On 1/21/03 12:09 PM, "Norman W. Ferguson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> on 1/21/03 11:29 AM, Paul Berkowitz at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Sort where exactly? If you're in the Address Book, and you have the NAME >> column clicked, then it sorts by Last Name, even though it displays as >> FirstName LastName. (If there's only a First Name, it appears alphabetically >> mixed with the other contacts' Last Names.) Since you're not sorting on >> Company, contacts with no name but only company are blank as far as name >> sorting is concerned, so they'll be all at the top. Unfortunately, since >> there is no sub-sorting procedure, all the "blank name" contacts - whether >> they have company or not, or just email address, etc. - will not be sorted; >> i.e. they will display in the order in which they were created, which won't >> help you much. > > Ah... I was hoping that sorting by company, then by name, would retain the > sort order of the company within name if there was no name. But what I hear > you saying is that by sorting on name (i.e. clicking the name column) wipes > out any previous sort operation entirely. Too bad. > > So yes... Sub sorting (either explicit or implicit) would seem to me to be a > GoodThing�. > > Open nets... Sub-sorting does work to some extent, though not as efficiently as it does in some other applications, notably the Apple internet programs. For instance, if you were to click the Name header and then the Company header, you'd find that the list would be sorted by company; if two entries shared the same company entry, it would sort by name within that section. -- Mickey Stevens (Microsoft MVP for Office:mac) PowerPoint FAQ featuring PowerPoint:mac: <http://www.pptfaq.com/> The Entourage Help Page: <http://www.entourage.mvps.org/> -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.letterrip.com/> old-archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
