\newcommand{\GLOSS}[1]{\textsc{#1}}
\newcommand{\key}[1]{\texttt{#1}}
\newcommand{\Ascii}{\textsc{Ascii}}
\newcommand{\MP}[1]{}

\title{Word processing}
\author{R.~Allan Reese}
\begin{Article}

The software most used by students, including research students, at
Hull is MicroSoft Word.  This is {\em their\/} preference; when the
Computer Centre consciously offered introductory courses using the
Works integrated package which has a simplified word processor compared
with Word, it was found that students quickly switched to using Word.
The reasons for this preference are largely peer and societal pressure;
it is unlikely that students should immediately need the more advanced
formatting features of the product.  Many students are rather vague as
to what they are using: a typical enquiry starts with, ``I was typing
into Windows when \ldots .''

The local preference is seen much more widely, and again the reasons
are hard to identify apart from marketing pressure.  Word has no
apparent technical superiority over its rivals (WordPerfect,  Ami Pro)
but has captured a large majority of the world market.  Nigel Lodge of
\GLOSS{CHEST} reported (verbal report to \GLOSS{UCSG} committee
meeting, January 1996) that while WordPerfect was functionally
equivalent, available to UK HE sites on a similar unit-based licence,
had the advantage that documentation could be copied under the licence,
and was well under half the price  (\pounds 16 per unit compared with
\pounds 38), nevertheless, sales through Chest were biased to Word in
the ratio 22:1.  It seems that Microsoft dominates the market because
it has a stranglehold on operating systems; this is similar to the
situation summarized in the 1960s and 70s when ``no one ever got fired
for buying IBM kit.''

Change is slow to bring about.  As JISC point out\cite[paras~36--38]
{JISC:95}, ``The protection of existing investment [in resources and
knowledge] is an extremely powerful factor in any decision to extend or
replace computing equipment. \ldots The same factor can be seen at work
even with an individual\ldots wishing to retain existing peripherals and
package software. \ldots Personal workstations should be regarded as
having a relatively short effective life of two to four years only.
[However,] while interesting new technologies are emerging all the time,
they often become significant only when a supplier perceives a market
advantage in exploiting them, or when a major and completely new project
opens which has no `legacy' problem.'' The pressures on students occur
in departments (perhaps driven by both students and staff in mutual
feedback) and when they talk to other users at the machines.

Standardization on Word is, however, not necessarily appropriate or
helpful for students or academic writers.  Word has developed as a
product over ten years entirely under the control of the MicroSoft
Corporation and, while the name has stayed the same, the product has
changed dramatically in appearance and function.  The
documentation\cite{winword} does not contain a statement of the design
aims of the program, but it is a fair assumption that the primary
concern is to support the commercial office market, which is the
largest and most lucrative. The extensive range of features concentrate
on text and document formatting: features such as mail-merge,
boilerplate letters, documents composed from standard paragraphs are
not obvious requirements for original text composition. One
semi-evident development policy has been to suggest that Word provides
most of the functionality of a true DTP package. The overheads of these
unwanted features have created problems, especially for novice users
working on open-access machines in university computer centres.

Students using shared machines need to renew the whole system at the
start of each session.  Failure to do so may lead to the student's work
being affected by a previous student\Dash whether accidentally or
maliciously.  This involves basic rebooting of the PC, logging on to
the network, loading Windows and loading the word processor before the
document can be opened.  On a PC network, as is currently and
increasingly the norm, this process may take up to several minutes,
dependent upon the other demands on the network.  This is a ridiculous
overhead  when all the student wants to do is type and edit text, but
the students remain adamant that they prefer to type directly into a
fully WYSIWYG version.

