Different line layouts

Unfortunately, Draft view is not as WYSIWYG as the old Normal view in Word 2003 and earlier. For example, I was dismayed to find that Draft view does not reflect changes in spacing achieved by using Expanded or Condensed text. I can only suggest avoiding Draft view. Instead, use Print Layout view with the "white space between pages" suppressed. This gives you the same continuous reading/typing experience but with a more accurate display.

 

You may also find that the setting "Optimize character positioning for layout rather than readability" (File | Options | Advanced: Display) will make a difference in the layout.

    Thank you, Suzanne. I use draft view because it is the only way to work quickly in my 1250-page book. In Print Layout View, Word wants to repaginate even for the tiniest changes, ones which could not cause paginating to change. In Draft view at least we have Do Not Repage in Background (or whatever it's called). Working in Print Layout view is very slow.
    I would like to check for widows and orphans while looking for other problems, but with the line layout being different in Draft view, I can't really do that.

   On a different subject, do you happen to know why the geniuses at MS decided to make the pagination different when fields show vs. when they do not show? It seems to me that MS could have put the fields off to the right like Review comments are, while keeping the pagination constant. The pagination being different is horribly inconvenient.

Steve Gray

"Optimize character positioning for layout rather than readability" did not seem to help, but thanks for suggesting an option that I hadn't noticed.

Steve

   On a different subject, do you happen to know why the geniuses at MS decided to make the pagination different when fields show vs. when they do not show? It seems to me that MS could have put the fields off to the right like Review comments are, while keeping the pagination constant. The pagination being different is horribly inconvenient.

Having field codes expand in-line is a design that goes back to the earliest versions of Word. It doesn't surprise me in the least that the developers are unwilling to rewrite code that's deeply intertwined with every other part of Word's display routines, in case there might be unintended consequences. (Sarcasm aside, many of Microsoft's people really are geniuses, but they still don't know everything.)

Even more importantly, Microsoft bases its decisions about which changes to make on judgments about how much more revenue they can generate. That often rules out things that would be useful or convenient for only small segments of the user population.

It makes sense that having the fields in-line is a historical factoid, not something designed in recently. It is probably the worst single thing about Word - except for its unreliability. I realize that MS is revenue-driven but with that in mind it's not evident why they put so many thousands of features into Word. It also seems to me that a good long-range plan would include making advanced users happy. I would switch from Word if there were any alternatives, but it's very unlikely that another app would handle all the features of Word that I've used.

Anyway, Jay, thanks for your reply.

Steve

Consider that an INCLUDETEXT field could result in the display of multiple pages of text, which when the field codes are shown, would be replaced by in most cases, something less that one line of field code.

Doug, the situation you described is what Word does now, and it's what Steve complained about.

I think Steve's request is perfectly reasonable -- if the field result continued to be displayed unchanged in the text column, while the field code was displayed in something similar to the Reviewing area where tracked changes and balloons appear, then you would be able to see both the field code and the unchanged pagination. That scheme would also eliminate the problem of getting the wrong page numbers in an index if it was updated while the XE field codes are visible.

My earlier response was intended only to explain why we have the arrangement we do, and why it's unlikely to be changed.

I don't worry about page layout until the very final version.  I just let the words "... fall where they may ..." until just before I am ready to print the document.

With 2010, I have gotten into the habit of using Web Layout view, with the "Advance Option > Show Document Content section > "Show text Wrapped within Document Window" turned on.  That way no matter how much I zoom in or out, I always see all of the content. Having part of the text run off the edge of the screen is a PITA.

You ask how features are added, and why there are "thousands" of features.  It is simple marketing "me-tooism" is probably the number one driver of "new" features.  When MS started building Word, WordPerfect was the market leader until MS came up with the marketing trick called MS Office.  MS spent a lot of those early years copying features that WP introduced. 

For example, a long time pet peeve feature was "Full Justification".  In WP it was done "properly", the way professional typesetters did it, all the way back to at least WP for DOS version 4 in the 1980s.  In the late 80's Word "copied" this feature. But they did a shoddy job. In Word, "full justification" simply inserted full space characters between words. It looked really bad.  Fast forward to around the year 2000, in the early versions of Word for Windows (I know for sure it was present in WinWord 6.0, and I'm fairly sure it was present in earlier versions) Word added an "option" to "Do justification like WordPerfect". FINALLY in Office 2013 MS made that option the default.

Another source for new features is requests from the REALLY BIG multinational companies.

There is also input from a select group of technical resources, like long time MVPs (no not me <grin> )

Finally, the last source is MS technical developers.  That's where things like Sharepoint and Skydrive integration came from.  Things we didn't even know we "needed".

BUT, take a look at the recent "what's new" lists of features. They are actually quite short.

http://office.microsoft.com/en-in/word-help/use-word-2010-to-open-documents-created-in-earlier-versions-of-word-HA010368874.aspx - this is a simplified list of new features between 2003 / 2007 / 2010.

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/word-help/what-s-new-in-microsoft-office-word-2007-HA010074224.aspx - What's new in Word 2007
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc179199%28office.14%29.aspx - Technet What's new in 2010
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd188670.aspx  - Technet What's new in 2013

Rohn,

Thanks for your lengthy reply. It told me things I didn't know.

I can't postpone page layout until I'm done because I have so many tables and lists that the layout and the content are inextricably mixed, so I had to do the page design while I was writing.

My want-list is short too:

1. Make the thing more reliable. Word crashes at least once per day. About a week ago it was crashing dozens of times every day.

2. Make the fields display not in-line but out of the way. Having pagination change when fields show and when they don't show is a disaster. I can't even remember all the ways it makes using Word harder.

3. (Obviously) Make Help more helpful. Depending on independent commenters is tacky. (I do use the MS Community where there are a few very helpful experts.)

4. Make a Style which says "DO NOT CHANGE THIS." (Text block, table, whatever has that style) I still get unwanted changes in some tables and I have no idea why.

5. If I devoted some time to the issue I could probably think of 100 features that I've wanted that Word should have that it doesn't.

See the KnowledgeBase article "How to troubleshoot problems that occur when you start or use Word" at:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/921541?p=1

If  the layout and the content are inextricably mixed, I do not understand why you would want the fields display not in-line.

You haven't supplied any information on how the tables are being changed.  How about some screen shots?

The document that you did send to me contained a table in which the styles that were used have been overwritten by direct formatting.