 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussionsAccessExcelInfoPathOutlookPowerPointPublisherWordDirectoryUser Groups Related Topics Outlook ExpressInternet ExplorerWindowsMS Server ProductsMore Topics ... |
MS Office Forum / Word / General MS Word Questions / December 2003French Letters on English Keyboard
I have selected English (US) with no other languages selected. However, when I press the fwd slash I get é, when I press apostrophy I get è, when I press left square bracket I get ^^, when I press the right sq. bracket I get ç Hi Kr, > I have selected English (US) with no other languages > selected. However, when I press the fwd slash I get é, > when I press apostrophy I get è, when I press left square > bracket I get ^^, when I press the right sq. bracket I get > ç We need more information: 1. Which version of Word are you using? 2. Which version of Windows? 3. What are you language and keyboard settings in WINDOWS? Cindy Meister INTER-Solutions, Switzerland http://homepage.swissonline.ch/cindymeister (last update Sep 30 2003) http://www.mvps.org/word This reply is posted in the Newsgroup; please post any follow question or reply in the newsgroup and not by e-mail :-) Thanks for the response. I am using Word 2000 but I will also say, if I try doing the same inputs on Excel, I get the same result. I am using Windows 98 and my keyboard setting is English (US) Canadian Standard Layout and my language setting in Word is English (US). I have no other languages selected in languages or Keyboard. I hope this helps. KR. >-----Original Message----- >Hi Kr, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >. >-----Original Message----- >Thanks for the response. I am using Word 2000 but I will [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >KR. The input language (in your case English (US)) determines what language you are writing in, and is used eg by Word to det the appropriate proofing tools. The Keyboard layout, which you have set to Canadian Standard, determines which character is produced when you hit a key. On a Canadian Multilingual Standard keyboard you would expect to get the characters you report when pressing those keys. If you are in Canada but have a US keyboard you probably want to set the language as English (Canada) and the keyboard layout to US. Thank you. I am in Canada and use an IBM ThinkPad (bought in Canada). I have changed the language on my keyboard (done through the control panel) to English (US) and have set the language on Word (through Tools menu) to English (Canada). I still am having the same issues. Help. KR >-----Original Message----- > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >keyboard layout to US. >. Hi Kr, > I am in Canada and use an IBM ThinkPad (bought > in Canada). I have changed the language on my keyboard [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > setting is English (US) Canadian Standard Layout and my > language setting in Word is English (US). Let's got through the steps again, just to make sure everyone's talking about the same things, here :-) 1. In Windows Control Panel, where you select the keyboard language, choose the language you want to use as your default in all applications (including Word). Either English US or Canada; I don't care which :-), but this has to be consistent. 2. Still in the Keyboard language, with the language you've just set as the default still selected, click the PROPERTIES button. Choose the *keyboard LAYOUT* you want to use (probably the U.S. extended keyboard). 3. In Word, Tools/Language/Set language choose the same language you set for the Windows keyboard. If you're still getting odd results, I'd say there's a problem with the machine's keyboard DRVIER. You perhaps need to remove/reinstall, or even contact IBM about a replacement. Cindy Meister INTER-Solutions, Switzerland http://homepage.swissonline.ch/cindymeister (last update Sep 30 2003) http://www.mvps.org/word This reply is posted in the Newsgroup; please post any follow question or reply in the newsgroup and not by e-mail :-) Thank you, I changed the keyboard layout to US 101 and I am now getting the output that I wanted. Very much appreciated, KR >-----Original Message----- >Hi Kr, [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > >. > The input language (in your case English (US)) determines > what language you are writing in, and is used eg by Word > to det the appropriate proofing tools. This is a MAJOR error in product design. Whatever is the keyboard I have and the language I use on a platform, when I open a word processor I wish to write any document in any language. I hope that MS will understand this and change Office behaviour in future. This "feature" is a real mess for people used to write in several languages and often using several languages in the SAME document. This is quite common outside US, especially in Europe. Word is still too US-culture oriented. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dr. Dario de Judicibus http://www.dejudicibus.it/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > This is a MAJOR error in product design. Whatever is the keyboard I > have and the language I use on a platform, when I open a word [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > This is quite common outside US, especially in Europe. Word is still > too US-culture oriented. Ratehr than writing great essays inside every other thread, why not read them properly to discover what you have done wrong. There is NO keyboard/platform issue in the way that you understand it. Mike Williams - Office MVP http://www.mvps.org/faq/ Please respond in the same thread on this newsgroup - not by email! Include details of your application and Windows versions, plus any service pack updates. Answers may also be found by reading recent posts, checking the FAQs or searching the relevant Google archive at. http://groups.google.com/groups?group=microsoft.public Hi Dario, Actually, I tend to agree with your sentiment, and have been unhappy about the Windows default overriding the Word default since this was introduced in Word 97. There are some things you can undertake, however, to keep the language formatting in Word stable and predictable, so that you can use styles reliably for multi-language work. You'll find an FAQ on the subject in the "Tips" section of my website. > > The input language (in your case English (US)) determines > > what language you are writing in, and is used eg by Word [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > SAME document. This is quite common outside US, especially in Europe. Word > is still too US-culture oriented. Cindy Meister INTER-Solutions, Switzerland http://homepage.swissonline.ch/cindymeister (last update Sep 30 2003) http://www.mvps.org/word This reply is posted in the Newsgroup; please post any follow question or reply in the newsgroup and not by e-mail :-) > Hi Dario, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > reliably for multi-language work. You'll find an FAQ on the subject in the > "Tips" section of my website. Cindy, I appreciate your solidarity. In fact I often use styles. It works fine in Word, worst in PowerPoint (office 2000). At least you understand our problems ouside US. My impression is that Mike did not. I would appreciate if you may explain to him how difficult is for us to manage such a "feature". Mixing several languages in the same document is quite common in Europe. In Italy we use English and French words, and sometime German too. This is true for both scientific and humanistic publications. I think that MS should consider our need, rather than simply say "we are wrong". Thank you again. DdJ > Cindy, I appreciate your solidarity. In fact I often use styles. It > works fine in Word, worst in PowerPoint (office 2000). At least you > understand our problems ouside US. My impression is that Mike did > not. I'm not American either and understand the pain. MS inflicts additional language injury on non-US English writers that they would never get away with in other languages. > I would appreciate if you may explain to him how difficult is > for us to manage such a "feature". Mixing several languages in the > same document is quite common in Europe. In Italy we use English and > French words, and sometime German too. This is true for both > scientific and humanistic publications. I'm well aware of this and it's also a horrible feature to try to create which will make everyone happy AND keep up with the increasing mixing of languages especially through adoption of English technical terms. I think it would be a little mitigated if the vendors who created the non-English spell-checkers would allow borrowed English terms in their lexicons but IMHO they