Once the student has the document on the screen, there is an
unacceptably high probability that the document will be damaged or
lost.  This can occur as a result of user incompetence, inadvertent
action, or system failure.  An example of the first results from our PC
network system having many logical disk-drives visible to the user; new
users not infrequently save their first document onto a network drive
letter in the temporary area.  The word processor knows only that the
buffered document has been saved; the network allows the user to
logout; it is only when the student comes back for a second session
that they find their floppy disk has no files on it.  Usually this is a
lesson that is learned once and before any serious work has been lost.
Much more anguish is caused by students selecting accidentally some
random feature of the word processor.  For example, in MS Word you can
select (highlight) the complete text and then a single press of the
ENTER key deletes it!  Of course, the text has not then been lost but
merely copied to the clipboard.  Unfortunately, the student often does
not know this, and their subsequent panic actions generally lose the
clipboard and often overwrite the disk copy with the blank buffer
before they come (in tears, whether male or female) for help\Dash
either file archaeology  or a miracle.   Other problems occur because
the student clicked a mouse button when the cursor was at some random
point in a window or toolbar.  System errors can be protected against
only by frequent and independent backup.  Despite the name, `system'
faults may be due to factors totally beyond the control of the computer
service `systems' staff:  one case of repeated failures was traced to a
student who habitually used the same workstation, and whenever she got
into difficulties switched the power off and on at the wall switch\Dash
thus crashing all the PCs on that bench.

The third disadvantage of high-performance word processors is that they
encode a large amount of physical formatting within the document file.
The file format is proprietary and binary\Dash highly complex.  As a
result, any file that is not 100\% readable and correct may be unusable
by the program.  Multiple footnotes in particular cause problems in
academic writing.  When files have been corrupted due to a physical
disk fault or failure while writing, the bulk of the text can generally
be recovered but formatting is lost and usually so are footnotes.  Even
when the program functions, there is no intuitive or essential logic to
the manipulation of footnotes: do you, for example, delete a footnote
by selecting the marker in the body or the footnote text?

\subsection{Features of Word in relation to needs}

The pre-eminence of MS Word as a tool for academic writers means that
if it does not meet the needs of the task, or if its method of working
is unwieldy, the software may be a drag on the effectiveness of the
writer.  Even worse, the user may be controlled by the technology,
doing things `because they're there' and overlooking options because
the program lacks them.  This is not an unduly cynical view.
Commercial software necessarily plays down those features that it does
not provide, and trumpets those features which have been added at the
last upgrade.  Previously perfectly good working practices can be swept
aside because a new feature has to be promoted.  Let us examine how
Word meets the requirements laid out in Section~\ref{Sec:composing}:

                        \begin{description}
                        \item[text input]
 Switch on the PC, start Windows, then start Word\Dash and you obtain a
screen on which you can type words.  The exact appearance of the screen
should be configured according to user preferences, but this is not
feasible on open-access computers. Every user must be given a clean and
consistent system that conforms to the documentation.  A personal copy
on an individual's machine can be configured, but the user needs to
understand and record the changes.  Problems can arise when documents
are moved between systems with different set-ups; style or template
files may need to be copied and re-linked to documents that use them.

Word has options that make space characters and other special codes,
such as paragraph marks, visible.  These are used by default, which
should make it easier for students to learn the differences between
features: for example, spaces and tabs.

Word is, of course, WYSIWYG and this is an aspect that is frequently
commended.  The temptation is therefore to type and format in one
operation.  The Computer Centre strongly advises the use of
stylesheets, but these are ignored in the RSA elementary syllabus.  The
use of an extra {\tt Enter} at the end of paragraphs has been
discussed; this practice would be counter-productive once stylesheets
were introduced, since the stylesheet defines a `standard paragraph'
which would contain information on spacing and indents.  The default
paragraph format is single spaced, left aligned with no indent; it
could so easily have had the more conventional first-line indent.

The biggest drawback to Word for basic use is the sheer complexity of
the screen.  Absolute beginners to word processing have the problem of
recognizing the multitude of visual cues on the screen and equating
these with meaningful functions.  There are, by default, menus and
toolbars, other active points where clicking the mouse does something,
a ruler, and all the paraphenalia of Windows.  It is easy to catch some
key inadvertently (or click the mouse in the wrong place) and the
unexpected happens.  Overcoming this is a matter of familiarity, but it
underlines the need for training.  Very little is truly intuitive.

