, sorry about that. This is a very defective design bug in Mac Word
that prevents templates being used properly.

I could go on, but it's too boring.

I'm intrigued, pray continue.

Save the documents to the server as DOCUMENTS and mark the files as
read-only (if it's a Mac Server, mark them as "Stationery"). The users will
then be able to see them in Finder and make a copy of them at will. If you
mark them read-only, they won't be able to alter the originals.

To me that may be a scary path to follow. A lot depends on Gracie's
agent workflow. I'd be aghast if every agent wrote back to the
directory containing the write protected documents. Not only do they
run the risk of obliterating one anothers' work, they'd need write
access to the directory to do so. They could therefore save a file of
the same name as the template, which with Unix aka OS X and Windows
filenaming deficiencies, (no version number) is bye bye templates.

If each agent writes to his/her own directory they are forced into
save-as anyway, and I see no difficulty in using really truly templates
in this manner. Indeed with really truly template the prompt for file
name occurs on save. (but I wait with bated breath on your reply to the
above plea)

Then you can use Document Protection (look it up in the Help) and Section
Breaks to mark the areas you want users to be able to alter.

While true, this was not Gracie's area of concern. She needs to protect
the template sources and make them all reachable in one easy motion.
A homegrown Project Gallery-alike with added PDF goodness was what I
had in mind for her.

 

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

Hi Elliot:

I'm intrigued, pray continue.

In Word 2004, Templates can be accessed ONLY with Project Gallery. Project
Gallery will look ONLY in the user's local templates folder.

In Word 2004, if you double-click a Template in the finder, Word opens the
Template. You do not get a copy of the template converted into Document
format, you get the original template, in edit mode.

In Win Word, if you find a template on the network, you double-click it.
You get a new document created from the template, with the Save set to your
current document folder. That's what users expect and need to efficiently
use templates in a networked office environment.

To me that may be a scary path to follow. A lot depends on Gracie's
agent workflow. I'd be aghast if every agent wrote back to the
directory containing the write protected documents.

They can't. It's read-only. I thought Gracie would be able to work out
that the easiest way to set a document read-only is to set the FOLDER
read-only. The users can't save to it... They will immediately be forced
to save it somewhere else. You can write them a workflow that tells them
where, or let them save to their default home documents folder.

If each agent writes to his/her own directory they are forced into
save-as anyway, and I see no difficulty in using really truly templates
in this manner. Indeed with really truly template the prompt for file
name occurs on save. (but I wait with bated breath on your reply to the
above plea)

No, it doesn't. Unless they use Project Gallery to Create New Document from
Template, the macros and prompts are disabled. The template opens in
"Design Mode", it's in Edit, and the macros don't run.

They "could" force each user to set their Workgroup Templates location in
Word to the network location of the templates. This is laborious, and
end-users simply won't do it. Particularly salesmen who will be working
from roaming laptops.

If they did manage to get the Workgroup Templates location correctly set,
they would then need to write special macros to intercept the Save command
and force a Save As to the correct location.

This would work only if the user started a new document from the template.
Which each user will do only once. After that, they will copy the old one,
because all the non-varying information has been filled in. So they will
make a copy and update it.

Since they're working from a roaming laptop, the Template will not be
available. So the Save As macro will not be there to work. So documents
after the first will end up in random locations just as usual

In a few months, when Office Next appears, all macro functionality will
become impossible, so the entire time they spent on this will have been
wasted.

If they do it the way I suggest, their solution will continue to work
unchanged in Office Next

While true, this was not Gracie's area of concern. She needs to protect
the template sources and make them all reachable in one easy motion.
A homegrown Project Gallery-alike with added PDF goodness was what I
had in mind for her.

Yeah, I saw your suggestion as an "alternative". I am sure it will work.
If these guys don't need (and never will need...) cross-platform, then PDF
may be the way to go.

I naturally shy away from PDF in an office workgroup setting because the
only thing I have ever found PDF to produce is trouble. The reasons I shy
away from PDF are:

Unless everyone in the company has a very expensive Adobe Acrobat licence in
addition to their already expensive Microsoft Office licence, they will not
be able to access the "PDF goodness". And as soon as they send it to a
Windows machine, it WILL break. If they send it back... Think Apocalypse
Now...

With Office Next, Microsoft will ship PDF support and XML Paper
Specification (XPS) support. (Adobe is playing silly games, so you will
have to download the PDF Output module separately, because Adobe won't let
Microsoft put it in the box the way they allow Apple to do.)

However, I suspect the entire world (publishing and office workers) will
switch over to XPS quite quickly, because it offers all the abilities of PDF
plus some useful enhancements.

I don't know much about XPS yet, but what I do know sounds fairly enticing


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. Business Analyst, Consultant
Technical Writer.
Sydney, Australia +61 (0) 4 1209 1410

 

[Elliott Roper]

Hi Elliot:

I'm intrigued, pray continue.