have done a terrible job of updating them from version to version. I suspect that many would prefer that you coughed up hundreds of dollars for the premium versions of their proofing software. Mike Williams - Office MVP http://www.mvps.org/faq/ Please respond in the same thread on this newsgroup - not by email! Include details of your application and Windows versions, plus any service pack updates. Answers may also be found by reading recent posts, checking the FAQs or searching the relevant Google archive at. http://groups.google.com/groups?group=microsoft.public > I'm well aware of this and it's also a horrible feature to try to create > which will make everyone happy AND keep up with the increasing mixing of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Mike Williams - Office MVP http://www.mvps.org/faq/ I understand and agree with your opinion. For example, I rarely use the spell-checker in my language since it is too US oriented. Some example: in English you are discouraged to use passive form of verbs, in Italian is very common and absolutely correct. However the checker insists to discourage those forms in Italian too. In English sentences are usually short. In Italian they are long, and it is not unfrequent to write one page with only one full-stop. That derives from the Latin consecutio temporum. However the spell-checker pretendes that I write a document for five-years old readers ;-) Furthermore, if I add a new word I have to add all forms (male, female, singular, plural), if I add a new verb, it is not able to coniugate it. :( By the way Microsoft did a great job by introducing Unicode as a default on its platforms. It is really a pity that the only full Unicode font (Arial Unicode MS) does not contain the whole Unicode character set. It's an improvement anyway. It would be nice if also Courier New would be Unicode-enabled. P.S. I downloaded the keyboard layout creator: it is something I was waiting since DOS ;-))))) DdJ Hi Dario, Don't you mean the grammar checker, below? You do know you can spell check, and have the grammar check deactivated? > I understand and agree with your opinion. For example, I rarely use the > spell-checker in my language since it is too US oriented. Some example: in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Italian they are long, and it is not unfrequent to write one page with only > one full-stop. Cindy Meister INTER-Solutions, Switzerland http://homepage.swissonline.ch/cindymeister (last update Sep 30 2003) http://www.mvps.org/word This reply is posted in the Newsgroup; please post any follow question or reply in the newsgroup and not by e-mail :-) > Hi Dario, > > Don't you mean the grammar checker, below? You do know you can spell check, > and have the grammar check deactivated? I have always the grammar checker disabled. It is useless in Italian. For example, it pretends that I avoid passive tenses. This is a US English rule, not an Italian one ;-) Passive tenses is perfectly OK in my language. By the way I disabled also the spell checker now. It looks like there is a bug in Italian dictionary that makes PowerPoint disappear as I type in. I heard of a similar problem in Canadian French or some French dictionary. It's so stange that just an error in a dictionary is able to create such a damage! DdJ >> Hi Dario, >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > English rule, not an Italian one ;-) Passive tenses is perfectly OK > in my language. Microsoft only creates the English, Spanish, German and French grammar-checkers. All the others are licensed from companies who generally operate out of the country of language origin. Depending on what control is surfaced by each grammar-checker, you should look to disable style checks that you do not find useful. I am not familar with the options for the non-English grammar tools. > By the way I disabled also the spell checker now. It looks like there > is a bug in Italian dictionary that makes PowerPoint disappear as I > type in. I heard of a similar problem in Canadian French or some > French dictionary. It's so stange that just an error in a dictionary > is able to create such a damage! Every language has a spell-checker DLL plus resource file (lexicon or dictionary), as the rules for word formation vary from language to language. Microsoft only does the English spell-checker (Word 2000 or later). All the others are licensed, some have been often reported as causing crashing problems. Source companies for the other language proofing tools can be found from the Properties dialog on the respective DLLs or by looking at the Help About box in Word after they have been installed. Mike Williams - Office MVP http://www.mvps.org/faq/ If something doesn't make sense, it could be worse e.g. http://www.rathergood.com/moon_song/ Please respond in the same thread on this newsgroup - not by email! Include details of your application and Windows versions, plus any service pack updates. Answers may also be found by reading recent posts, checking the FAQs or searching the relevant Google archive at. http://groups.google.com/groups?group=microsoft.public > Source companies for the other language proofing tools can be found from the > Properties dialog on the respective DLLs or by looking at the Help About box > in Word after they have been installed. Mike, the fact that MS is using other companies to develop Spell Checkers is an INTERNAL Microsoft decision. From my point of view (the customer, that one who is always right, you know? ;-) the Office is a Microsoft product as well as ANY internal components. So, if the Italian spelle checker is causing crashes, I expect a fix from MS, not to find in some DLL properties a trademark and contact directly that company to fix my problem. DdJ >> Source companies for the other language proofing tools can be found >> from the Properties dialog on the respective DLLs or by looking at [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > not to find in some DLL properties a trademark and contact directly > that company to fix my problem. I'm not disagreeing with you, although I must say that the source companies can be rather disingenuous about taking responsibility for problems in their code or lexicons. I think MS can be left in the awkward position of wanting to provide support for many languages through third party licensing, but the range of options may be rather limited. MS can only ask the source company for fixes or try to find an alternate company that provides an equivalent service - the range is not great in most languages. Mike Williams - Office MVP http://www.mvps.org/faq/ If something doesn't make sense, it could be worse e.g. http://www.rathergood.com/moon_song/ Please respond in the same thread on this newsgroup - not by email! Include details of your application and Windows versions, plus any service pack updates. Answers may also be found by reading recent posts, checking the FAQs or searching the relevant Google archive at. http://groups.google.com/groups?group=microsoft.public > I'm not disagreeing with you, although I must say that the source companies > can be rather disingenuous about taking responsibility for problems in their [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > for fixes or try to find an alternate company that provides an equivalent > service - the range is not great in most languages. I understand that the problem is complicated, and I appreciate the increased support of MS of more and more languages. I'm just surprised by the fact that a spell checker can crash so badly PowerPoint. Just if you type certain words. I expect that most of code of spell checker is common to every spell checker, that is, it is MS code. Third parties should provide only the dictionary and some rules. I am speaking of spell checker, not grammar checker. So how much code is involved apart a list of words? DdJ > I understand that the problem is complicated, and I appreciate the > increased support of MS of more and more languages. I'm just [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > rules. I am speaking of spell checker, not grammar checker. So how > much code is involved apart a list of words? The "rules" are embodied in code, and since each language defines words differently and has different patterns of error, each has its own spell-checker. Some of the European spell-checkers must perform special agglutination that is not necessary in English (for example) and cannot rely on lists of words. Microsoft only provides code for one-spellchecker: its own English tool. All others are external, and simply subscribe to a defined interface. I agree that the spell-checkers should not be able to crash the applications. These might be cases where the spell-checkers involved are still only subscribing to old interfaces instead of the new ones published for Word 2000 and later.  