Specs in MS Word

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Tom Heineman Posted on Wednesday, May 17, 2000 - 04:52 pm:    Having tried to use Word instead of WordPerfect to write in the highly formatted CSI style, I find it hard to hold Word still while I think. It is always slipping out from under me, and doing what IT wants. Needless to say, it cuts productivity 50%. Has anyone in Microsoft or CSI or SCIP ever come up with a guide to settings that make MS Word efficient for composing specs? Tracy Van Niel Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2000 - 10:07 am:    Tom: Our office standardized on Word when the version was Word 5 and we had no choice but to convert from WordPerfect at that time. We are currently using Word 2000. When converting from WordPerfect to Word 5, one of our admin people created a "spec" toolbar with a series of macros based on "styles" to format text into the different levels of formatting (Part 1, 1.1, A, 1, a, etc.), as well as a macro for creating a "blank" line. The toolbar and its macros then become part of our "normal.dot" file. The spec formatting macros work well for us, but we have found that when Word was upgraded to 97 and especially when the 2000 update occurred, the macros created in a previous Word version had to be revised. Hope this helps. Tracy Van Niel ancspecs Posted on Thursday, May 18, 2000 - 07:35 pm:    Tracy: We've been struggling with the conversion. We've graduated to WordPerfect 9.0 and Word 2000. To your knowledge is there a firm that creates macros similar to (Arcom) MasterWorks for the conversion in the US or Canada? It'd save us a lot of time. Gerard Sanchis John Regener Posted on Friday, May 19, 2000 - 02:38 am:    I am seriously considering upgrading to WordPerfect 9.0 and trying the voice control features. Has anyone had experience with file conversions between WordPerfect 9.0 and MS Word 2000? How do they work, from and to each other? /John Regener Colin Gilboy (Colin) Posted on Tuesday, May 23, 2000 - 06:51 pm:    I suggest you ask David Stutzman to comment on this. He prepares the SpecText documents in WP and Word. He writes the macros for Word Perfect and uses a consultant for Word. I am sending him a copy of this URL for his input. Tracy Van Niel Posted on Wednesday, May 24, 2000 - 01:30 pm:    Gerard: When we converted from WordPerfect it was a DOS version, so not only did we have a learning curve of WordPerfect to Word, but we also had a learning curve of just going from a DOS environment to a Windows environment!! I am not aware of a company that markets itself as being capable of creating the macros that you need. Our computer consultant at the time couldn't figure out how to get "Part" in front of the 1, 2, and 3 and one of our admin people who was a whiz at Word was the one to figure that out. It is very true that conversion from one program to the other is very time consuming. We usually have at least one co-workers high school offspring working at our office over the summer, and the year we converted from WordPerfect to Word, that was one of the "jobs" assigned to them. Richard Gonser Posted on Thursday, May 25, 2000 - 11:00 am:    Has any of this group tried using outline levels with linked styles in Word 97? I've been using this relatively simple non-macro process to some degree of success. It just requires some formatting of the multi-level outline system. Any thoughts? Tracy Van Niel Posted on Tuesday, June 06, 2000 - 03:19 pm:    Richard: I think the macros I'm talking about and the outline levels with linked styles you refer to are the same. Our macros are based on styles that have been modified for the specific article headings that we want to use. We then created a "spec" toolbar that contains all of the formatting macros. Previously, the biggest problem was getting the "Part" in front of the 1, 2, and 3. I suppose for my firm it's probably a "moot" point because we are in the process of converting to SpecLink and will not be using Word for specifications once that process is complete! Tracy Van Niel Richard Gonser Posted on Thursday, June 08, 2000 - 11:10 am:    Tracy: I've been very interested in this SpecLink. Could you share your thoughts on it's application? Are you using the new 32-bit version? One of the weaknesses I've seen is doing schedules. The other is the lack of graphic capability. (We are collectively going in that direction whether we want to or not.) What of hyper-linking with referred to manufacturers? Tracy Van Niel Posted on Thursday, June 15, 2000 - 02:50 pm:    Richard: The 32-bit version won't be released until sometime this Fall so we are using the original version at the present time. Some of the questions you have raised, I can't really answer. We do not incorporate graphics into our specification sections so if the program is lacking in being able to support graphics, then it doesn't have much meaning to us. If we need to incorporate graphics at all in the project manual, they are usually generated in a program other than Word and the sheets are inserted in the correct place. Regarding schedules, we currently have not been having problems with incorporating schedules because the way we do it so to have a series of paragraphs. If your schedule is set up as a table, then I can see how that might be a problem. I would suggest contacting BSD's support to ask that question because I have found them to be extremely helpful and always available! The sections currently do not have hyperlinking with manufacturers (I assume you are referring to a link to the manufacturer's website?). Before we made the switch to SpecLink, I called several companies who were using it and almost every one of them said that they used it as it came "out of the box". Our firm has been going through a conversion process, which has been a very prolonged (and sometimes painful) process because it's being fit in around project deadlines. But, because we want to incorporate our "isms" into the SpecLink text (and in some cases prepare brand new sections due to our markets served), our conversion has been taking a long time to do. I have found SpecLink to be easy to use and have been able to learn the basics of functioning within the program on my own without attending one of the training sessions. Attending a training session would probably be good though to learn all of the nuances involved. If you're going to the CSI convention, you might want to stop by BSD's booth (they