Michael Adams wrote:
On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 08:34 -0600, Barbara Duprey wrote:
Brian Barker wrote:
At 16:52 07/01/2010 -0500, James Lockie wrote:
I have a grey background in my table. I can't see why it is there.
Maybe someone can explain how to get rid of it.
It appears that table backgrounds can be set for cells, rows, or
entire tables. Here, the background is for the table. Go to Table |
Table Properties... | Background (or right-click | Table... |
Background). If for "For" you select Cell or Row, you will see No
Fill selected, but if you select Table for "For", you will see that
the background colour for the entire table is "Gray 20%". Select No
Fill there (as you have now discovered).
On 07/01/10 17:28 -0600, Barbara Duprey wrote:
Harold Fuchs wrote:
The background for the table is set to blue/grey even though it says
"No Fill". To overcome it:
* Select the table
* Menu: Table > Table Properties > Background
* in the colour palette, click the white box (row 2, col 6)
* click OK
* Done
HTH
This sets the background to white, which isn't exactly the same as
"No fill". But if on that same dialog, you select the Table option of
the "For" field, and then click on No fill, the shading goes away. It
is peculiar, though -- my first attempt was to do the same thing you
did, then click on No fill -- and the shading came back!
This is understandable. If you select the whole table and then change
the background for Cell or Row to White, this will override the
existing table background. If you the cancel this by setting the same
parameter to No Fill, the table background colour will again show
through.
At 21:04 07/01/2010 -0500, James Lockie wrote:
Is that considered a bug?
I don't think so. It makes sense to me that cell formatting overrides
row formatting, which in turn overrides table formatting. It does
mean that if you format an entire row using cell formatting or an
entire table using cell or row formatting, the current row or table
formatting will be hidden.
I trust this helps.
Brian Barker
Thanks for providing a logical explanation for this behavior -- it also
explains why the scope for the For field does not include both row and
column, which was puzzling me. After all, there's no clear hierarchy
between rows and columns.
I still have no clue, though, as to why a cell should potentially have
three different background colors!
Rather than three different background colours consider it as three
different ways to set the background.
How could this be useful?
Consider if you wish to set the table background to Yellow, the heading
row and columns to Green and the 1st cell (R1C1) to black as it is
empty. You get this.
+-+-+-+
|B|G|G|
+-+-+-+
|G|Y|Y|
+-+-+-+
|G|Y|Y|
+-+-+-+
If I'm understanding this, you're saying (leaving out some keystrokes
for simplicity) to
* Select the table.
* Get to the Background tab, set the scope to Table if it isn't
already, and select yellow.
* Select the heading row.
* Get to the Background tab, set the scope to Row, and select green.
* Select a heading column.
* Get to the Background tab, set the scope to Cell (there is no
Column), and select green.
* Select the first cell.
* Get to the Background tab, check that the scope is still Cell, and
select black (overriding its column color in the Cell scope).
So far, I'd have done the same, except leaving the scope at Table.
You decide the black cell is to dark and detracts from the visual
appeal. Thus you set the cell to no fill. The hierarchy of cell
background colours decides which of the other background colours should
occupy that cell.
Here the Cell scope is being used again. Setting the cell to "no fill"
will make it go to green (overriding its previous black Cell level
setting) because ts prior Row level setting is green. But in my
scenario, since I know I want that cell green, I'd just select it and
set Green as its color (still at Table scope).
Now suppose I wanted to use different colors for the heading row and the
heading column -- say, blue for the heading column instead of green. The
first cell has yellow at the Table level, green at the Row level, and
black (overriding blue) at the Cell level. Setting the Cell level to
no-fill turns the cell green -- but I really wanted blue, the color it
had until I changed it to black. I have to remember all the level
settings to predict the color, and realize that I'll have to set the
cell color to blue again, not no-fill. Or, in my scenario, I'd just
select the cell and set it to blue (still at the Table scope)
Now, let's say that I've decided that instead of black, I really want
that first cell transparent (maybe to pick up my page background color,
which I haven't settled on yet). Oops! Now I have to select the cell,
set the scope to Table, and select no-fill, then set the scope to Row,
and select no-fill, before my no-fill at the Cell level takes effect as
I wanted. Or, in my scenario, select the cell and set it to no-fill (I'm
staying in Table scope throughout).
I'd really rather that no-fill simply meant "make my selection fully
transparent" -- which is what I'd guess most people expect, anyway.
Sorry, I still don't see how having different background colors for the
same cell at different levels really helps anything. It's more
keystrokes for setup (changing the scope), and to get true transparency,
besides being confusing as to row/column handling. The scoping actually
interfered with my intended setting both for my blue column and for true
transparency.
It would seem straightforward just to set your selections and then a single color
(or no-fill transparency, to accommodate the use of colored or
watermarked page backgrounds). If this layering is actually useful, it
would be nice if it defaulted to be compatible with the current
selection area -- that is, to Table if the whole table is selected, for
example.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