SignatureMike Williams - Office MVP http://www.mvps.org/faq/ Please respond in the same thread on this newsgroup - not by email! Include details of your application and Windows versions, plus any service pack updates. Answers may also be found by reading recent posts, checking the FAQs or searching the relevant Google archive at. http://groups.google.com/groups?group=microsoft.public If something doesn't make sense, it could be worse e.g. http://www.rathergood.com/moon_song/ The UK English grammar checker spouts a load of nonsense too. Its great aversion to the passive voice is ridiculous. In many situations it is perfectly correct to use the passive, and most of the suggested 'improvements' in the active voice are laughable. Perhaps it is disliked in American English, but that's no reason to inflict this prejudice upon the rest of the anglophonic world - how localised is the UK grammar checker anyway? If you want to check the grammar of a document, you must learn the grammar of your language and don't rely on a piece of software. You only have to look at translation software to see how limited computers' comprehension of the nuances of natural language is at our present level of technology. >I understand and agree with your opinion. For example, I rarely use the >spell-checker in my language since it is too US oriented. Some example: in [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >. > The UK English grammar checker spouts a load of nonsense > too. Its great aversion to the passive voice is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > prejudice upon the rest of the anglophonic world - how > localised is the UK grammar checker anyway? The grammar-checker is more properly called a grammar-and-style-checker. The passive voice elements are probably still there because: a) it's relatively easy to detect b) it was in the grammar-checkers that MS licensed until a couple of years ago, and has been kept for consistency. The same grammar-checker is used for all English documents, but when the text is not US, allowances are made for differences in verb agreement with mass-nouns. There's something else too but I've forgotten it. > If you want to check the grammar of a document, you must > learn the grammar of your language and don't rely on a > piece of software. You only have to look at translation > software to see how limited computers' comprehension of > the nuances of natural language is at our present level > of technology. I don't think anyone would disagree with you there. Especially people who create this technology. Since translation technology ( phrase-memory systems aside ) rely heavily on parsing of the original text, some reflection on the state of grammar-checkers indicates one dimension of the problem in getting an accurate parse of the source text and generating equivalent expressions in the target language. > The UK English grammar checker spouts a load of nonsense > too. Its great aversion to the passive voice is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > prejudice upon the rest of the anglophonic world - how > localised is the UK grammar checker anyway? Uuuuuuhhh..... Great! I'm not alone! ;-)))))) I did not know that it was ok in UK English too. Surely it is OK in Italian. It looks like the good old Bill wants everybody speaking US... US English, US French, US Italian.... :)))) DdJ >-----Original Message----- >Uuuuuuhhh..... Great! I'm not alone! ;-)))))) >I did not know that it was ok in UK English too. Surely it is OK in Italian. >It looks like the good old Bill wants everybody speaking US... US English, >US French, US Italian.... :)))) And now the US has conquered Iraq, we will have US Arabic to contend with... Hi Dario, > At least you understand our > problems ouside US. Because I'm in Switzerland <g> FWIW, I've tried explaining the non-US-centric view to MS people any number of times, including face-to-face with the person who's been in charge of the language features over the last couple of versions. For the most part, I get blank looks <sigh> Getting the OS and Word default languages synchronized is a pain, especially because so many people have no idea even where to begin with it. The FAQ I posted a few weeks ago will hopefully help a bit. But the worst problem in this regard, because it's one over which we can get no control, is when the keyboard language changes "out of the blue". Best I've been able to figure out, it pops up when some application insistently tells the operating system that it's a particular language. And the OS accepts this, then applies it to the WORD document when you switch back into Word. If we could find a set of steps that reproduces this reliably, MS could perhaps get a handle on the cause and do something about it. But so far, no one has been able to do that. Cindy Meister SignatureINTER-Solutions, Switzerland http://homepage.swissonline.ch/cindymeister (last update Sep 30 2003) http://www.mvps.org/word This reply is posted in the Newsgroup; please post any follow question or reply in the newsgroup and not by e-mail :-) Cindy M -WordMVP- wrote: > FWIW, I've tried explaining the non-US-centric view to MS > people any number of times, including face-to-face with the > person who's been in charge of the language features over > the last couple of versions. For the most part, I get blank > looks <sigh> Been there too - with folks from Office and Windows. It's scary that there are so few people within Microsoft who know enough about the issue to even talk knowledgeably about the different dimensions involved. Having them get enough resources to actually do something about it is several orders of magnitude harder than actually getting a discussion. It's even worse now with new input modalities such as speech and handwriting being thrown into the pot. Very hard to convince folks to do some preventative architectural work before the mess REALLY gets out of hand. > Been there too - with folks from Office and Windows. It's scary that there > are so few people within Microsoft who know enough about the issue to even [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the pot. Very hard to convince folks to do some preventative architectural > work before the mess REALLY gets out of hand. What's about for Microsoft involving a selected community of world-wide advanced users to support architects to design reliable, usable and useful products satisfying international needs? It would be an opportunity of growth for MS people and an opportunity for users to contribute to improve MS products. By the way, if MS would add to PowerPoint the same language ComboBox that is available in Word, that would be an easy to implement improvement... DdJ I understand completely the US-centric behavior. It's maddening. Even for me--and I'm in the US! I wish M$ would be more international-friendly. By the way, who is the "face to face person" that you talked to? Not our own MichKa, I presume. I can imagine him saying you can't do what you want to do because it doesn't "fit the system," but I can't imagine just a blank look. SignatureTortFeasor@Cell#99.CountyJail.Net > Hi Dario, > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > follow question or reply in the newsgroup and not by e-mail > :-) It was not me, I do not work for Office. I disagree that it is "US-centric" to say that you (as the user) picks a language for input and then the program (which needs to have a language) uses your setting to do its work. This seems "customer-centric". I disagree that it is "US-centric" to have the settings revert when you change other settings. At worst that seems like a bug, but again it is still using the USER settings. Can we separate the BUG from the rhetoric of "Microsoft, the evil, US-centric company" which incidentally sees over half of its sales outside the US? SignatureMichKa [MS] NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. > I understand completely the US-centric behavior. It's maddening. Even for > me--and I'm in the US! I wish M$ would be more international-friendly. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > follow question or reply in the newsgroup and not by e-mail > > :-) Hi Michael, > I disagree that it is "US-centric" to say that you (as the user) picks a > language for input and then the program (which needs to have a language) > uses your setting to do its work. This seems "customer-centric". Well, the actual point of... contention is whether Windows settings should be over-riding Word settings. As far as I'm concerned, Word is NOT using my settings. I'll try to describe the scenario I find most irritating and troublesome: 1. International work, as in you need to type documents in more than one language. 