Your millage may vary.

I found that I could get it to work, but it would blow up, either on me 
at a future date, or on someone else when they opened the file, and I 
would have to go and fix it.


Jon Harvey wrote:
> I don't use the latest version of Word but Word 2003 had a pretty good,
> and reliable autonumbering method. Unfortunately, you had to know how to
> fumble through the poorly designed interface and even more poorly
> documented method for setting it up. I used it to successfully create a
> numbering scheme that was six levels deep (X.X.X.X.X.X) with figures and
> tables in a guide that was more than 150 pages. I was also able to
> revise the guide and the numbering would automatically update for me.
> I'll be the first on this list to say that Microsoft's approach to
> autonumbering is absolutely screwy; but, at least it did work in Word
> 2003.
> Jon Harvey
> Manager, Desktop Documentation
> CambridgeSoft Corporation
> 100 CambridgePark Drive
> Cambridge, MA 02140
> (617) 588-9354
> -----Original Message-----
> From: framers-bounces at
> [mailto:framers-bounces at] On Behalf Of
> quills at
> Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 1:22 PM
> To: generic668 at
> Cc: framers at; Martinek, Carla; Saunders, Ian
> Subject: Re: Any up to date comparisons of Word and Frame
> I have used Word 2007. They tried to fix what wasn't broken. And no, 
> they didn't fix either the numbering system or multi-file operations. 
> It's still oriented toward smaller documents with less complexity.
> I also would avoid it for any XML work. My preference, but their past 
> history of munging HTML files in export doesn't inspire trust.
> Their new GUI isn't intuitive, The use of icons isn't effective as they 
> don't describe all things for all people. There is a very steep learning
> curve, and a lot of frustration. Since they don't use menus you can't 
> refer to things easily for keyboard access to dialogs. You basically 
> have to find MS's own help listing of keyboard equivalents, and then 
> memorize them. It's not user friendly.
> Scott

Reply via email to