Despite being `WYSIWYG', Word offers four different ways of viewing a
document: Normal, Page layout, Print preview and Outline.  Initial text
input is best done in Normal mode, which is the default when starting.
This view shows most text attributes (font, size, etc.) and spacings,
though centered text will not appear centred on the screen as the edges
of the `page' are not marked.  Graphic inserts and multiple-column text
are simplifed in this view, but this should not cause problems during
composing.  Page and section breaks appear as dotted lines and headers,
footers or footnotes are edited in separate windows.  Page layout shows
the physical arrangement of the page on the screen, and provides an
alternative way of editing structures. Print preview takes account of
the exact features of the printer.  While you cannot edit in this view,
It shows two pages side by side and allows you to adjust page
parameters such as margin widths.  Provided the system is consistent
(and that may be a big assumption),  the writer can be confident that a
document can be composed, formatted and printed as wanted, first time.

Word has several methods for inputting characters that are not assigned
single keys.  Apart from foreign language letters, this includes
characters like long-dashes and opening quotes that resolve ambiguities
in the typist's reduced character set.   If you are in the process of
typing, the optimal method is probably to use either a key-combination
or a `dead-key' method.  A key-combination involves holding down one
key while pressing another, similar to using \key{Shift} to obtain
capital letters.  \key{Alt} is an obvious centender.  The `dead-key'
method involves pressing one key (or combination) and then another; the
two keys are combined in one character.  This is a traditional method
for obtaining accented characters on a manual typewriter, where the
dead-key does not move the paper.  Word does provide such mechanisms.
Characters can be inserted by key combinations or by typing a numerica
character code.  However, these shortcuts have fallen victim to the
\GLOSS{WIMP} paradigm;  the first method advised in the manual and in
the on-line help is a pull-down menu that shows all the symbols in the
extended character set.  The manual suggests an alternative of mapping
the keyboard to a foreign character set;  this method simply moves the
problem, since there is still a mapping from the 102-key keyboard to a
256-character set. The optimum for habitual use of a few characters
would seem to be to use the symbol menu once, and to make a note of the
keyboard shortcut.

Word will also make changes to your text as you type.  The auto-correct
feature is discussed below under the topic of checking.


                        \item[notes]
Notes for the writer are used in two contexts: notes that will form
part of the text, and notes for the writer's own use.  A note involves
two components: a marker within the body of the text, and the note
itself.  Notes may appear on the printed page as footnotes or endnotes.
 The inserted mark may be a number or a special character; unless
footnotes are used very sparingly, a numbering system is easier to
follow.  Word automatically renumbers footnotes whenever you add,
delete or move footnotes.

Notes for the author's use can be inserted as `annotations', which are
similar to footnotes but are stored as `hidden' text.  The same chapter
of the manual describes the use of revision bars for keeping track of
changes in a text.  Hidden text can be hdden, viewed or printed, but if
visible will affect the pagination.   Annotations are printed
separately, after the body text, but if annotations are printed, then
so is hidden text.  Hidden text can be treacherous; a colleague in my
department once received from a national committee a file containing
earlier ideas as hidden text\Dash which they probably did not want to
distribute.  Word's annotations do not quite match the functions of
`comments' in LaTeX or `attached notes' in Journalist, as discussed in
Section~\ref{latex:input}\MP{do it!}.

While the footnotes mechanism has the required features, there are
several drawbacks.  One is that this is seen as `advanced' use.  It is
documented under `Special features', well after features like tables
and inserting graphics.  The mechanism is not intuitive.  Inserting a
footnote opens a \GLOSS{dialogue box} for the in-text mark and a box
for the actual text; deleting a footnote is done by selecting and
deleting the mark\Dash deleting all the text does not delete the mark.
Users are often confused between `footnote' and `footer'.  Both of
these are training points, but they lead to misuse.  It may be a
consequence of misuse, but the mechanism of storage appears to be be
unstable, especially on networked computers; footnotes seem to be
implicated in a high proportion of files that `become unreadable'.
Word document files are complex binary structures, which must read
completely or not at all.  Since academic writers perhaps use footnotes
far more commonly than do office workers, it may be that this is a
weakness of the program.  Finally, it is conventional to typeset
fotnotes in a smaller font than the body text and single spaced even
when the body text is double spaced, but Word does not apply these
rules automatically.