2. Templates are used. Word templates may contain things you want to use when creating a particular kind of document, such as styles, AutoText entries, macros/UserForms. And these things, as well as the layout, could well be language specific. 3. In Word, prior to 97, it was a snap to control the language throughout a document/template: you set the Normal style to the language you want to use, and all styles based on Normal would automatically pick up that language. Instant, perfect spellcheck. This was also a boon if you received, for example, an document written in the UK and you needed US English spelling. Change the language of the Normal style and hey, presto! You found all the UK "misspellings". (And no, Ctrl+A the setting the language is NOT an acceptable alternative: that does NOT catch headers, footers, text boxes, etc.) (see also in this group the message From: "jacques" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> Subject: Changing default language in "Header & Footer" Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 06:31:31 -0800) 4. Comes Word97 and the new philosophy about using the language set in Windows to format the language being typed in Word. Suddenly, (3) no longer works reliably. Why? Because the Windows language is applied to the internal "base" of an empty document as *direct formatting*. It's so deeply ingrained you can't get it out. Everywhere you turn, that language pops up at you, no matter how often you've used Tools/Language/Set language. Not only is this extremely annoying (I'm being polite), it also undermines what Word STYLES are all about. The user should be able to control all formatting completely using styles. If they people who implemented this functionality had made it change the Normal style definition in a new, empty document then the situation would at least be salvageable. But no, it's buried where you can only get at it if you save in RTF, HTML or WordML format and edit the codes. Or do a copy/paste without the last paragraph mark into a new, "clean" document. It's this total violation of the principles on which Word works - and not caring that one has done so - that gets me steaming. <rant/> -- Cindy Meister And this looks like bugs in Word, nothing more. I fail to see what is "US-centric" about any of the problems here. SignatureMichKa [MS] NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. > Hi Michael, > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > -- Cindy Meister Hi Michael, > And this looks like bugs in Word, nothing more. I fail to see what is > "US-centric" about any of the problems here. I wasn't hitting on "US-centric", but "customer-centric". And in this case - as in so many :-) - it really depends on who the customers are. The person with whom I've discussed this maintains - and I believe him - that many people want applications to pick up their keyboard language. My complaint is that this was implemented in Word without considering how Word was designed to work with multiple languages. One could call it a bug, but it's not really a mistake the programmers made. It's a mistake in the design (IMO). And most MSFT people get rather huffy if one calls something that works as it was designed a bug <g> Now, if one could just convince the powers-that-be that the behavior is a design flaw, there would be a lot of happy customers out there (which set may or may not intersect that who want the keyboard language to determine the spell checking language in their applications). Cindy Meister But since there has to be *some* language, what else would on choose? As a design pattern, one could add the same keyboard under multiple languages and switch between them to get different spell checkers. This allows both designs to work well together. The only bug is the case where a language setting is changed for already typed text -- basically the integration of styles and language. The rest of it works quite well in a mutli-lingual world (and if you think about it, the behavior of Word is superior to Access and the rest of Office, which are much more "mono-lingual" than Word is. SignatureMichKa [MS] NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. > Hi Michael, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Cindy Meister Hi Michael, > But since there has to be *some* language, what else would on choose? As a > design pattern, one could add the same keyboard under multiple languages and > switch between them to get different spell checkers. This allows both > designs to work well together. Not quite sure what you mean, here... But taking a guess: Word texts have always had a language, since version 1.0. The language set for the Normal style (of the template from which the doc was created, if we're talking about new docs). And this style attribute is typically (still) set at installation for the Normal.dot (default) template with the chosen "installation language" (such as US or UK English). Imposing the OS language on a document, as direct formatting, at a level where one cannot get to it to change it, makes it impossible to use styles reliably to control language formatting in a document. I wouldn't complain (as loudly, anyway <g>), if the mechanism "they" had chosen had been to change the Normal style definition! That would be consistent with how Word is meant to work, and "pros" would know how to very quickly and easily rectify the problem :-) Cindy Meister INTER-Solutions, Switzerland http://homepage.swissonline.ch/cindymeister (last update Sep 30 2003) http://www.mvps.org/word This reply is posted in the Newsgroup; please post any follow question or reply in the newsgroup and not by e-mail :-) "Cindy M -WordMVP-" <C.Meister-C@hispeed.ch> wrote... > > But since there has to be *some* language, what else would on choose? As a > > design pattern, one could add the same keyboard under multiple languages and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > installation for the Normal.dot (default) template with the chosen > "installation language" (such as US or UK English). I do not believe that this is a good mechanism in a multilingual world, where there may be multilingual documents. I think that using a setting that relies on the keyboard with which one is typing and the language that has been set there allows for a better multilingual experience. And I entirely fail to see how this is "US-centric" in any way whatsoever. I see "US-centric" stuff and I work hard to stop if any time I see it -- but I simply cannot fathom how a design that uses language preferences of the user's Windows installation is anything other than USER-centric. > Imposing the OS language on a document, as direct formatting, at a level where > one cannot get to it to change it, makes it impossible to use styles reliably > to control language formatting in a document. I wouldn't complain (as loudly, > anyway <g>), if the mechanism "they" had chosen had been to change the Normal > style definition! That would be consistent with how Word is meant to work, and > "pros" would know how to very quickly and easily rectify the problem :-) Hmmm.... so you do not think it is natural that if I claim my keyboard uses the Hungarian language that text I type should be called "Hungarian" too? This seems quite natural, and the only flaw is if people do not set up their keyboard(s) and otheri input methods to match the languages that they are using. Now this is clearly something to complain about if people want to look at the way things were as "good enough" to get their work done. If there are enough people who feel that way than a "ignore Windows keyboard language settings" checkbox would perhaps be an interesting feature to add to Word (plugged in with the 6000 other settings in Tools|Options, I guess). But since that would probably not happen until a major release, it might be good to try this new mechanism and see how it works, don't you think? Now there was a claim that was made here that when style changes were made (like changing the font size) that it would change the language even if it had been valid before, based on the current keyboard language. If true, then this is a clear violation of the new model due to "over-engineering" problem, and I would recommend that any such bug be clearly reported and subsequently fixed. Hopefully it can be reported without the "US-centric" rhetoric which causes most normal people to tune the coversation out since its not true and frankly is easy to put someone off. Luckily I am not normal, I suppose. :-) SignatureMichKa [MS] NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. Selecting the default document