In Word 2004, Templates can be accessed ONLY with Project Gallery. Project
Gallery will look ONLY in the user's local templates folder.

In Word 2004, if you double-click a Template in the finder, Word opens the
Template. You do not get a copy of the template converted into Document
format, you get the original template, in edit mode.

In Win Word, if you find a template on the network, you double-click it.
You get a new document created from the template, with the Save set to your
current document folder. That's what users expect and need to efficiently
use templates in a networked office environment.

It's the Mac Word way that I'd claim is the bug-free implementation.
The user knows they are creating a fresh document from a supplied and
guaranteed good template, chock full of corporate goodness. Those who
go to the trouble of editing a template know damn well they are
changing a template.
That wishy-washy Windows 'maybe you are making a fresh one - maybe you
a messing with the BOFH and his pimply youth and you won't get a clue
till you try to save it' way is broken.Stop it! You're scarin' me!

They can't. It's read-only. I thought Gracie would be able to work out
that the easiest way to set a document read-only is to set the FOLDER
read-only. The users can't save to it... They will immediately be forced
to save it somewhere else. You can write them a workflow that tells them
where, or let them save to their default home documents folder.

That depends on which operating system they are running on their
server. And how it's configured.

No, it doesn't. Unless they use Project Gallery to Create New Document from
Template, the macros and prompts are disabled. The template opens in
"Design Mode", it's in Edit, and the macros don't run.

They "could" force each user to set their Workgroup Templates location in
Word to the network location of the templates. This is laborious, and
end-users simply won't do it. Particularly salesmen who will be working
from roaming laptops.

What's wrong with loading each agent's lappy with the Blessed Templates
from On High?

If they did manage to get the Workgroup Templates location correctly set,
they would then need to write special macros to intercept the Save command
and force a Save As to the correct location.

This would work only if the user started a new document from the template.
Which each user will do only once. After that, they will copy the old one,
because all the non-varying information has been filled in. So they will
make a copy and update it.

They could do either. It would be a mark of the Blessed Template's
quality if they favoured the former.

Since they're working from a roaming laptop, the Template will not be
available. So the Save As macro will not be there to work. So documents
after the first will end up in random locations just as usual

see above about centrally managed template distribution.

In a few months, when Office Next appears, all macro functionality will
become impossible, so the entire time they spent on this will have been
wasted.

Who mentioned macros? I think we have each decided to solve different
problems slightly at an angle from Gracie's original.

If they do it the way I suggest, their solution will continue to work
unchanged in Office Next

Yeah, I saw your suggestion as an "alternative". I am sure it will work.
If these guys don't need (and never will need...) cross-platform, then PDF
may be the way to go.

Her actual problem was they had standard forms to fill in, some Word
based, some PDF.

I naturally shy away from PDF in an office workgroup setting because the
only thing I have ever found PDF to produce is trouble. The reasons I shy
away from PDF are:

Unless everyone in the company has a very expensive Adobe Acrobat licence in
addition to their already expensive Microsoft Office licence, they will not
be able to access the "PDF goodness". And as soon as they send it to a
Windows machine, it WILL break. If they send it back... Think Apocalypse
Now...

With Office Next, Microsoft will ship PDF support and XML Paper
Specification (XPS) support. (Adobe is playing silly games, so you will
have to download the PDF Output module separately, because Adobe won't let
Microsoft put it in the box the way they allow Apple to do.)

However, I suspect the entire world (publishing and office workers) will
switch over to XPS quite quickly, because it offers all the abilities of PDF
plus some useful enhancements.

No NO NO!

I sincerely hope you are utterly wrong.

I don't know much about XPS yet, but what I do know sounds fairly enticing

You are of course trolling. Or is that shilling?

Microsoft think they are in trouble over antitrust in the US over
Netscape, or in the EU over server-server protocols. Just watch the
shit hit the fan if they try to take out PDF!

Both Adobe and Microsoft are playing brinkmanship. Stupidly.

Adobe opened up enough of the PDF spec to give Apple sufficient
confidence to use it in place of Display Postscript as it was in Next.
As far as I can see, the same applies to Microsoft's use of PDF, but
for some reason they are claiming otherwise and claiming as you are,
that Adobe is somehow preventing Microsoft from using the royalty-free
open PDF spec. Or are we getting another Redmond spin along the lines
of "The EU will block Vista in Europe because Vista does not have
enough system bugs to afford the snake-oil antivirus vendors a living"?