                        \item[moving text around]
The major advantage of a word processor over a typewriter is the
ability to manipulate your text without retyping more than the
corrections.  Word provides  for revisions on-screen and through
command menus.  Screen editing is standard; position the cursor
anywhere and use \key{Del} and {\tt Insert} or {\tt Overtype} input.
Beginners get confused between \key{Backspace} and \key{Delete}, and
they have difficulty positioning the cursor with the mouse\Dash it's
easier to use keys because the cursor then moves in discrete steps.

Larger changes are made by selecting text, using the cursor keys or the
mouse.  The standard method of working in Word is to select text and
apply an operator.  The mouse can be used to select words, lines or
paragraphs at a time, by subtle positioning.  The equivalent keyboard
operations use two or three-key combinations.  You can also select a
column of text within a tabbed table, a useful feature.  A frequently
reported problem at the Helpdesk is however: `I've lost all my text,'
or it may be stated as `I was using Word and the screen went blank.'
This is the (undocumented?\MP{?}) feature that \key{Enter} acts like
\key{Del};  students use the menu option to `select all the text' with
the intention of applying some format, but they press \key{Enter} and
all the text disappears.  It is actually copied to the clipboard, so
users who recognize what has happened can use `undo' to retrieve it.
Unfortunately, by the time they come to the Helpdesk, it is usually too
late.  If they exited from Word as well, it will have also destroyed
the previous version on file.

Moving text by cut-and-paste works within a document, between
documents, and between Word and other Windows software.  However,  as
an example of the ad hoc design elements that have gone into Word,
consider the following (Word for Windows version 2 manual, p109):
\begin{quote}
If you include paragraph marks in your selection when you copy or move
text between documents, the formatting and styles applied to the
paragraphs are also copied.  If you copy more than 50 paragraphs in
[sic, do they mean from?] a document you have saved at least once, all
styles in the document are copied along with the paragraphs.
\end{quote}

Word has another mechanism called `the spike'.  This is described under
the Glossary section and differs from the clipboard in that selected
items are appended to the spike rather than overwriting its existing
content.  Material can be accumulated on the spike and inserted once or
repeatedly.

There is also a facility to move or copy text without involving the
clipboard.  This strikes me as needing considerable practice, and just
the sort of feature that fails when you have something irreplaceable in
the clipboard.  It's too much like Chinese plate juggling.  And having
three distinct mechanisms for essentially the same job is another
symptom of the emphasis by the vendors on shear numbers of features
rather than consistent design.

Other editors provide a single command to transpose two letters, but
this feature is lacking from Word: a pity as transposition is a very
common typing problem.

Large scale reorganization of text can also be carried out using
outlining.  This is less likely to lead to duplicated text or
arbitrarily omitted words\Dash word processor syndrome.


                        \item[find and replace]
Find and replace is the feature that starts to use the computer as a
processor rather than merely a storage device.  It can be used within a
document as a fast way of moving.  With a replacement text, it can be
used to correct mistakes, make systematic changes, or make repeated
changes with the user deciding whether or not to carry out each.  The
text searched for can be a word or phrase.  Word will find a phrase
even if it appears to have a linebreak in the middle, since that is
Word's interpretation of a space for display purposes.  You can
restrict the matching to whole words and to the specific letter case.

Find and replace can be applied to formatting, but it does not seem
possible to change a format element, such as `italic', by inserting a
markup code, such as \verb|<italic>|, for example to transfer a
document into an \Ascii\ environment.

It is a peculiarity that the shortcut keys for some special characters
are different within the search and replace menus from those while
inputting text.

The Glossary system can be viewed as an alternative for find and
replace, with the same objective of making input faster while also
ensuring the text uses frequently used words or phrases consistently.

Word's Find system can be used to search across documents, as a way of
identifying files by their content.  This feature is provided  through
the {\tt Files/Find file} menu, rather than {\tt Edit/Find}.