language by OS and keyboard languages may be fair to a point, but not all language versions of Windows and keyboards are equally accessible. Microsoft's "US-centicity" is that it acts as if all users are free to choose their OS and keyboard layout as they could if they wanted US English and a US layout. Unfortunatlry, very few people can touch-type nowadays to the extent that they will be comfortable changing their keyboard layout to write in another language. Microsoft's Keyboard Keyboard Layout Creator, of which I am a great fan, is a good step in the right direction, because one can make a keyboard with custom characters for another language placed in a location sensible to himself. However most people will use the keyboard layout that matches their hardware, not their language. Windows is available in very few languages, and you are stuck with the version you have unless you have a volume license agreement with access to the MUI. Therefore most people can't choose the language of their Windows installation, it is imposed by what is available. Is it so hard to conceive that someone living in France may have an English version of Windows, because of the languages in which Windows is available that is the best he understands, but is using a French keyboard because that is readily available in that country, but actually speaks Malay as a first language, writing the bulk of his documents in that lanuage? I have to say I'm not sure what the solution to all of this is, but current approach does not seem to be satisfactory. "BMC" <none@none.no> wrote... > Selecting the default document language by OS and keyboard languages may > be fair to a point, but not all language versions of Windows and > keyboards are equally accessible. Microsoft's "US-centicity" is that it > acts as if all users are free to choose their OS and keyboard layout as > they could if they wanted US English and a US layout. You are forgetting (or perhaps did not realize) that you can choose keyboards for any number of different languages. Almost anyone who uses another language has a keyboard that types it! There is nothin US-centric. Maybe you could claim that Word is being "languages-supported-by-Windows-centric" but since every person who has complained in this thread uses one of those supported languages, they should perhaps let others do the actual complaining? :-) > Unfortunatlry, very few people can touch-type nowadays to the extent > that they will be comfortable changing their keyboard layout to write in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in a location sensible to himself. However most people will use the > keyboard layout that matches their hardware, not their language. Hmmm..... a lot wrong in this paragraph. 1) As I mentioned, you can use any keyboard layout you like (as all people will generally do) 2) As I also mentioned, you can put a keyboard you like under any language you want to! You can put the Russian layout under French if it suits your fancy, and Word will tag the text as French when you type. 3) I am not going to poo-poo MSKLC, after all, I wrote it! But you do not need MSKLC to support a language, all you need is a desire to use that language. 4) Amost *no one* sticks with hardware if they need to have another language which is not supported in such a layout. It may be a Latin-script-language bias to imagine that one of the "US-type" layouts is better for US-English hardware, but if you go almost anywhere they will pick the keyboard that lets them type what they want to type. > Windows is available in very few languages, and you are stuck with the > version you have unless you have a volume license agreement with access > to the MUI. Therefore most people can't choose the language of their > Windows installation, it is imposed by what is available. This is again wrong -- MUI is the language that *Windows* it translated into and has nothing to do with keyboards. > Is it so hard to conceive that someone living in France may have an > English version of Windows, because of the languages in which Windows is > available that is the best he understands, but is using a French > keyboard because that is readily available in that country, but actually > speaks Malay as a first language, writing the bulk of his documents in > that lanuage? Well, a Malay keyboard, and French keyboard will do the trick. All available. But it is not in any way "US-centric". Truly. Why not learn this information and then help in the user education issue so that when you meet people who have this problem you can teach them, too? > I have to say I'm not sure what the solution to all of this is, but > current approach does not seem to be satisfactory. Again, it can be -- you just have to use it. SignatureMichKa [MS] NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS] wrote: > "BMC" <none@none.no> wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > keyboards for any number of different languages. Almost anyone who uses > another language has a keyboard that types it! I do realise and have set up several PCs for people to do just that. However these settings seem to be too hard to find for many ordinary users. I've seen people that still write a document in French using Alt-NumPad for all the diacritics. > There is nothin US-centric. Maybe you could claim that Word is being > "languages-supported-by-Windows-centric" but since every person who has > complained in this thread uses one of those supported languages, they should > perhaps let others do the actual complaining? :-) Perhaps they can't type their complaint ;-) But actually I think this problem possibly affects Latin-script languages more, the reason being one keyboard layout may be just enough to manage writing another language, whereas a language with a different script is so different that a radical change is necessary. >>Unfortunatlry, very few people can touch-type nowadays to the extent >>that they will be comfortable changing their keyboard layout to write in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 1) As I mentioned, you can use any keyboard layout you like (as all people > will generally do) In my experience most people are reluctant to use another keyboard layout because the get confused. For instance quite a few European layouts swop the Z and Y, and the AZERTY keyboard can be quite hard to get to grip with. Which is where MSKLC comes in ... > 2) As I also mentioned, you can put a keyboard you like under any language > you want to! You can put the Russian layout under French if it suits your > fancy, and Word will tag the text as French when you type. It does very nearly work, but then there are still the problems with language tagging in styles. > 3) I am not going to poo-poo MSKLC, after all, I wrote it! But you do not > need MSKLC to support a language, all you need is a desire to use that > language. Thanks for writing it! I was waiting for an app like this for a long time. It does make language input a lot easier. I have a few modified UK layouts with the characters for another language, e.g. a Dutch one with diaereses in the Alt-Gr positions, a German one with ß and § available also. Each one has the relevant language tagged in it. > 4) Amost *no one* sticks with hardware if they need to have another language > which is not supported in such a layout. It may be a Latin-script-language > bias to imagine that one of the "US-type" layouts is better for US-English > hardware, but if you go almost anywhere they will pick the keyboard that > lets them type what they want to type. OK, I had Latin script languages in mind. >>Windows is available in very few languages, and you are stuck with the >>version you have unless you have a volume license agreement with access [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > This is again wrong -- MUI is the language that *Windows* it translated into > and has nothing to do with keyboards. True, I jumped on another train of thought for a while. Here's a scenario: someone living in the valleys whose primary language is Welsh. They will still have an English OS and English layout and may rely on Word shortcuts to produce accented letters, so neither the OS or the keyboard language is relavent. These are the sort of users who have trouble, because the language will always default to English. Sure, the answer is to make the default input language Welsh using an English layout, but they will probably need to find this newsgroup to get that information. >>Is it so hard to conceive that someone living in France may have an >>English version of Windows, because of the languages in which Windows is [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > and then help in the user education issue so that when