Adobe are possibly in a state of panic that Microsoft will set about an
embrace-extend-extinguish cycle as they were convicted of with Netscape
and the Kerberos PAK and DCE and LDUP and (allegedly) with Java (and
the .NET me too)... (my strength fails me)

I for one will spend lots of money on Adobe products in the hope that
XPS will die an agonising and early death, unless Microsoft opens up
the whole damn thing completely and promises to keep it open and simple
for ever.

I have never trusted any archival quality document to any closed file
format, particularly anything of Microsoft's, and I'm not about to
start anytime soon.

XPS is shaping up to be Microsoft's most egregious mis-use of its
dominant market position ever.

They are within their rights to create a final document to printer
workflow similar to OS X's PDF-based one. That's fair. To use it to
wipe PDF off the face of the planet is not.

There is a simple technical fix to this mess. Both parties agree to
keep their specs fully open and to pool resources into open
interworking software translators.

It has been done before. Microsoft was pretty OK about RTF. They were
even OK about CIFS (for a while).

Adobe could use a little competition to put its PDF house in order. I
wish it were coming from a firm with a shorter antitrust violation
record.

Acrobat is a steaming pile of bugs. Adobe knew when it published PDF
specs in 1999 and gave away Acrobat Reader to all, that anybody could
write another editor for producing and maintaining PDF documents. That
should have spurred them to improve Acrobat and price it fairly. That
they did neither is painfully obvious seven years on.

Therefore, while I hope Adobe wins against Microsoft in preserving PDF,
for once, I'll not be distraught if Microsoft's quarry feels a little
pain.

 

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

Hi Elliott:

Ahhhh.... The newsgroup is back to normal. How wonderful...

It's the Mac Word way that I'd claim is the bug-free implementation.

Elliott Roper: You just AGREED with Microsoft!!

The user knows they are creating a fresh document from a supplied and
guaranteed good template, chock full of corporate goodness. Those who
go to the trouble of editing a template know damn well they are
changing a template.

No: In a corporate world, Users double-click documents. They don't know
any other way of opening them.

What's wrong with loading each agent's lappy with the Blessed Templates
from On High?

Getting the agents to return the damn things to the network at predictable
intervals so you can upload the updated ones, and the scripting and
administration that has to occur to make this happen.

Again: It's possible. But the Outsourced network administrator won;t do
it. Not at this price

They could do either. It would be a mark of the Blessed Template's
quality if they favoured the former.

They *could*, but it's such a pillow-fight to create a document from a
template in Mac Word that no corporate user will bother. Sorry: I know
it's pure. I know it's *correct*. It's also, too much damned trouble --
it's not going to happen

Who mentioned macros? I think we have each decided to solve different
problems slightly at an angle from Gracie's original.

Without some form of automation, there's little point in having a template.
The users won't fill it in correctly unless you make it EASY. The right way
has to be easier than the wrong way, or the wrong way is all you'll get.
And to force a save to a particular folder, you need automation of some
description.

No NO NO!

I sincerely hope you are utterly wrong.

Why? If it's better, why wouldn't we use it?

You are of course trolling. Or is that shilling?

Neither. I believe XML has at least one compelling benefit: the result is
fully and efficiently editable if you choose to allow that.

You can't edit PDF properly because the format contains only the display
information, not the structure or formatting information. XPS does. If you
allow editing, XPS can be edited with styles and structure and XSLTs just
like any other XML document.

And if you leave it alone, it prints just like PDF

Microsoft think they are in trouble over antitrust in the US over
Netscape, or in the EU over server-server protocols. Just watch the
shit hit the fan if they try to take out PDF!

Microsoft is a public corporation It's job is to compete. It would be
in serious trouble with the New York Stock Exchange, the corporate
regulators, and its own shareholders if it didn't.

So Microsoft is just doing its job. Adobe has YEARS of head start. If
Adobe were to apply itself to meeting its users' needs, it would win this
contest with one hand tied behind its back.

Adobe opened up enough of the PDF spec to give Apple sufficient
confidence to use it in place of Display Postscript as it was in Next.
As far as I can see, the same applies to Microsoft's use of PDF, but
for some reason they are claiming otherwise and claiming as you are,
that Adobe is somehow preventing Microsoft from using the royalty-free
open PDF spec. Or are we getting another Redmond spin along the lines
of "The EU will block Vista in Europe because Vista does not have
enough system bugs to afford the snake-oil antivirus vendors a living"?

No. Adobe PDF may be open, but it's also copyright. Adobe is entitled to
charge for its use. In this case, they have said that they will.

I for one will spend lots of money on Adobe products in the hope that
XPS will die an agonising and early death, unless Microsoft opens up
the whole damn thing completely and promises to keep it open and simple
for ever.

Microsoft HAS published XPS. One of the interesting things about XML is
that it's really not possible to make it "proprietary". It's vaguely
human-readable. Any commercial-grade SGML Parser can dig the DTD out of a
file in seconds.