More general pattern matching, file finding and text manipulation
features are available in an add-in product
PowerSearch\cite{powersearch} which, once installed, appears as simply
another item in the Word {\tt File} menu.  Such facilities as
\GLOSS{boolean} and \GLOSS{proximity searches} would be valuable to
frequent users of Word who create many files and need to keep track of
them.  They are of less interest to the research student working
basically on one large document.


                        \item[cross-referencing]
Word uses the concept of `bookmarks'.  You can insert as many as 450
bookmarks in a single document.  Bookmarks are created at the current
cursor point by the {\tt Insert/bookmark} command.  The user types in a
name;  if that name has already been assigned, the original bookmark is
removed \MP{with warning?}.  Bookmarks can be used to find that point
by the {\tt GoTo} command, as links to another document, or to create
cross-references to page numbers of item-numbers in lists.

As with many features of Word, the effect on bookmarks of many actions
is undefined or arbitrary.  `If you {\em cut} marked text and paste it
to a new location, the pasted text is still marked.  If you {\em copy}
marked text and paste it to a new location, the pasted text is marked,
but the original text is not longer marked.  If you paste marked text
into a different document, the bookmark and bookmark name are also
pasted.'  If you copy but never paste, does the bookmark stay where it
was?  If you copy, close the document and open another, then paste, do
you get the bookmark in both documents?  These may seem quibbles, but
are indicative of a system where you `suck it and see', and be prepared
for the next release to behave differently.

Automatic cross-referencing can be used to generate a table of contents
and an index or other lists.  Although this is not a trivial task
intellectually, having an index makes a large work so much more usable,
this feature should be given more publicity.

                        \item[tables]
Simple tables can be set up using \key{tab} but tabs have to be set at
predefined distances on the ruler.   It is not possible to type and
choose a point within the text for a tab; this seems an omission.

The manual suggests a much easier alternative is the `tables' feature.
Tables created this way look very like spreadsheets, and some
students\Dash perhaps because they have previously used an integrated
package such as Works\cite{works}\Dash are inclined to switch to
Excel\cite{excel} for even the simplest table.  Word tables are also
the recommended method for positioning side-by-side paragraphs.

Word shows the outline table with dotted gridlines for input.  This may
prompt users to opt for full borders around each table cell\Dash a very
poor design choice.  Examples in the manual further reinforce the
limited view of tables as strictly rectangular sets of cells conatining
similarly formatted items; in the examples, all the items are
left-justified within the cells.  Cells can be merged across a row, to
make an item spanning two or more columns, but the manual states that
they cannot be merged down a column, so for example a brace linking
rows would not be possible.  The manual does not show any example where
items on different rows are aligned differently, but this would appear
to be possible as each cell operates like a self-contained
mini-paragraph.  Indeed, one feature that is documented is that you can
insert a tab within a cell.  However, as \key{tab} moves the insertion
point (cursor) from cell to cell when you are working in a table, it is
necessary to use the special convention that \verb|CTRL+TAB| sets a tab
position\Dash another example of the ad hoc interface.

When looking for examples of very simple published tables for a
workshop, I was struck that almost every table in published journals
had some special feature or complication.  Most tables were qualified
by footnotes, and a footnotes within the table used a separate marking
system from those in the text.  Word does not mention this, but it
might be accommodated by making each table into a separate `section'.
This would then raise further complications in printing the complete
sequential document.

Tables that follow the design recommendations of Chapman\cite{chapman}
can be produced using Word but are not encouraged. Rules (lines) to
span and conceptually bind groups of cells have to be inserted as
`part-borders' of the cells.  The Word for Windows 2 manual shows one
example that used just single rules to offset a row of headings, but
goes on to hint `the more the merrier':
\begin{quote}
You can apply borders on top of any of the gridlines to make a table
easier to read. \ldots You can use different line styles for any
borders you apply to table cells.  For example, to add a double border
to separate the column headings from the table entries as shown in the
following illustration [omitted], first apply single borders to all
sides of the cells \ldots\ then select the first row of the table, and
change the line style of the border below the row.
\end{quote}
Word for Windows 6 has, under the `Insert Table' menu, dialogues called
`Wizard' and `Autoformat'.  The Wizard offers a selection of
heavily-boxed tables, characteristic of Word output.  Autoformat offers
over forty styles: some good, some bad.  Perhaps not wisely, but too
well?

