Harry/Guys/Girls:
Can we have a think about how we're approaching this??
The user has asked how to add a Cascading Style sheet to a Word HTML file.
If you know a better method than the one I use, then please share it.
However, my point is that advising users that there are any number of
"better" HTML editors out there is not helping the user. Telling the user
how awful you consider Word's HTML is, is not helpful either.
Now, I happen to agree with you, there are better HTML editors than Word out
there. But please give our users credit for a modicum of brain-power
They are doing the very best they can. If they had a choice of being able
to afford better software, chances are they would exercise that choice. If
they had the training to use professional-level software, chances are they
would. If they had the time available to learn a new application package,
chances are they would do that too.
This user has come to us because she wants to create SIMPLE web pages in
Word. NOW. Word is all she has. There are reasons for that, and they're
none of our business
I get equally fed up with shops that try to sell me something other than
what I asked for. I feel like shouting if I WANTED "fries with that", I
woulda said so...
Similarly, those of us who carry on forever about how bad Word's HTML is
have missed the point
Word doesn't write HTML. Never did. It has
always written XML. Marketing made the product group change the name on the
menu because they thought users couldn't understand and wanted to "make
things simple". They have created years of confusion instead...
They chose XML for Word because they knew HTML was not good enough. HTML
will not describe a Word Document sufficiently accurately to store all of
the information. You have to use XML. Word is not trying to make "Web
Pages" -- it's trying to make "Office Documents that work in a browser."
That's a different task. You can't do it in HTML. You need XML to render a
Word document in a Browser. And Word does a very good job of that.
There are other products around that are better if you are going to make
websites. I use one myself, to maintain
www.word.mvps.org. But some of
them cost more than a thousand dollars. And chances are a particular user
will not get a "better result" from them than they will from Word -- unless
they can spend a few months learning those applications and web coding.
There are users out there who simply want to put photos of the cat and dog
on the web. Word is fine for that. And that's what they're asking...
Now: OUR job is to help that user do what she wants, with the time,
software and training she has right now. Are WE doing the best WE can?
'Scuse the rant
You'd be better off using a proper web design application. Despite what
many companies like to try and make you believe, NONE of the
applications that got an "HTML export" option tacked into them are
really any good for creating web pages, unless the pages are EXTREMELY
simple - that includes Word, AppleWorks, PageMaker, etc. The fad a
while back of shovelling in the "HTML export" option into almost every
application was more of a sales gimmick than anything useful.
Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)
--
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