PDA

View Full Version : Preview of MS Office 12 interface


ktinkel
10-10-2005, 04:40 PM
Microsoft is trying to make its core MS Office applications easier to work with.

They have posted an overview (http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/uioverview.mspx) for our consideration.

What do you think?

annc
10-10-2005, 06:09 PM
Microsoft is trying to make its core MS Office applications easier to work with.
Could have fooled me!

Even more junk on the screen...

ktinkel
10-11-2005, 05:34 AM
Even more junk on the screen...Yep.

Do you think there are users who appreciate it?

Kelvyn
10-11-2005, 06:42 AM
But Office "12" will be able to save files in pdf format! Now how many years has it taken to manage to include that "basic" necessity.

Cristen Gillespie
10-11-2005, 07:18 AM
Microsoft is trying to make its core MS Office applications easier to work with.

They have posted an overview (http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/uioverview.mspx) for our consideration.

What do you think?

Euuuuwwww! So how do we get rid of the toolbars and all that awful blue? It's so blue I'm going to be depressed--well, I would be if I upgraded, which I won't<G>

ktinkel
10-11-2005, 08:36 AM
But Office "12" will be able to save files in pdf format! Now how many years has it taken to manage to include that "basic" necessity.Guess we need to see how good a job they do. I always dread receiving a PDF made from Word as it is.

Ian Petersen
10-11-2005, 09:31 AM
I think it looks fairly sensible. Whether it is actually usable in practice remains to be seen ...

Ian Petersen
10-11-2005, 09:32 AM
OpenOffice has been able to save PDFs for a couple of years now.

Michael Rowley
10-11-2005, 10:57 AM
KT:

I always dread receiving a PDF made from Word as it is

How do you know the program that's produced the content of a PDF file?

Michael Rowley
10-11-2005, 11:08 AM
Cristen:

So how do we get rid of the toolbars and all that awful blue?

Informed opinion of the Office 12 beta is that it doesn't include facilities for personalizing the toolbars etc., but that doesn't mean they won't be in the final programs.

The colour probably can't be changed in Windows, but doubtless there'll be concessions for the more sophisticated tastes of Mac users—but they don't know yet what colour will be fashionable then; at the moment it's yellow, brown, or black, apparently.

ktinkel
10-11-2005, 11:10 AM
How do you know the program that's produced the content of a PDF file?Ordinarily because the sender tells me.

Ian Petersen
10-11-2005, 11:46 AM
You can usually see what the originating app. is in the PDF's file information.

Michael Rowley
10-11-2005, 01:18 PM
KT:

because the sender tells me

Oh, how disappointing: I thought we were going to get an inside tip about Acrobat.

Michael Rowley
10-11-2005, 01:28 PM
Ian:

You can usually see what the originating app. is in the PDF's file information

File information: where's that? All I can find is the name of the file producer (Distiller 7 now) under 'Properties/General'.

Steve Rindsberg
10-11-2005, 06:00 PM
Suggestion to all: don't judge the interface from the screen shots. You have to see it in use to appreciate how it works.

I saw a preview at PPTLive - having first seen the screenshots beforehand and having been unimpressed, I was surprised at how much sense the new setup makes.

I think they've given it too much of my screen real estate. On the other hand, I think I might grow to like the way it behaves; it's vaguely like PageMaker's property gadgets, in that it changes depending on what you've selected, so you always have handy (if they've guessed right) the bits you need to work with whatever you've clicked.

In any case, it'll take some getting used to; I suspect the more you fall into the power user category, the more you'll have to unlearn/relearn. For relatively novice users (probably the bulk of sales) it'll be more accessible, I think.

Interesting times.

Steve Rindsberg
10-11-2005, 06:04 PM
Oh alright. Since it's you, Michael. But you've got to promise not to tell the others.

Look at File, Document Properties. Sometimes there'll be useful information about the app that produced the PDF. Sometimes it's just the Distiller version.

Ian Petersen
10-11-2005, 09:23 PM
File > Document Properties > Description in Acrobat Reader 6.0. It may be called something slightly different in other versions of Acrobat. Adobe have a tendency to move such things around in the menus when you're not looking. But note I said 'usually' - the originating application info doesn't always appear. It depends on how the PDF was created (direct export, print file > distiller, distiller printer, PDF writer or non-Adobe/Acrobat software etc.)

Mike
10-12-2005, 12:26 AM
Microsoft is trying to make its core MS Office applications easier to work with.


I do like the nice simple, elegant command bar (or whatever it's called)

http://www.microsoft.com/office/images/preview/61798b.jpg

and I'm glad to see they've retained that little x icon in the top right-hand corner -- probably the most useful feature.

imatt
10-12-2005, 04:44 AM
I use Ability Office which could save in PDF for years too....

If Office can save in PDF, where does that leave Microsofts own "PDF killer", Metro???

Is this not basic admission that Adobe has won the document file format war???

Michael Rowley
10-12-2005, 07:53 AM
Steve:

Look at File, Document Properties

I look at document properties every time I make a PDF from Word: it always says Distiller under 'producer'.

I check that my PDFs are not encrypted by anything higher than Acrobat version 3, not version 5, which I think is the default. The reason is that many users of the PDFs have not troubled to update Acrobat Reader since version 4.

Michael Rowley
10-12-2005, 08:00 AM
Mike:

I'm glad to see they've retained that little x icon in the top right-hand corner

I'm not! I've absent-mindedly clicked on that icon hundreds of times when I only meant to reduce the size of the window. That icon should have been kept well away from others.