you meet people who > have this problem you can teach them, too? I'm already doing the user-education bit (I work in support) and I am in the midst of creating a website to make the customised UK keyboard layouts I mentioned available. "BMC" <none@none.no> wrote... > However these settings seem to be too hard to find for many ordinary > users. I've seen people that still write a document in French using > Alt-NumPad for all the diacritics. You think that ordinary users find THAT to be easier? Hmmm.... > Perhaps they can't type their complaint ;-) But actually I think this > problem possibly affects Latin-script languages more, the reason being > one keyboard layout may be just enough to manage writing another > language, whereas a language with a different script is so different > that a radical change is necessary. Perhaps. But this is hardly the fault of Word (and this is a Word forum). The claim has been made that Word's feature is US-centric, when all that has been proven is that (a) people ought to know better than to jump to such wrong conclusions, and that (b) the only people who are perhaps US-centric are non-US OEM installs that choose the wrong default and users who do not choose a better one. > In my experience most people are reluctant to use another keyboard > layout because the get confused. For instance quite a few European > layouts swop the Z and Y, and the AZERTY keyboard can be quite hard to > get to grip with. Which is where MSKLC comes in ... Which is again the fault of OEMs who provide hardware in particular countries, not of Microsoft nor of Windows, and certainly not of Word. > > 2) As I also mentioned, you can put a keyboard you like under any language > > you want to! You can put the Russian layout under French if it suits your > > fancy, and Word will tag the text as French when you type. > > It does very nearly work, but then there are still the problems with > language tagging in styles. Um, not really -- as it inherits the language of which I speak above. If yo uset it up right, then the language is tagged appropriately. > > 3) I am not going to poo-poo MSKLC, after all, I wrote it! But you do not > > need MSKLC to support a language, all you need is a desire to use that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > diaereses in the Alt-Gr positions, a German one with ? and ? available > also. Each one has the relevant language tagged in it. Cool! > > 4) Amost *no one* sticks with hardware if they need to have another language > > which is not supported in such a layout. It may be a Latin-script-language [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > OK, I had Latin script languages in mind. > > This is again wrong -- MUI is the language that *Windows* it translated into > > and has nothing to do with keyboards. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > layout, but they will probably need to find this newsgroup to get that > information. And you are Welsh? Again, this is a "languages suported on Windows" bias... it has nothing to do with the US and nothing to do with Word. It is hardly the fault of Microsoft if an OEM chooses a US English default for such a language -- it sounds like someone does not like the policy of an OEM. > I'm already doing the user-education bit (I work in support) and I am in > the midst of creating a website to make the customised UK keyboard > layouts I mentioned available. Cool! And like I said, you will do best to teach them first that it works without MSKLC, then sweeten the pot by pointing out tools that make it even easier. :-) SignatureMichKa [MS] NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. > Unfortunatlry, very few people can touch-type nowadays to the extent > that they will be comfortable changing their keyboard layout to write > in another language. You're making the same mistake that other recent posters have made: that you have to specify a different keyboard layout to use a different language. A major problem is that computer suppliers don't do a very good job of pre-setting these parameters before sending them out to non-US customers. Windows can't tell that you're sitting in Canada or Malaya or wherever, but if the correct parameters are set up at the outset, then subsequently installed programs have a better chance of configuring themselves to the right language. Unfortunately I see computers all over the world (especially in English-speaking countries) that have their keyboard language set to English(US). > Is it so hard to conceive that someone living in France may have an > English version of Windows, because of the languages in which Windows is > available that is the best he understands, but is using a French > keyboard because that is readily available in that country, but actually > speaks Malay as a first language, writing the bulk of his documents in > that lanuage? It is not. I have often an English version of platform since it is easier to get help on that (translated versions gives always problem when you have to explain on a forum which item menu you selected or button you pressed). On the other hand I have an Italian keyboard, of course. And often I write texts in various languages. The first two characteristics are common to a lot of Italian people. The third one is not so common but not rare too. DdJ Hi Michael, > And I entirely fail to see how this is "US-centric" in any way whatsoever. I mentioned in my last reply to you that I'm not talking about "US-centric". Please see that, again, so that I don't have to repeat myself... > Hmmm.... so you do not think it is natural that if I claim my keyboard uses > the Hungarian language that text I type should be called "Hungarian" too? > This seems quite natural, and the only flaw is if people do not set up their > keyboard(s) and otheri input methods to match the languages that they are > using. And my suggested approach, by changing the Normal style for the new document, would do just that. The difference is, if the person has a Hungarian keyboard selected, but ends up typing the document in English or German (happens all the time!), there's no way (short of copy/paste to a new doc without the last paragraph mark) to eradicate the Hungarian language from that document. Have you ever tried Ctrl+A, change the language, go to the end of the document and start typing... and you're back to Hungarian (or whatever)? Drives you nuts! And please notice you still haven't changed the language used in headers, footers, footnotes, textboxes and any other element that's not in the main document body. > If there are > enough people who feel that way than a "ignore Windows keyboard language > settings" checkbox would perhaps be an interesting feature to add to Word > (plugged in with the 6000 other settings in Tools|Options, I guess). Yes, this would be a possibility. Unfortunately for "us", it's likely to be active by default, which means we'll still be saddled with "broken" documents received from users who don't know any better... <<But since that would probably not happen until a major release, it might be good to try this new mechanism and see how it works, don't you think?>> Oh, I've tried it - since it was introduced in Word97. It's on by default in every new installation, and I spend hours beta testing using the installation defaults. But since the language is applied as direct formatting, it's basically useless for me. This is the kind of thing I do: - I live in Switzerland. When I buy a computer, I get a Swiss-German keyboard. I touch-type in for that keyboard layout. - In my everyday work and life, I type regulary in THREE languages: German, English and French. - My documents may all be in one language, but they may need to contain more than one language. - I also need to switch regularly between Swiss German / German German and US english / UK English * I do NOT want to be bothered with having to switch keyboards for each language. This is more easily done *in WORD* by using templates (or styles for mixed language docs) pre-defined for the language to be used in a document. And this particular point (switching languages by switching keyboards) is exacerbated by the fact that Windows all too often switches keyboard languages when I'm "not looking", so I'm suddenly typing US English instead of UK English or Swiss German. If I call anything "US-centric" it's this tendency of Windows to jump to US English "at the drop of a hat". Unfortunately, I've never been able to find reproducible steps that cause this. And it's a main reason I advise people who have language formatting problems to make sure they have only ONE keyboard language set in Windows. * I DO want to be able to quickly switch an ENTIRE DOCUMENT from one "flavor" of a language