Table entries can be highlighted by using alternative fonts, by borders
or by shading.  No doubt there exist examples that use all three.

The `Windows philosophy' of design appears again in relation to the
size and positioning of tables.  Although column widths can be
prescribed through dislogue boxes, the manual advises:
\begin{quote}
Unless your table design requires very precise column dimensions, it's
easiest to change the column width by dragging the column borders or by
dragging column markers on the ruler.
\end{quote}
In the WYSIWYG world, if it looks about right to the untrained eye, it
is apparently good enough.

                        \item[lists]
Bulleted or numbered lists are common requirements, particularly in a
document that is a systematic description.  Lists may be nested.
Creating a simple list is easy in Word\Dash perhaps too easy, as the
student with the `dot in her thing' (Section~\ref{dot:thing}) found
out.  A list can be input as plain paragraphs, and then turned into a
list, or each item can be created in sequence.

The formal description of a bullet list is that Word creates each item
as a symbol, followed by a tab, and the rest of the item formatted as a
\GLOSS{hanging paragraph}.  The tab can be replaced by a space, though
the click-box that does this does not make it obvious: the attached
label is `Hanging indent by'.

Numbered lists can use one of a variety of number formats.  Outline
headings, described in the next section\MP{check?} have the option of
using a hierarchy of numbers.

                        \item[logical flow]
Most of the features discussed so far speed up the process of typing
and correcting text, or allow the author to specify structures that
will assist the reader.  Outlining is a facility and a technique that
assists the author by allowing shifts of perspective.  The writer can,
while composing, look at the text at any level from its skeleton to the
fine detail.

Outlining in a word processor has the advantage over outlining on paper
that it is dynamic.  Topics can be moved about, and attached at
different levels.  If you move headings, any sub-headings or associated
text is moved as well.  So the task of reorganizing text can be carried
out at any level, and there is less danger of losing text or leaving
part of it in the wrong place than if you had to select each word with
the mouse.

Headings can be arranged in any number of levels, and in `outline' view
you can select how many levels are displayed at a time.  The body text
can be displayed in full, or showing the first line only of each
paragraph. The headings themselves may appear in the final document, or
they may be suppressed or used to form the table of contents.  They can
also be printed separately to give a working overview.  The manual also
suggests the technique of splitting the document window while editing,
with the normal view in one pane and the outline view in the other.
Unless you are using such techniques, with multiple views or multiple
applications open at once,  it is hard to justify the power of a modern
PC for basic text input.

A concept related to outlining and structure is the `template'.  Every
Word document is based upon a ocument template, which is a file that
describes various attributes.  This is perhaps not obvious because the
default template \verb|normal.sty| is so basic; the point was made
earlier that the `standard paragraph' is neither proper indent nor
blocked format.  Templates can specify formats for pages, paragraphs or
other objects; they can contain boilerplate text that is the same in
every document; and they can contain many different styles.  Templates
can be used to save repetitious work and to apply consistent house
style.  They can also tailor the working environment by customizing
menus, toolbars, macros and glossary items, and the keyboard.  A
university might well develop its own template and require its use when
dissertations are printed.

                        \item[handling multiple documents]
One of the most distressing aspects of using a computer is the loss of
a file.  For obvious reasons, for because of sod's law, the probability
of a file being lost increases with the size of the file, the amount of
work that would be lost, and the tightness of the deadline.  It is also
apparent that the speed and ease of manipulation of a file decreases as
it gets larger.  Any document of the size and complexity of a
dissertation should therefore be split into components rather than
stored as a monolithic file.