They are within their rights to create a final document to printer
workflow similar to OS X's PDF-based one. That's fair. To use it to
wipe PDF off the face of the planet is not.

They never said they would wipe PDF off the face of the planet?? They're
intending to offer both flavours. The users will decide which one wins.

Acrobat is a steaming pile of bugs. Adobe knew when it published PDF
specs in 1999 and gave away Acrobat Reader to all, that anybody could
write another editor for producing and maintaining PDF documents. That
should have spurred them to improve Acrobat and price it fairly. That
they did neither is painfully obvious seven years on.

Well, now they have some encouragement to make up for lost time

The software industry is like politics. You know how they say "Oppositions
do not 'win' elections, Governments 'lose' them"? XPS has the potential to
better meet the user needs of tomorrow. But so does PDF.

I actually agree with most of what you say -- just because Microsoft has put
out another way of doing file-to-paper does not mean it must win It
will only win if Adobe doesn't get busy in reply!

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. Business Analyst, Consultant
Technical Writer.
Sydney, Australia +61 (0) 4 1209 1410

 

[Elliott Roper]

Hi Elliott:

Ahhhh.... The newsgroup is back to normal. How wonderful...

It's the Mac Word way that I'd claim is the bug-free implementation.

Elliott Roper: You just AGREED with Microsoft!!

I know. What's even worse, I think I agree with you in most of what
follows.

No: In a corporate world, Users double-click documents. They don't know
any other way of opening them.


Getting the agents to return the damn things to the network at predictable
intervals so you can upload the updated ones, and the scripting and
administration that has to occur to make this happen.

Again: It's possible. But the Outsourced network administrator won;t do
it. Not at this price


They *could*, but it's such a pillow-fight to create a document from a
template in Mac Word that no corporate user will bother. Sorry: I know
it's pure. I know it's *correct*. It's also, too much damned trouble --
it's not going to happen


Without some form of automation, there's little point in having a template.
The users won't fill it in correctly unless you make it EASY. The right way
has to be easier than the wrong way, or the wrong way is all you'll get.
And to force a save to a particular folder, you need automation of some
description.

Hmm, we can easily cripple their machines so that Word defaults to
opening on the correct page of Project Gallery without too much VBA..

Bit I'm forced to agree, all the users will work out a way of
sabotaging that in 15ns or less.

Why? If it's better, why wouldn't we use it?


Neither. I believe XML has at least one compelling benefit: the result is
fully and efficiently editable if you choose to allow that.

You can't edit PDF properly because the format contains only the display
information, not the structure or formatting information. XPS does. If you
allow editing, XPS can be edited with styles and structure and XSLTs just
like any other XML document.

And if you leave it alone, it prints just like PDF

Probably for debating purposes, you conflated XML and XPS above.

XML is an un-alloyed good compared to binary .doc. XPS, while being
expressed in XML, can be seen as an embrace and extend gambit on PDF..

Microsoft is a public corporation It's job is to compete. It would be
in serious trouble with the New York Stock Exchange, the corporate
regulators, and its own shareholders if it didn't.

It is in even bigger trouble if it competes unfairly

So Microsoft is just doing its job. Adobe has YEARS of head start. If
Adobe were to apply itself to meeting its users' needs, it would win this
contest with one hand tied behind its back.

It should. I was pleased to see that Neelie Kroes in Brussels has told
Adobe to stop whingeing and go sort it out with Microsoft, which
probably means that Microsoft made some pretty sensible proposals to
the EU for how they won't embrace and extend PDF just yet.

No. Adobe PDF may be open, but it's also copyright. Adobe is entitled to
charge for its use. In this case, they have said that they will.

You gotta read each side's spin *very* carefully to work out what Adobe
was asking for payment for. PDF format is free.

Microsoft HAS published XPS. One of the interesting things about XML is
that it's really not possible to make it "proprietary". It's vaguely
human-readable. Any commercial-grade SGML Parser can dig the DTD out of a
file in seconds.

Well, it can did *a* DTD out. A complete one with all the intent is a
different matter.
I'll believe that when I've had a chance to read, analyse and test the
XSLT, XML and DTD all together.

They never said they would wipe PDF off the face of the planet?? They're
intending to offer both flavours. The users will decide which one wins.


Well, now they have some encouragement to make up for lost time

The software industry is like politics. You know how they say "Oppositions
do not 'win' elections, Governments 'lose' them"? XPS has the potential to
better meet the user needs of tomorrow. But so does PDF.

I actually agree with most of what you say -- just because Microsoft has put
out another way of doing file-to-paper does not mean it must win It
will only win if Adobe doesn't get busy in reply!

I must be getting soft. You are right. Both companies must understand
that what is important for their respective customers is not whether
the toys are pretty, but whether the documents they create are immune
from destructive competition in the software biz.