Reducing the blank space around text in Excel 2007

[Jeff]

In cell format\alignment the indent is set at 0which I believe is the
default. So the blank space around the cell's text is the default.

I would like to reduce that blank space (padding) even further but Excel
will not permit me to enter a negative indent figure.

Is there another way to reduce the default blank space around text in a
cell?

Thanks, Jeff

 

[GS]

In cell format\alignment the indent is set at 0which I believe is the
default. So the blank space around the cell's text is the default.

I would like to reduce that blank space (padding) even further but Excel will
not permit me to enter a negative indent figure.

Is there another way to reduce the default blank space around text in a cell?

Thanks, Jeff

I believe the default 'margin' applied to cells is so the cell contents
don't run into the gridlines. It's a pretty small margin as is and so I
can't imagine why you'd want to make it smaller. Maybe if you explain
what it is you're trying to accomplish then someone might be able to
suggest an approach.

 

[Jeff]

I believe the default 'margin' applied to cells is so the cell contents
don't run into the gridlines. It's a pretty small margin as is and so I
can't imagine why you'd want to make it smaller. Maybe if you explain
what it is you're trying to accomplish then someone might be able to
suggest an approach.

I am just trying to use a larger font to make things more readable when
printed. To do so I am searching for all means to find extra space:
reduced page margins, etc. So i thought if I could slightly reduce the
cell padding (seems to be 2 pixels, maybe to 1 pixel) it may help gain
more room for larger fonts.

 

[GS]

[email protected] pretended :

I am just trying to use a larger font to make things more readable when
printed. To do so I am searching for all means to find extra space: reduced
page margins, etc. So i thought if I could slightly reduce the cell padding
(seems to be 2 pixels, maybe to 1 pixel) it may help gain more room for
larger fonts.

Seems like a waste of time to me since Excel scales the cell margin to
the font size. That concludes, then, that changing this (if you could)
isn't going to compensate much for the number of characters that print
between page margins NOR the number of characters you can squeeze into
a cell for its given width and font size.

Also, even when you reduce page margins to zero in PageSetup, your
printer will apply a 1/4" margin by default.

 

[CellShocked]

I am just trying to use a larger font to make things more readable when
printed.

The printed output does not match what you see exactly, so you should
ALWAYS examine print previews or test prints to make adjustments down to
the pixel level.

Unlike how it appears, the printed output WILL allow you to run right
into the border (when printed) of a cell. You should always use print
previews and print samples to see what you are actually going to get.

This is especially true when using things like word wrap and such. Many
times, more spaces between words are need to get a portion of a statement
to appear on the next line down. Till you change a cell width or height.

 

[GS]

CellShocked explained :

The printed output does not match what you see exactly, so you should
ALWAYS examine print previews or test prints to make adjustments down to
the pixel level.

Unlike how it appears, the printed output WILL allow you to run right
into the border (when printed) of a cell. You should always use print
previews and print samples to see what you are actually going to get.

This is especially true when using things like word wrap and such. Many
times, more spaces between words are need to get a portion of a statement
to appear on the next line down. Till you change a cell width or height.

You're quite right! It took me ages to end up with templates that gave
me WYSIWYG output for various font sizes with a Print_Area width of 120
pixels of total cell width for 8.5" paper width. As you say, lots of
PrintPreviews were needed to end up with what I wanted. Whatever it
takes to get it right is well worth the time and effort, IMO, because I
hate using Word for anything!<g>

 

[CellShocked]

CellShocked explained :

The printed output does not match what you see exactly, so you should
ALWAYS examine print previews or test prints to make adjustments down to
the pixel level.

Unlike how it appears, the printed output WILL allow you to run right
into the border (when printed) of a cell. You should always use print
previews and print samples to see what you are actually going to get.

This is especially true when using things like word wrap and such. Many
times, more spaces between words are need to get a portion of a statement
to appear on the next line down. Till you change a cell width or height.

You're quite right! It took me ages to end up with templates that gave
me WYSIWYG output for various font sizes with a Print_Area width of 120
pixels of total cell width for 8.5" paper width. As you say, lots of
PrintPreviews were needed to end up with what I wanted. Whatever it
takes to get it right is well worth the time and effort, IMO, because I
hate using Word for anything!<g>

If Excel would simply add some kind of kerning or such type handling to
the app, folks would not need pro apps like Quark.

I use Excel all the time for signs and banners, etc.

 

[GS]

CellShocked formulated on Monday :

CellShocked explained :

On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:25:08 -0400, "[email protected]"


I am just trying to use a larger font to make things more readable when
printed.

The printed output does not match what you see exactly, so you should
ALWAYS examine print previews or test prints to make adjustments down to
the pixel level.

Unlike how it appears, the printed output WILL allow you to run right
into the border (when printed) of a cell. You should always use print
previews and print samples to see what you are actually going to get.

This is especially true when using things like word wrap and such. Many
times, more spaces between words are need to get a portion of a statement
to appear on the next line down. Till you change a cell width or height.

You're quite right! It took me ages to end up with templates that gave
me WYSIWYG output for various font sizes with a Print_Area width of 120
pixels of total cell width for 8.5" paper width. As you say, lots of
PrintPreviews were needed to end up with what I wanted. Whatever it
takes to get it right is well worth the time and effort, IMO, because I
hate using Word for anything!<g>

If Excel would simply add some kind of kerning or such type handling to
the app, folks would not need pro apps like Quark.

I might be inclined to agree that this would be a bonus!

I use Excel all the time for signs and banners, etc.

I use Excel for everything from biz cards to 4' x 8' show banners. I do
a lot of custom forms design, signs, and even multi-page instruction
manuals and user guides with lots of graphics. Once I got the WYSIWYG
formatting worked out, I found it a bit easier (visually) to work with
gridlines turned off.

These projects usually go directly to print shops and so has resulted
in some of those print shops referring other clients to me so they can
run with my work rather than reworking the stuff their clients provide
them with. Bonus!<g>

 

[CellShocked]

CellShocked formulated on Monday :

CellShocked explained :
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:25:08 -0400, "[email protected]"


I am just trying to use a larger font to make things more readable when
printed.

The printed output does not match what you see exactly, so you should
ALWAYS examine print previews or test prints to make adjustments down to
the pixel level.

Unlike how it appears, the printed output WILL allow you to run right
into the border (when printed) of a cell. You should always use print
previews and print samples to see what you are actually going to get.

This is especially true when using things like word wrap and such. Many
times, more spaces between words are need to get a portion of a statement
to appear on the next line down. Till you change a cell width or height.

You're quite right! It took me ages to end up with templates that gave
me WYSIWYG output for various font sizes with a Print_Area width of 120
pixels of total cell width for 8.5" paper width. As you say, lots of
PrintPreviews were needed to end up with what I wanted. Whatever it
takes to get it right is well worth the time and effort, IMO, because I
hate using Word for anything!<g>

If Excel would simply add some kind of kerning or such type handling to
the app, folks would not need pro apps like Quark.

I might be inclined to agree that this would be a bonus!

I use Excel all the time for signs and banners, etc.

I use Excel for everything from biz cards to 4' x 8' show banners. I do
a lot of custom forms design, signs, and even multi-page instruction
manuals and user guides with lots of graphics. Once I got the WYSIWYG
formatting worked out, I found it a bit easier (visually) to work with
gridlines turned off.

These projects usually go directly to print shops and so has resulted
in some of those print shops referring other clients to me so they can
run with my work rather than reworking the stuff their clients provide
them with. Bonus!<g>

Excellent! Looks like you did what I have been wanting to do for some
time now.

I make signs, etc. at work, but I have been wanting to do so for
clients and develop a business at it. I have a B sized HP jet printer,
but want laser, of course... and a laminator.

The pixel-by-pixel level resolution they allow is really cool.

Not quite as good as quark on paste-up, as it were, but far more
powerful because of the things it can do.

It would be cool to get some add-ons like a barcode/UID
print/read/proofing engine, and a numeric incrementor engine so that a
report print out can be made to print, increment, print, increment, etc.
So things like shipping labels could be generated with auto-magic
incrementing of a cell value.

 

[GS]

CellShocked formulated the question :

Excellent! Looks like you did what I have been wanting to do for some
time now.

Well, it's been a long, slow process. Fortunately, I have a good
relationship with the print shop folks 'outside the office'.

I make signs, etc. at work, but I have been wanting to do so for
clients and develop a business at it. I have a B sized HP jet printer,
but want laser, of course... and a laminator.

I have a 1220C HP InkJet. I believe this is what you may have since
it's the only HP model I was able to find (back when) that would do
11x17.

The pixel-by-pixel level resolution they allow is really cool.

Not quite as good as quark on paste-up, as it were, but far more
powerful because of the things it can do.

I haven't seen anything Quark can do that I haven't been able to
reproduce in Excel. I use Corel's Paint Shop Pro for screenshots, and
MSO Picture Manager for sizing photos to keep final file size to a
minimum. For example, a client sent me 4 individual file totalling
428mb (lots of pics/images). I reproduced all 4 in a single XLS and
added an index page (sheet) with hyperlinks. The XLS is 4.25mb; that's
99% smaller than the originals.

It would be cool to get some add-ons like a barcode/UID
print/read/proofing engine, and a numeric incrementor engine so that a
report print out can be made to print, increment, print, increment, etc.
So things like shipping labels could be generated with auto-magic
incrementing of a cell value.

I believe these already exist. Also, incrementing printouts can be done
using pure VB[A]. Shipping labels can be done with the free Avery
Wizard addin (for Word). The template layouts they use can be
reproduced in Excel very easily.

 

[Chairman Meow]

I have a 1220C HP InkJet. I believe this is what you may have since
it's the only HP model I was able to find (back when) that would do
11x17.

No... Mine is like 8 years old, so it is a DJ9650.

I am sure what is out there now is better, even in the deskjet realm.

Mine works for now though. It was like $400 too, so I want to get some
value from it compared to my first printer, which was an Epson, and they
used to put the heads on the printer. I don't know if they still do it
that way, but they wasted a LOT of ink on their "calibrations", etc.

 

[GS]

No... Mine is like 8 years old, so it is a DJ9650.

I am sure what is out there now is better, even in the deskjet realm.

Mine works for now though. It was like $400 too, so I want to get some
value from it compared to my first printer, which was an Epson, and they
used to put the heads on the printer. I don't know if they still do it
that way, but they wasted a LOT of ink on their "calibrations", etc.

Actually, mine is a DeskJet1220C, and I bought it in 2003 because it
was 'on sale'. I guess this was to make room for newer models. I don't
use it much anymore for 11x17 printouts since I most send print-ready
files to whomever. I can't agree that this printer is as wasteful of
ink as my newer ones are, and so makes me wonder if that issue is
deliberate.<g>