Re: AUGD: Augd Digest, Vol 15, Issue 5
Re: AUGD: Augd Digest, Vol 15, Issue 5
- Subject: Re: AUGD: Augd Digest, Vol 15, Issue 5
- From: "Randy B. Singer" <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 17:43:03 -0800
On Jan 23, 2018, at 2:50 PM, John Philpin wrote:
>
> " it is also often true that a lot of people that use Word don’t actually use
> 90% of the functionality and power of the product to begin with”
The problem with that common expression is that it gives the impression that it
would be desirable for Word to only have 10% of the functionality that it has.
I think that this is very far from the case.
That expression obfuscates the fact that a very large number of Word users use
(and most likely rely upon) one or two of the advanced features of Word, and
among all Word users the one or two features that individuals use aren't
standardized.
Or, to put it another way, Word has advanced features that lots of users really
need or want, and use all the time. It doesn't matter whether or not each
individual uses a lot of Word's advanced features. A lot of Word's advanced
features, taken as a whole, are relied upon by a large number of users.
Lots of folks go around saying that they would like Microsoft to return to a
more simplified version of Word. That is, Word 5.1. Microsoft has even done
some research into releasing a version of Word that is very similar to Word 5.1.
Further research showed them that just about everyone who wants a return to
Word 5.1, actually wants Word 5.1, plus a few other more modern features that
they can't live without. "Word 5.1-Plus," is what the MBU folks call it. The
thing is, those extra few features vary quite a bit from user to user.
Once you put together Word 5.1, plus all of the features that users can't live
without, you more or less end up with something very similar to the most recent
version of Word.
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/rick_schaut/2004/06/18/word-5-1-plus/
>
> ...try exporting Word content into an HTML document … it isn’t pretty.
What word processors (NOT text editors) export an extensively styled document
into HTML and have it end up pretty? None. A word processor, at best, spits
out really complex HTML and pages that look terrible. That's why folks use
something like BlueGriffon to create Web pages, not a word processor:
BlueGriffon (free)
http://bluegriffon.org/
It was just recently updated extensively.
Free video tutorial series:
(The tutorial does not use the Mac version of the program, but the program is
virtually identical across platforms.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWPj7EGjQt0&list=PLEDA9CB299E1DE0EB
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nnj6i_ckRp0&list=PLEDA9CB299E1DE0EB
___________________________________________
Randy B. Singer
Co-author of The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th, and 6th editions)
Macintosh OS X Routine Maintenance
http://www.macattorney.com/ts.html
___________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Augd mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden