Grey logos in letterheads

[amie]

I am a graphic designer and this is an on going problem I have when
making electronic letterheads for clients. Generally I put the logo in
a header and explain to clients that is only faded on screen but will
print ok or they can make a PDF of the document to email to their
clients (which has the bonus that it is uneditable). However I am
currently working on a project were the client wants to send editable
word documents with the logo apperaing full colour and on every new
page. Any ideas?

Thanks!

 

[CyberTaz]

Not in a Word doc, I'm afraid... unless they want to go through far more
trouble than it's worth in order to maintain positioning of multiple copies
of the graphic within the text flow. As you probably understand, the header
content is on a separate "layer" which is distinct from the editable doc
text. The hard part is making a client understand that as well

 

[little_creature]

Hi,
I would have this suggestion. You could do a table of 1 column and 2 rows -
make it inwisible and put the logo in the first row and the actual document
will be in the second row.
The another alternative would be to use forms, do a table as indicated above
-2 rows - 1st Picture, 2nd form field -text and then you can lock the
document, so the user would be allow to edit just the cell with text.
How does that sound?

 

[PhilD]

Hi,
I would have this suggestion. You could do a table of 1 column and 2 rows -
make it inwisible and put the logo in the first row and the actual document
will be in the second row.

.... and repeat the top row as a "heading" row on each page.

However, I think educating your customer would be preferable overall.

PhilD

 

[John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]]

If the customer displays the page in Print Preview, the header will appear
with full contrast.

However, there is currently no way to force Word Mac to display a document
in Print Preview.

If the appearance of the document is that important, the customer should
indeed be sending the final result as a PDF. If they have the latest
version of Acrobat, they can include an editable version of the document in
the PDF.

Cheers

I am a graphic designer and this is an on going problem I have when
making electronic letterheads for clients. Generally I put the logo in
a header and explain to clients that is only faded on screen but will
print ok or they can make a PDF of the document to email to their
clients (which has the bonus that it is uneditable). However I am
currently working on a project were the client wants to send editable
word documents with the logo apperaing full colour and on every new
page. Any ideas?

Thanks!

--

Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie <[email protected]>
Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Business Analyst, Consultant
Technical Writer.
Sydney, Australia +61 (0) 4 1209 1410

 

[CyberTaz]

If the customer displays the page in Print Preview, the header will appear
with full contrast.

As long as the image is set to In Line with Text. Wrapping options cause it
to appear faded in Print Preview as well as in Page Layout View

However, there is currently no way to force Word Mac to display a document
in Print Preview.

If the appearance of the document is that important, the customer should
indeed be sending the final result as a PDF. If they have the latest
version of Acrobat, they can include an editable version of the document in
the PDF.

My sentiments exactly... Unfortunately it requires each potential editor to
have access to Acrobat, which could be an expensive proposition. Seems like
a steep price just to avoid what should be a simple explanation

Cheers

Regards |:>)
Bob Jones
[MVP] Office:Mac

 

[John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]]

Hi Bob:

I thought Acrobat enabled you to include a Word .doc copy of the PDF as
"baggage".

It does on the PC -- when you create a PDF from Word you get the option to
"include original".

This appears in the Adobe Reader sidebar, and the user can choose to save
and edit it.

Cheers

As long as the image is set to In Line with Text. Wrapping options cause it
to appear faded in Print Preview as well as in Page Layout View

My sentiments exactly... Unfortunately it requires each potential editor to
have access to Acrobat, which could be an expensive proposition. Seems like
a steep price just to avoid what should be a simple explanation

Regards |:>)
Bob Jones
[MVP] Office:Mac

--

Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie <[email protected]>
Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Business Analyst, Consultant
Technical Writer.
Sydney, Australia +61 (0) 4 1209 1410

 

[CyberTaz]

Yessir - I believe you're right about that, but I didn't think it would
appeal to the OP because the reviewers would still be working in a .doc
where the logo/header would be just as faded as ever - No? They wouldn't be
able to edit the PDF with Reader, would they? I haven't really *used* Reader
in 3 years, so I honestly don't know.

Regards |:>)
Bob Jones
[MVP] Office:Mac

 

[John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]]

Hi Bob:

You're right, Reader is specifically designed to prevent people editing.
But they can't edit a Word document via PDF in any case: the result when it
comes back is not useable in Word.