to another (US vs. UK English, for example) As soon as I let Word format language according to my keyboard language, this is no longer possible. Period. Due to the way the keyboard language formatting is applied (I won't repeat what I've written out in detail in earlier messages) as direct formatting, overriding Word styles. This is "by design", and a terrible flaw for anyone who works with documents profesionally. Professionally means the editor has control over all aspects of formatting/layout, including language. Cindy Meister INTER-Solutions, Switzerland http://homepage.swissonline.ch/cindymeister (last update Sep 30 2003) http://www.mvps.org/word This reply is posted in the Newsgroup; please post any follow question or reply in the newsgroup and not by e-mail :-) "Cindy M -WordMVP-" <C.Meister-C@hispeed.ch> wrote... > I mentioned in my last reply to you that I'm not talking about "US-centric". > Please see that, again, so that I don't have to repeat myself... This whole thread, and many people in it and in various surrounding threads, have made the claim. They may have been dropping off as they realized they were mistaken, but even the original poster who started this thread with a title claiming US-centric behavior has not come back to say how they feel. You yourself answered in a few threads with an "I know how you feel" which could led one to [incorrectly] believe that you agreed with the supposition > And my suggested approach, by changing the Normal style for the new > document, would do just that. The difference is, if the person has a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > language used in headers, footers, footnotes, textboxes and any other > element that's not in the main document body. I understand, and it indeed does seem like a limitation for people whose design patterns do not match what the product does. But now that four versions have shipped this way, it may perhaps be good to shift design patterns a bit? There are more supported versions out there that work the new way.... > > If there are > > enough people who feel that way than a "ignore Windows keyboard language [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > active by default, which means we'll still be saddled with "broken" > documents received from users who don't know any better... True enough. I am also unconvinced that there are enough users who would understand the old way -- not to mentiond that the new way has been the way it works for four versions -- changing the default would be as big of a support hit at this point. > <<But since that would probably not happen until a major release, it might > be good to try this new mechanism and see how it works, don't you think?>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > for mixed language docs) pre-defined for the language to be used in a > document. Easier than Alt+Shift? Only for an expert on styles, I think.... > And this particular point (switching languages by switching keyboards) is > exacerbated by the fact that Windows all too often switches keyboard [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > this. And it's a main reason I advise people who have language formatting > problems to make sure they have only ONE keyboard language set in Windows. I have never seen this -- it would definitely be a bug if a rero scenario could be found. > * I DO want to be able to quickly switch an ENTIRE DOCUMENT from one > "flavor" of a language to another (US vs. UK English, for example) Actually, in one of these threads someone made the claim that this DOES happen from time to time, and that they consider it a bug (I agreed, since in that case the user was not expecting it). It seems like this at least is possible, and usually not desired. > As soon as I let Word format language according to my keyboard language, > this is no longer possible. Period. Due to the way the keyboard language [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > profesionally. Professionally means the editor has control over all aspects > of formatting/layout, including language. You also have control over the Alt+Shift key combination, and of your keyboard/language settings. It is intiguing to want all of the settings to be only in Word, but most people think better integration is a good thing. why not try the following: 1) Think of the Windows keyboard layout settings as a natural extension of Word. 2) Choose a single keyboard layout, but install it under several different languages (all of the ones you are using). 3) Try switching as needed between them. It seems like the REAL answer is to make the keyboard/language selection issue more intuitive, and make the connection between it and programs like Word more intuitive, with better documentation. As a rule I think its somewhat difficult bordering on impossible to get any large software product to change its design patterns based on anyone's personal preferences. SignatureMichKa [MS] NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. "Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <michkap@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:uIuTrjBuDHA.1764@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > I understand, and it indeed does seem like a limitation for people whose > design patterns do not match what the product does. But now that four > versions have shipped this way, it may perhaps be good to shift design > patterns a bit? There are more supported versions out there that work the > new way.... Not a good reason. If you do something wrong or even something that can be improved, you miss to change because people is used to it? I think no. Yoiu can keep that behaviour in product for compatibility, you can even have it as default for dummy users, but you MUST provide a way to disable such a "feature" for professional editors. And place that option quite visible... :) DdJ "Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <michkap@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:uIuTrjBuDHA.1764@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > "Cindy M -WordMVP-" <C.Meister-C@hispeed.ch> wrote.. >Easier than Alt+Shift? Only for an expert on styles, I think.... Mike, styles are not simply one of the most powerful feature of a word processor: they are a MUST if your document has to be written by various people, as it is very common in an enterprise. By styles I ensure that a certain document concept is always rendered in the same way, whoever is typing on any localised platform and on any keyboard. Of course they require some discipline to use and avoid to be tempted to change manually font settings when needed, and some sistemic thinking to design them for a document. But the advantage in document versioning is significant. DdJ Why don't you *try* to use this other feature, in addition to styles, rather than rail so heavily against it? SignatureMichKa [MS] NLS Collation/Locale/Keyboard Development Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. > "Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <michkap@online.microsoft.com> wrote in > message news:uIuTrjBuDHA.1764@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > DdJ "Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <michkap@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:%23FfrecCuDHA.2360@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... > Why don't you *try* to use this other feature, in addition to styles, rather > than rail so heavily against it? I am trying, Mike. I am not against changes. I added Italian keyboard to English language, and I am trying to use the various options you mentioned but... just yesterday I was writing an English document. So all styles I was using were set to use English language, included Normal. Of course my keyboard was Italian, because at the same time I was typing some code and I need to use my keyboard to do it. I wrote several lines without any problem. Then I press ENTER and start a new line: gosh... red sign. What's that? Text was Normal but... was set to Italian language! I was using Normal style, and Normal style is English in that document. Furthermore I have to send the document to France for revision. Now, what if the guy has a French keyboard set? He will write in English, but what if his Word switch to French language, before sending back the document to me? How many languages I will have in my document, expected to be a pure English doc? Headache! DdJ Hi Michael, > but even the original poster who started this thread with a > title claiming US-centric behavior has not come back to say how they feel. > You yourself answered in a few threads with an "I know how you feel" which > could led one to [incorrectly] believe that you agreed with the supposition Going back, I admit to having used "US-centric point of view" in a reply (not to you) in this thread. But I did explicitly say that my personal discussion with you on this topic had nothing to do with US-centric. But I certainly do understand the frustration with language formatting these people are encountering! OK, going on, first I want to state "everything Dario said" in his replies to you. (Hurray, it's not just anyONE <g>!) No need to repeat it. > > * I DO want to be able to quickly switch an ENTIRE DOCUMENT from one > > "flavor" of a language to another (US vs. UK English, for example) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in that case the user was not expecting it). It seems like this at least is > possible, and usually not desired. This could happen if the user changed the Normal style's language in a document that was created on a "synched" system. It could also happen IF (and this is likely what was going on, and here we're running into another questionable design decision, NOT a bug): 1. The "automatically update" option is active for the Normal style (which is installation default for Word 2000 and maybe 2002). 