Steve Rindsberg
10-12-2005, 04:48 PM
Some apps put different information in the Producer field, some put their signature in Creator. I *did* say "sometimes".

Michael Rowley
10-13-2005, 07:33 AM
Steve:

Some apps put different information in the Producer field

I've just noticed that under Document Properties/Description, Acrobat 7 gives 'Distiller' as the producer, but 'Acrobat PDFMaker for Word' as the application. So it seems that my original question to KT (how does she tell if a PDF document was made from Word) is answered in that particular case. Of course, other 'producers' are possible, and the question remains in the general case, 'How does one find the application that made the original document?'.

Steve Rindsberg
10-13-2005, 07:44 PM
'and the question remains in the general case, 'How does one find the application that made the original document?'.

One doesn't. An application may insert identifying information into the information it sends to the PostScript driver or to the PS that it generates itself. In both cases, it can set the Creator string to anything it likes. Or for that matter, a slightly tilted user can insert special little EPS files into a document to set the Creator information ... see below.

But if the application doesn't make it happen, no identifying information will appear in the PDF.

How to make the application make it happen ...
Save this to a file with an EPS extension, pop it into Word and make PDF:

%!PS-Adobe-3.0 EPSF-3.0
%%BoundingBox: 0 0 72 72
%%Creator: PDFMark
%%Title: LaunchFILE PDFMark
%%BeginProlog
/pdfmark where
{pop} {userdict /pdfmark /cleartomark load put} ifelse
%%EndProlog

[ /Title (Your Document Title Here)
/Author (Your Name Here)
/Subject (Your Subject Here)
/Keywords (any keywords you like)
/Creator (Michael Rowley made me)
/DOCINFO pdfmark

Michael Rowley
10-14-2005, 11:08 AM
Steve:

How to make the application make it happen

Thanks. Does the incantation have to be in one breath?

Steve Rindsberg
10-15-2005, 08:49 AM
<... in one breath ...>

<g>

If you save that bit of stuff to a text file with an EPS extension, you can import it into Word as though it were any normal picture. It won't appear as an image but will be included in the PS output when you print and will instruct Distiller to set the various document properties (presumaby as edited by you) in the PDF. Handy.

Thomas Merz' PDFMark Primer explains more of the many uses for this handy bit of trickery:
http://www.pdflib.com/products/more/pdfmark.html

Michael Rowley
10-15-2005, 10:16 AM
Steve:

you can import it into Word as though it were any normal picture

Yes, that what I thought you meant. It didn't happen though, because Word thought I was trying to import a photo: my computer is insisting that any file with an EPS extension is a Microsoft PhotoDraw application, although NotePad opens it, not PhotoDraw.

PhotoDraw 2000 is a relic that I did not remember I had.

Steve Rindsberg
10-16-2005, 10:57 AM
Yes, that what I thought you meant. It didn't happen though, because Word thought I was trying to import a photo: my computer is insisting that any file with an EPS extension is a Microsoft PhotoDraw application, although NotePad opens it, not PhotoDraw.>>

For all intents and purposes, it IS a picture. I've played these odd little EPS games for so long that I forget it's not obvious to everyone. Sorry. You don't open it in Word, you use Insert, Picture, From File and pick the EPS.

And whenever anything with the MS name on it tries to touch an EPS in any other way, slap it silly. Its touch is poison to EPS.

Michael Rowley
10-16-2005, 12:05 PM
Steve:

You don't open it in Word, you use Insert, Picture, From File and pick the EPS

I'd had twigged that, but I was trying to insert as an object, not as a picture. I have now inserted my EPS file, and it works beautifully!

As a matter of fact, all the information from Word was getting reproduced in the PDF and visible in Acrobat Reader, except for 'Application': this was given as 'Adobe PDFMaker 7.0 for Word'. That is a big enough clue for anyone that knows what 'PDFMaker' is, but I preferred 'Word 11'. Now I've got it.

In the PDF from Merz, it says (I think) that PDFMark is most reliable when the EPS is placed on the first page, and that is what I did.

Thank you very much!

Steve Rindsberg
10-17-2005, 01:48 PM
Ah, glad you've got it working. As far as where in the document it goes, the earlier the better for PDFMark that makes document-wide settings. In other cases, it makes sense to put it on specific pages. For example if you want an image to be a clickable link, you'd drop the EPS containing the PDFMark atop the image and scale it identically.

It's all quite magical when it works.

Michael Rowley
10-17-2005, 03:16 PM
Steve:

It's all quite magical when it works

Having grasped the idea, I'm looking more carefully at that exerpt from the PDF book: there are probably a few more usable wheezes.

dthomsen8
10-25-2005, 03:41 PM
Guess we need to see how good a job they do. I always dread receiving a PDF made from Word as it is.

I have three tools to make a PDF from MS Word, and the results vary in quality, and amazingly in size. A recent 7 page newsletter could be 26Kb, 28Kb, or 160Kb.

Michael Rowley
10-26-2005, 07:07 AM
DT:

A recent 7 page newsletter could be 26Kb, 28Kb, or 160Kb

Doesn't the size of the PDF document depend on which set of conditions is used? The same will apply to a PDF exported from Word direct: what sort of conditions will Microsoft assume the users will need.

Steve Rindsberg
10-26-2005, 02:05 PM
Exactly. And I've often run into claims that this or that method of making PDFs produces VASTLY smaller (or larger) files than some other method. In every case that I recall, it was down to different settings in Distiller vs PDFWriter vs Whatever or to the fact that the user was comparing apples with petunias (wildly different source file content).

Certainly there must be cases where there are real differences, but until I can see the source files and diddle the dials myself, I don't believe it.