This client needs to accept that if they send something in Word format, the
user can edit it and it can have a running header on each page. However,
the header will appear faded (to show that it is a header) unless they view
and edit it in Print Preview.

Editing in Print Preview is possible, but not recommended: it imposes savage
demands on the system which can result in crashes. And it's not intuitive:
you have to SHOW a user how to do it.

This is the way Word works...

The client needs to accept that if they send a PDF, to most purposes the
result can't be edited.

This is the way the world works

Cheers

Yessir - I believe you're right about that, but I didn't think it would
appeal to the OP because the reviewers would still be working in a .doc
where the logo/header would be just as faded as ever - No? They wouldn't be
able to edit the PDF with Reader, would they? I haven't really *used* Reader
in 3 years, so I honestly don't know.

Regards |:>)
Bob Jones
[MVP] Office:Mac

--

Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie <[email protected]>
Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Business Analyst, Consultant
Technical Writer.
Sydney, Australia +61 (0) 4 1209 1410

 

[Kurt]

Hi Bob:

You're right, Reader is specifically designed to prevent people editing.
But they can't edit a Word document via PDF in any case: the result when it
comes back is not useable in Word.

This client needs to accept that if they send something in Word format, the
user can edit it and it can have a running header on each page. However,
the header will appear faded (to show that it is a header) unless they view
and edit it in Print Preview.

Editing in Print Preview is possible, but not recommended: it imposes savage
demands on the system which can result in crashes. And it's not intuitive:
you have to SHOW a user how to do it.

This is the way Word works...

The client needs to accept that if they send a PDF, to most purposes the
result can't be edited.

This is the way the world works

Acrobat professional allows simple editing to PDF documents.

Don't know if I've ever tried it with a PDF made from a word doc, but
you can generally make a lot of edits if you open a text-based PDF in
Adobe Illustrator.

 

[Kurt]

Editing in Print Preview is possible, but not recommended: it imposes savage
demands on the system which can result in crashes. And it's not intuitive:
you have to SHOW a user how to do it.

This is the way Word works...

The client needs to accept that if they send a PDF, to most purposes the
result can't be edited.

This is the way the world works

Not with a header, but a grey one.

(sorry, but that is what happens when you are called Eliot)

Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;

Doc without macro, head without gamma,
Paralysed mouse, window without focus;

Those who have crossed
With ActiveX eyes, to death's other Kingdom
Remember us -- if at all -- not as lost
Unvirused souls, but only
As the Mac men
The stuffed men.

The mushrooms must be good.

 

[Phillip Jones]

You do know That Acrobat 7.08 and Acrobat 8 "PRO" versions allow you to
take a PDF and create a Word document from it. Or even a RTF Document.

IN 7 go to SAVE AS and click on the button that shows file type (default
is pdf) and choose Word.doc or .RTF.

IN Acrobat choose export and do the same thing.

In 8 there is an additional button when you get ready to save,
"options", That allow you customize what and how you want saved. IN 7 it
more or less WYSIWYG.

I've used the feature once or twice (and works out well) on 7, when I
knew the original was a Word Document, but didn't have the original.
Even Pictures moved over okay.

Hi Bob:

You're right, Reader is specifically designed to prevent people editing.
But they can't edit a Word document via PDF in any case: the result when it
comes back is not useable in Word.

This client needs to accept that if they send something in Word format, the
user can edit it and it can have a running header on each page. However,
the header will appear faded (to show that it is a header) unless they view
and edit it in Print Preview.

Editing in Print Preview is possible, but not recommended: it imposes savage
demands on the system which can result in crashes. And it's not intuitive:
you have to SHOW a user how to do it.

This is the way Word works...

The client needs to accept that if they send a PDF, to most purposes the
result can't be edited.

This is the way the world works

Cheers

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |LIFE MEMBER: VPEA ETA-I, NESDA, ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112 |[email protected], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto[email protected]

<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/90th_Birthday/index.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Fulcher/default.html>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Harris/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Jones/default.htm>

<http://www.vpea.org>

 

[Phillip Jones]

Editing in Print Preview is possible, but not recommended: it imposes savage
demands on the system which can result in crashes. And it's not intuitive:
you have to SHOW a user how to do it.