2. The user selects some text and changes the language formatting (Tools/Language/Set language) This "automatically update" option will change the Normal style definition for EVERYTHING you apply to it. This includes Bold, or 16 pt font, or the color chartreuse! A regular "Help me! I formatted one word and the entire document changed!" question in various, other word groups that we've been fielding for some four years, now, ever since the option was introduced :-) And no, the behavior is NEVER desired, but has nothing to do, per se, with language functionality. It came from MS hearing "I want to be able to change style definitions by example" and extending the thought to the style the entire document is based on by default. And then hiding this option a few levels deep in a dialog box no normal user ever even opens! > You also have control over the Alt+Shift key combination, and of your > keyboard/language settings. It is intiguing to want all of the settings to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > languages (all of the ones you are using). > Now, HERE'S something that could be handled better in the OS. You've seen how most people don't realize they can change the LAYOUT for a language? They automatically equate the two. (This is to be considered totally OT otherwise for this thread!) > 3) Try switching as needed between them. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > somewhat difficult bordering on impossible to get any large software product > to change its design patterns based on anyone's personal preferences. Oh, it's not anyONE. It's any number of multlingually, internationally active, documentation professionals. Your scenario is just fine, if all that's involved is TYPING and SPELL CHECKING. ("Writing a letter asking for a raise") But as soon as it comes to maintaining and editing the document, it's a nightmare. (Note: this is where most of the decision conflicts lie when the discussion comes up what Word's default behavior should be / what are desirable new features. There is the "Word is a super-typewriter" category of users, then there are the "professional users" who need more advanced functionality and threaten to move to Framemaker or WordPerfect or LaTEX in order to get it. Your outlook is more geared to the former group, and would be valid for them except in the interface with the latter group.) Let's go back to what comes up over and over again in the Spelling.grammar newsgroup, and something I touched on before. Someone in India sends you a LONG document, full of section breaks, different headers, footers, footnotes and even text in text boxes. That document was written in UK English, UK spellings. The language formatting was chosen by changing the keyboard language. You have to publish this document in the US, in US English. Now, tell me how you're going to make SURE that you've changed the UK English to US English *throughout the entire document*? And how long will that take you, do you think? And if you're thinking "Find/Replace" do also consider that the keyboard language *might* have shifted - without the user even realizing it. Alt+Shift is not an uncommon combination to be pressing if you're keyboard oriented and have highly customized your Word environment. Or, the typist might have thought he was pressing Ctrl+Alt... If the document was created using the styles method, I can modify the Normal style definition and that's ALL I have to do. Let's take another scenario. A multinational corporation needs to make sure that certain documents are generated in a particular language. The user shouldn't have to think about it, change keyboard languages, or anything. Just select the template and type. The way Word was designed to work (and functioned reliably until 97 came along), you set the language in the Normal style of the template and that was all you needed to do. Now, you have to worry that the system isn't synchronized, and the system's default will override the language that should be used. And I'm not making these up. These are questions for requirements I've been fielding on these groups since 1997 :-) Here's another one: you have a single document that you maintain in more than one language. (A manual in English and Spanish, say). You've set it up using two sets of styles, one for each language. You know 1) spell check will work, 2) all you need to do to print one language or the other is change the "hidden" formatting of the base style (here we don't use "Normal") for each style set. Using your technique, that's two things that need to be done when changing languages, not one. Also, how would you handle "no proofing" using your technique? If I'm working with VBA code in a Word doc, for example, I want entire sections to NOT be included in spell check. Styles are great for this; I don't find "do not check spelling" as a language in Win XP... Cindy Meister INTER-Solutions, Switzerland http://homepage.swissonline.ch/cindymeister (last update Sep 30 2003) http://www.mvps.org/word This reply is posted in the Newsgroup; please post any follow question or reply in the newsgroup and not by e-mail :-) > ...Also, how would you handle "no proofing" using your technique? If I'm working > with VBA code in a Word doc, for example, I want entire sections to NOT be > included in spell check. Styles are great for this; I don't find "do not check > spelling" as a language in Win XP... > Cindy Meister You mentioned most of problems we had with Word in my company in the last few years (and some new one, new to me, of course ;-). Great summary. Thank you. DdJ Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS] wrote: > Actually, in one of these threads someone made the claim that this > DOES happen from time to time, and that they consider it a bug (I > agreed, since in that case the user was not expecting it). It seems > like this at least is possible, and usually not desired. I have experienced this on multiple systems going back for many versions of Windows and Office. I have an intuition that problems arise when I receive emails crafted in Word with US text settings - subsequent emails and Word documents are polluted with US settings. "Michael (michka) Kaplan [MS]" <michkap@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:OiqaiwftDHA.2304@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... > Hmmm.... so you do not think it is natural that if I claim my keyboard uses > the Hungarian language that text I type should be called "Hungarian" too? That's wrong. Because a real multilingual world is not a world where each person in a country speaks and writes in his/her own language only. A real multilingual world is a world where each person can write and speak more than one language. This is very common in Europe, where each person knows at least to language and can survive in other countries by speaking a little bit at least other two. When I use a Word processor with STYLES, I want to tell to the WP which is the language for each style and I expect that language is honored, whatever are my setting on my PC. DdJ Hi <, > By the way, who is the "face to face person" that you talked to? Not our > own MichKa, I presume. No, not MichKa :-) Cindy Meister I am having the same problem with Office Pro XP/Frontpage I have set the keyboard to English (Can) with no other languages, but I am getting French characters exactly how they have been described below. Does anyone have an idea how/why this is happening and how to fix? Thanks >-----Original Message----- >Hi Kr, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.