The Word manual suggests that any document longer that twenty pages is
a candidate for splitting.  The terminology is complex, since a
document can be divided into `sections' which are still stored as a
single file, or into multiple documents where each is stored as a
separate (\verb|.doc|) file.  Multiple files can be printed
individually (leaving the user to manipulate page numbers etc.\ to
maintain continuity), or the user can set up a `master' document that
combines all the subfiles for output.

Having the text of a dissertation spread across multiple files raises
problems of maintaining consistency of style and usage.  The `find'
command can be used across multiple files, after which up to nine files
can be opened in separate windows.  The need to apply similar edits
across several files would be one reason for using the `macro' facility
to store a sequence of operations.

                        \item[checking]
Word boasts a number of commands which it collectively calls `proofing
tools'.  These include spell-checking, grammar-checking, a thesaurus
and the hyphenation option.

Each of these tools is language-dependent, and MicroSoft makes a
feature of Word being usable with multilingual documents.
Unfortunately, the data files necessary to support these commands are
not available for every language.  The pull-down menu of languages
shows some twenty names of languages, from Brazilian~Portuguese to
Swiss~German.  Word lists for the spell-checker are available for all
of these but are not installed by default.  Grammar files are available
for English and French (and maybe a couple of others).  Thesarurus and
hyphenation files are equally patchy.

For what it does, the system is impressive.  Each document has a
default language, but any selection of text can be marked as another
language.  Running a check should use the appropriate file(s) for each
language, but in practice is likely to generate only messages that the
files are missing.  In addition, the method of spell-checking does not
work very well for inflected languages:  English typically only has two
forms for a noun and three for most verbs, but German has case endings
for nouns and Spanish has multitudinous forms for verbs.  Such
languages demand an algorithm that identifies the root of each word; a
worthwhile proofing tool would be able to detect inconsistencies of
gender and person.

The grammar checker for English is based upon the algorithm in Correct
Grammar\cite{CG} but in my experience gives less reliable results.  The
number of alternative styles and degree of customization have been
reduced from the parent program.

                        \item[revising]
The operations of revising a text are well supported by the operations
of find-and-replace, annotation and outlining.

Word documents are binary files, so can be passed to an editorial
reader as a disk file or as an attachment to an electronic mail
message, but needing coding/decoding at each end.  Passing the file
assumes that the reader has access to a compatible version of Word; in
practice this means the {\em same} version, as converting files between
word processors or between versions is not a hundred-per-cent reliable.
 The obvious way to return comments is as annotation text.

                        \item[formatting]
Word formatting operates at several levels and is highly complex.  Even
a simple operation like applying page numbering can cause problems.
Students come to the Helpdesk when they are unable to position, or
delete, or print page numbers.  They are confused by the sophisticated
terminology and control for headers and footers.

Formatting is best carried out as a separate phase from writing, if
only because adding or deleting text may affect the formatting of
several pages following.  Word does not have the cocept of a
\GLOSS{float}.  The nearest equivalent would be to manually fix an
object as a graphic insert and allow the text to flow round it, but
this would not ensure that, for example, a figure could not occur
before the page where it is referenced.

Formatting in Word also has to take account of the physical
characteristics of the output device.  Final tuning should always be
carried out in print-preview display.  This is WYSIWYG par excelence:
the user is encouraged to fiddle until it `looks about right'.


                        \end{description} %end of list of Word's
                        features

My conclusion is that while Word is a powerful program that has many
features that commend its use as a document preparation system, it also
has drawbacks and one of these is the complexity that provides several
alternative ways of performing almost any task.  Once an operation is
completed and is not as desired, it becomes a forensic job to deduce
what has been done, and Herculean challenge to undo or correct it.

Word is fashionable,  but it is largely fashionable because it is a
fashion.  The nature of fashion is to change, and Word changes at a
whim with each release.  Whatever the merits of its features, it seems
they are not grounded in a coherent philosophy.
\end{Article}
\endinput



R. Allan Reese                         Email: r.a.reese@ucc.hull.ac.uk
Head of Applications, Computer Centre  Direct voice:    +44 1482 465296 
Hull University                        Voice messages:  +44 1482 465685
Hull HU6 7RX,  U.K.                    Fax:             +44 1482 466441

