Hello Mr. Detwiler, Sorry for the intrusion, my network some how received your e-mail. Have a Wonderful Day!
Randy Fisher http://randy.simpleadvantage.net 613-483-8345 Sent from Samsung Mobile <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Richard Detwiler <rlsha...@aol.com> </div><div>Date:05/18/2014 8:07 AM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: users@openoffice.apache.org </div><div>Subject: Re: Suggestion. </div><div> </div>Not to argue, but just to mention my experiences -- I do "on the spot" formatting on many occasions and I've never felt hampered by not having the "reveal codes" capability. Also, I've used styles on many other occasions, and likewise have never felt hampered by not having "reveal codes". I DO find it helpful on many occasions to use the View > Non-printing characters (also accessed by clicking on the "paragraph" symbol button, or selecting Ctrl+F10) feature, to see where hard returns are, where spaces are, etc. Especially when editing text that someone else created, in particular one person who submits to the newsletter that I edit where, rather than using tabs to create a table-like format, he uses spaces. Based on a post of someone else, it seems like some of the features that this person was complaining about not having in Open Office are in fact achievable by the View > Non-printing characters feature. Doug Johnson wrote: > I agree with the "On the spot" need. Quite simply, Reveal Codes allows me > to see what's going with a glance. > > With so many features, the interaction between them can make formatting > unexpectedly difficult. > > Like salt and pepper, use when needed! > > > On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Richard Detwiler <rlsha...@aol.com> wrote: > >> What I don't understand, and I'm sure I must be missing something so >> please explain, is how come this discussion seems to suggest that it's >> either/or -- meaning, "use styles for all formatting" or "we HAVE to have >> "reveal codes" to not use styles". >> >> I've used styles a lot with Open Office and I greatly appreciate how >> valuable they can be; for example, I edit a newsletter and styles have made >> my life way easier and made the resulting newsletter way more consistent. >> >> On the other hand, there are many places, in smaller documents, where I >> want to format something on the spot without setting up styles -- changing >> the spacing between paragraphs, making some text bold, indenting a >> paragraph, etc., and I often do that without using styles. And it works >> just fine. >> >> So if someone wants to use styles, they can use them. If someone doesn't >> want to use styles and do formatting on the spot without going through >> styles, that can be done too. So why the implied necessity for "reveal >> codes" for people who choose not to use styles? >> >> >> Jim McLaughlin wrote: >> >>> This has been a very interesting thread. >>> >>> It has also been the single most posted to thread I've seen in the six or >>> so months I've been a subscrber to this group. >>> >>> What fascinates me is that other than the three defender's of OO >>> "orthodoxy" regarding "styles" ve. alternative methods, like a WP "reveal >>> codes" approach, the overwhelming majority of posters appear to desire the >>> WP/Corel "Reveal Codes" option to the very steep learning curve of the >>> "styles " approach. >>> >>> Food for thought. >>> >>> If the programmers behind OO want to provide a word processor which will >>> attract users, and avoid the very high costs of the MJKS or Corel >>> products, >>> those programmers might want to seriously consider the efficacy of >>> providing what the users who have expressed an opinion appear to want, >>> rather tahn take the "...my way or the highway..." approach expresseed >>> here >>> so far. >>> >>> Not trying to start a pissing contest. Just pointing out what the >>> admittedly unscientifif opinion sample in this thread has so far shown. >>> >>> Is there a technical reason why a Corel/WP "Reveal Codes" function can >>> not >>> be implemented in 5.x.x? >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Doug <dmcgarr...@optonline.net> wrote: >>> >>> On 05/14/2014 02:12 PM, Bruce Byfield wrote: >>>> On Wednesday 14 May 2014 05:29:45 PM Brian Barker wrote: >>>>> At 23:38 14/05/2014 +1000, Marina Tadiello wrote: >>>>>> In general, and from a user's perspective, Styles are one example of >>>>>>> how common users are encouraged (or forced? :-) to think ("program") >>>>>>> and behave like computers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, manual formatting is available. But using it is kind of >>>>>> perverse, >>>>>> >>>>> because >>>>> it means doing more work than necessary, and cutting yourself off from >>>>> important features. >>>>> >>>>> Here's how I describe manual formatting in the introduction to the book >>>>> I'm in >>>>> the middle of completing: >>>>> >>>>> "Office suites are as old as the personal computer. Yet, after more than >>>>> thirty >>>>> years, few of us have bothered to learn how to use them. >>>>> >>>>> "Oh, we have learned how to get things done in them. Most of us can >>>>> format a >>>>> document and print it out, after a fashion. But what we haven't learned >>>>> is to >>>>> do these things efficiently, taking advantage of all the tools that are >>>>> available. >>>>> >>>>> "It is as if we have learned enough about cars to go down hill in them >>>>> and >>>>> coast across level ground, but never learned about the ignition. We get >>>>> things >>>>> done, but with more effort and less efficiency that we should. Some >>>>> tasks, like >>>>> going uphill, we don't imagine are even possible because of our limited >>>>> view." >>>>> >>>>> I, being an enemy of "styles," in general, explain myself thusly: I >>>>> >>>> probably >>>> never write anything more than three pages long. I am not writing a book. >>>> I don't have chapters. I don't use bulletted lists, altho I might if >>>> bullets were easier to use _without_ styles! I don't have "Front Pages" >>>> or >>>> whatever chapter heads are called in fancy books. I don't have chapters >>>> at all, so I don't need pages that end in the middle before going on with >>>> my text. I don't even indent paragraphs, but if I wanted to, it would be >>>> no big deal to push the tab key. (Actually, most word-processors have a >>>> format command that would do that for me, if I wanted it.) And since I >>>> don't write books, or edit them or publish them, i don't need a desktop >>>> publisher, which is what _I_ think OO/LO are aiming to be. >>>> >>>> On the other hand, if I needed a desktop publisher, and didn't want to >>>> or could not afford to purchase a "professional" one, I would certainly >>>> look at the possibility of learning and using OO/LO. From what I read >>>> in these lists, that would be a real possibility. Someone who is willing >>>> to >>>> spend the time to actually write a book can probably afford the time to >>>> learn desktop publishing. >>>> >>>> One more thing: I am not in any way trying to dissuade anyone from >>>> learning OO/LO, if that's what they want. I am, however, pointing out >>>> that it is hardly worth the effort for the average memo writer, letter >>>> writer, or even article writer. It would be like a numismatist learning >>>> metallurgy! >>>> >>>> I rest my case. >>>> >>>> --doug >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------- >>>> List Conduct Guidelines: http://openoffice.apache.org/list-conduct.html >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.apache.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >> ------------------------------------------- >> List Conduct Guidelines: http://openoffice.apache.org/list-conduct.html >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.apache.org >> >> ------------------------------------------- List Conduct Guidelines: http://openoffice.apache.org/list-conduct.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.apache.org
