Unfortunately, where I work, this feature is used heavily ( and yest it is really, really annoying) but is considered a must have for our environment.
Bobby Kneisel Owner KTech Solutions [email protected] 614.398.0999 On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Jay Lozier <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/19/2012 04:09 AM, Tom Davies wrote: > >> Hi :) >> imo both, or all 3. >> >> A few people that i share documents with have been persuaded into >> installing or already have OpenOffice or LO. I have installed LO on all >> the machines at work. People generally remain MS users but every once in a >> while they find documents open in LO. >> >> My own documents on the office network are in ODF and when i get time to >> update internal documents i try to switch them to ODF if there is time and >> if the documents are likely to be used again soon. It's usually best done >> by starting a fresh document and copy&pasting unformattted text in and then >> reformatting. People often make a hopeless mess and do weird things quite >> erratically. A fresh start helps normalise them and since they are done on >> LO less craziness jumps in randomly. >> >> When i need to share with people outside the office i use "Save As ..." >> to create a "98/2000/Xp" (= .doc) and if i have time i create a Pdf for >> them. It doesn't take long and often impresses people. If they need a >> printable version i make the Pdf with lossless compression. >> >> The "track changes" thing is far too advanced for most office workers i >> know of. When i tried to get people into it they complained that all the >> red crossings out and different colours was all toooo confusing. >> > I have never seen anyone use this feature in MSO (or LO). IMHO most people > find the it confusing or annoying. What seemed to work best for most > collaborative documents was to have one person be responsible for final > edits after getting input from all the others and the other participants be > responsible for a section of the document. > > >> Generally i think bug-reports are worked on to make LO better in it's own >> right but that a LOT of effort goes into trying to pander to the needs of >> MS users that people share with. Hopefully as LO usage continues to >> increase exponentially it continues to become easier to share ODFs. Then >> the need to try to follow MS's whims will decrease naturally. >> >> I still think it's more important to get LO out there first, or AOO or >> any other program that uses ODF as it's native format. ODF uptake is 2nd, >> for me. It seems to be working well that way, for me. >> >> It would be interesting to hear other people's thoughts or experiences. >> Regards from >> Tom :) >> >> >> >> >> >> ______________________________**__ >>> From: e-letter <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> Sent: Wednesday, 19 December 2012, 8:26 >>> Subject: [libreoffice-users] record changes weakness compared to m$ >>> >>> Readers, >>> >>> Have done a bug report on both LO and AOO, about the 'changes' feature >>> of the word processor. (It's excellent that there are multiple >>> products available to produce ODF files, but I digress). There are >>> many bugs concerning this feature, which is surprising. >>> >>> In the typical collaborative environment, the superior functionality >>> of m$ "track changes" makes the possibility to use LO unrealistic. >>> >>> Suppose LO is used to create an original odt document (the preferred >>> option of course). When that file is distributed to m$ users, the >>> functionality of 'changes' in LO will probably be considered to be >>> weak and people will be justified to ask: "please send an m$ word >>> document". >>> >>> What is the experience of others distributing odt documents to m$ users? >>> >>> Alternatively, the "realpolitik" option is to use LO to create an m$ >>> word document, but as commented before, such an option merely >>> perpetuates the proliferation of m$ at the direct cost to odf. >>> >>> Which leads to the next question: is the priority to improve the >>> feature of LO such that 'changes' in odt format is superior to 'track >>> changes' in m$ and that when odt documents are distributed, m$ users >>> can perform simple tasks such as recording document changes? >>> >>> Or is the priority for LO to be compatible with m$, so that m$ word >>> continues to be the de facto standard? >>> >>> -- >>> LO35 >>> >>> -- >>> For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: [email protected].** >>> org <users%[email protected]> >>> Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/**get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-** >>> unsubscribe/<http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/> >>> Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.**documentfoundation.org/** >>> Netiquette <http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette> >>> List archive: >>> http://listarchives.**libreoffice.org/global/users/<http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/> >>> All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be >>> deleted >>> >>> >>> >>> > > -- > Jay Lozier > [email protected] > > > > -- > For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: [email protected].** > org <users%[email protected]> > Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/**get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-** > unsubscribe/<http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/> > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.**documentfoundation.org/** > Netiquette <http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette> > List archive: > http://listarchives.**libreoffice.org/global/users/<http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/> > All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be > deleted > > -- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