This is the way Word works...

The client needs to accept that if they send a PDF, to most purposes the
result can't be edited.

This is the way the world works

Not with a header, but a grey one.

(sorry, but that is what happens when you are called Eliot)

Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;

Doc without macro, head without gamma,
Paralysed mouse, window without focus;

Those who have crossed
With ActiveX eyes, to death's other Kingdom
Remember us -- if at all -- not as lost
Unvirused souls, but only
As the Mac men
The stuffed men.

The mushrooms must be good.

Thought he was smoking some wild wood weed, sittin' on a sack of seeds.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |LIFE MEMBER: VPEA ETA-I, NESDA, ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112 |[email protected], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto[email protected]

<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/90th_Birthday/index.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Fulcher/default.html>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Harris/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Jones/default.htm>

<http://www.vpea.org>

 

[Daiya Mitchell]

This client needs to accept that if they send something in Word format, the
user can edit it and it can have a running header on each page. However,
the header will appear faded (to show that it is a header) unless they view
and edit it in Print Preview.

I'm starting to think, to be honest, that the Word team needs to rethink
headers for the 21st century. So many people complain about the faded
headers, that maybe it should be recoded--the fade isn't helping anyone
understand the text streams in Word anyhow. The other thing people
complain about is that sending a word doc as email loses the
headers--well yeah, cause that's the way it works, but really, there
isn't much logic behind not including at least the first header in the
document as HTML text.

Anyhow, random thought.

Daiya

 

[John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]]

Hi Kurt:

Yeah, sure, but you're talking about two $800.00 programs there.

If the customer wanted to roll out either of them to all of his users, and
provide the training required to learn how to use them, we wouldn't be
having this discussion

Business/Corporate users generally simply won't invest either the time or
the money. And nor should they: it's far more cost-effective to hire one of
us to do the job for them.

Microsoft Word is DESIGNED to grey out the headers when you're editing. It
serves as a visual cue to the user that "This text is in the header: if you
change it, you change the whole section."

I suspect that if Microsoft gave them the option to turn that off, we would
get a far greater number of disasters from people "correcting" page numbers


Cheers

Acrobat professional allows simple editing to PDF documents.

Don't know if I've ever tried it with a PDF made from a word doc, but
you can generally make a lot of edits if you open a text-based PDF in
Adobe Illustrator.

--

Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie <[email protected]>
Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Business Analyst, Consultant
Technical Writer.
Sydney, Australia +61 (0) 4 1209 1410

 

[John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]]

Chateux Vin Ordinaire in his case....

Editing in Print Preview is possible, but not recommended: it imposes savage
demands on the system which can result in crashes. And it's not intuitive:
you have to SHOW a user how to do it.

This is the way Word works...

The client needs to accept that if they send a PDF, to most purposes the
result can't be edited.

This is the way the world works

Not with a header, but a grey one.

(sorry, but that is what happens when you are called Eliot)

Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;

Doc without macro, head without gamma,
Paralysed mouse, window without focus;

Those who have crossed
With ActiveX eyes, to death's other Kingdom
Remember us -- if at all -- not as lost
Unvirused souls, but only
As the Mac men
The stuffed men.

The mushrooms must be good.

--

Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie <[email protected]>
Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Business Analyst, Consultant
Technical Writer.
Sydney, Australia +61 (0) 4 1209 1410

 

[John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]]

Hi Phillip:

No. I do not know that.

I do know that Adobe's sales literature CLAIMS that they can

When you read " ... retaining the layout, fonts, formatting, and tables." on
the Adobe page you need to be hyper-alert for what it does NOT mention.
"Styles, Numbered Lists, nested tables, hyperlinks, section breaks and
access restrictions" are not mentioned. Guess why?

Because the PDF language doesn't contain them. PDF is packaged PostScript.
It's a page description language. A Word document is an object-oriented
container. XML will describe a Word document; PDF will not.

What you get back is in Word file format, but it's not a high-fidelity match
for the original file.

Sure, what Adobe has done is convenient and useful. But I do wish they
would stop pretending it's more than it is.

Cheers

You do know That Acrobat 7.08 and Acrobat 8 "PRO" versions allow you to
take a PDF and create a Word document from it. Or even a RTF Document.

IN 7 go to SAVE AS and click on the button that shows file type (default
is pdf) and choose Word.doc or .RTF.

IN Acrobat choose export and do the same thing.

In 8 there is an additional button when you get ready to save,
"options", That allow you customize what and how you want saved. IN 7 it
more or less WYSIWYG.

I've used the feature once or twice (and works out well) on 7, when I
knew the original was a Word Document, but didn't have the original.
Even Pictures moved over okay.

--

Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie <[email protected]>
Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Business Analyst, Consultant
Technical Writer.
Sydney, Australia +61 (0) 4 1209 1410

 

[John McGhie [MVP - Word and Word Macintosh]]

Hi Daiya:

Yeah. I've been having and un-having the exact same random thought for a
little while now.

On the PC, it doesn't seem to cause any confusion because the PC installed
base are used to it, Word has always worked that way.

But you're right, it DOESN'T lead to an innate understanding of text
streams, flows, and stories. Or any understanding at all, really. It's
simply annoying

Similarly, when sending as email the user has two choices: "Attachment" or
"Inline HTML". The choice is not obvious, and the difference is not
adequately explained.

I used to think that Dr. JoAnn Hackos was up there with Keynes. She
invented Minimalist Documentation for Microsoft. Now, I think death is too
good for her

The "Theory" of minimalist documentation is really good: "Just enough, just
in time, exactly where you want it." But as soon as the business people got
hold of it and misunderstood it, it became "Quick, Cheap, or Absent."

I bet that's never happened anywhere else in history?

Cheers

I'm starting to think, to be honest, that the Word team needs to rethink
headers for the 21st century. So many people complain about the faded
headers, that maybe it should be recoded--the fade isn't helping anyone
understand the text streams in Word anyhow. The other thing people
complain about is that sending a word doc as email loses the
headers--well yeah, cause that's the way it works, but really, there
isn't much logic behind not including at least the first header in the
document as HTML text.

Anyhow, random thought.

Daiya

--

Please reply to the newsgroup to maintain the thread. Please do not email
me unless I ask you to.

John McGhie <[email protected]>
Microsoft MVP, Word and Word for Macintosh. Business Analyst, Consultant
Technical Writer.
Sydney, Australia +61 (0) 4 1209 1410

 

[Phillip Jones]

Actually they don't pretend. What they say It "can" be used to create a
Document that can be used in Word when the original is not available.

I would be very surprised indeed if it managed to port over all the
original stuff used in the original. Its just like using Text touch up
in Acrobat except it at a higher level . You convert to a Word Document
make the necessary changes then convert back to a PDF.

Its still better for a PDF and the original Word document to be sent.
But, when That isn't possible, It could be a Lifesaver otherwise.

Hi Phillip:

No. I do not know that.

I do know that Adobe's sales literature CLAIMS that they can

When you read " ... retaining the layout, fonts, formatting, and tables." on
the Adobe page you need to be hyper-alert for what it does NOT mention.
"Styles, Numbered Lists, nested tables, hyperlinks, section breaks and
access restrictions" are not mentioned. Guess why?

Because the PDF language doesn't contain them. PDF is packaged PostScript.
It's a page description language. A Word document is an object-oriented
container. XML will describe a Word document; PDF will not.

What you get back is in Word file format, but it's not a high-fidelity match
for the original file.

Sure, what Adobe has done is convenient and useful. But I do wish they
would stop pretending it's more than it is.

Cheers

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |LIFE MEMBER: VPEA ETA-I, NESDA, ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112 |[email protected], ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!

mailto[email protected]

<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/90th_Birthday/index.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Fulcher/default.html>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Harris/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/Jones/default.htm>

<http://www.vpea.org>

 

[Daiya Mitchell]

small comment--actually, both of my points (re faded and loss in HTML)
came about because people constantly post about both those problems on
the general Word groups, not here (this is just a better group for
random thoughts). It is most definitely causing lots of confusion among
the PC installed base. In fact, I was trying to write an explanation to
defend the lost headers in HTML to someone over there when I realized
there was no way I could rationalize it. And I'm generally pretty good
at rationalizing all sorts of nonsense in and out of Word, so *that's*
what makes me believe it needs to be redone.

Maybe the MacBU will fix it before Windows Word, wouldn't that be fun!
I feel a Send Feedback coming on.

Daiya