typically exhibit)and ask some of the questions you posed. I would be interested in hearing their solution to a table type schedule. Tracy Van Niel Dave Stutzman Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2000 - 05:57 pm:    For an example of using Word outline feature with linked styles check out the sample sections from SPECTEXT at www.spectext.com. You can download the samples and try them. We are faced with conversions between WordPerfect and Word all the time. We find that moving from WordPerfect to Word is the easier of the two. However, converting styles into Word requires cleanup to correct and reapply the styles so the auto numbering works right. Tom Heineman Posted on Monday, October 30, 2000 - 02:52 pm:    It seems from what has been said that "PART" is an obstacle. I never write "section" in front of the 5-digit number referring to a section any more. So why are we still writing "PART" after 30 years? CSI revisers of the MoP and SectionFormat take note. I see some specs that just number 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, etc. It's perfectly clear. If morons are permitted to read your spec, I suggest a simple statement up in Division 1 that 1, 2 and 3 refer to GENERAL, PRODUCTS and EXECUTION as described in CSI SectionFormat. Tom Heineman Posted on Monday, October 30, 2000 - 03:10 pm:    Afterthought: Another way is to just type in PRODUCTS on a line of its own when starting the 2.1, 2.2 series. And the same for the other two PARTS. When writng shortform for printing directly on the drawings I find the 1.1, 1.2, 2.1 etc. sufficient. Space is at a premium there. Since there are 50,000 preparers of specs in the US, and probably 450,000 readers, why doesn't SCIP suggest to Microsoft that the CSI format be included on the MS formats menu along with the 5th Grade/college stylebook, legal, legislative, US govt, and other outlining methods? Too many people are spinning too many wheels on a format that was Sliced Bread 30 years ago, but that is due to be streamlined just a little to work well with Word and WordPerfect, and possibly minimize conversion problems in the bargain. Gerard Sanchis Posted on Monday, December 04, 2000 - 11:01 pm:    6 moths later and we've finished the conversion to Word. It's not perfect yet but getting close. We've created a series of templates that automatically format a spec section based on our own format or any of our client's format. The conversion was helped by the fact that we all took classes at a local college, and that we are lucky to have hired a word fearless word processor. She made it easy on all of us after a few tries. We're now up and running and it's made our work easier with our client who are all using Word, with few exceptions. You might want to follow the same approach, that is to use custom templates to format your documents. John Regener Posted on Tuesday, December 05, 2000 - 12:31 pm:    Gerard: Let me get this conversion thing straight. You converted from a word processing program that did everything that you wanted it to do? Or, are there distinct advantages (such as "templates" or "styles") that make the conversion an enhancement to your productivity? You and your staff invested in a very substantial learning process to make a word processing program, that some say is difficult to use in the outline format that we write in, work for specifications production. Besides the ability to exchange files with your clients and project Owners and Construction Managers, in the native format of MS Word, what is the advantage? Do mechanical and electrical engineers now provide you with better specs that you can readily reformat for project-specific headers and footers? Why should a specifier give a client specifications files in a word processing format (Word or WordPerfect) rather than Adobe Acrobat (.pdf)? Is it to make it easier for the Owner or Construction Manager to modify the specs? What if there is no word processing program involved with production of the specs? That would be the case if BSD SpecLink is used. But you don't have to take me seriously. Afterall, I'm still driving an '83 Volvo with 271,000 miles that I bought new. ... and I'm still not convinced that indoor plumbing is more than a passing fad ;-). Alan Stein Posted on Thursday, June 14, 2001 - 09:55 am:    I have quit buying updates to programs when the only evident purpose of the program updates is the publisher's bottom line. MS Word 2000 is clearly in that category. In my work as a general contractor, many years ago, I found I spent considerable time and money photocopying specification sections for subcontractors in bidding projects. The photocopies often came out unclear because they were copies of copies ofcopies of...from the architects. I asked two architects if they would provide disks instead of books. They both said they were SURE I would edit their specs in order to cheat the owners on materials or methods. Is that really done? Tom Heineman Posted on Friday, June 15, 2001 - 09:25 am:    Alan, I have not heard of it. In read-only there would be no problem. Come back to the same architects in 2 years and you will find that they have joined their colleagues in isuing everything electronically - without fear of moonlight editing. Lynn Javoroski Posted on Friday, June 15, 2001 - 11:57 am:    The only people I've heard talking about the specs being altered if on a disc are those generating the specs. Burn a CD instead. At least then you'd have proof of the original. Bottom line, of course, is that anything can be altered if someone wants to bad enough. Just as it could be changed 50 years, 100 years ago, if someone wanted to bad enough. Maintaining a "permanent" original would seem to be the answer. Reid Pierre Condit New member Username: pierre Post Number: 1 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 03:29 pm:    Having applied several wordprocessing programs over the past 20 plus years in order to obtain automatic alpha-numeric outlining in the CSI 3-part format, I have recently been faced with having to do so using WORD 2000. Learning the program by osmosis and with reference to a Sybex-published manual, with great effort I was able in late spring to produce my first set of specs with fully automated CSI outline sections in WORD 2000. Now my challenge is develop a set of masters from this project and others, but in order to do so, I will want to establish a master style format which can be applied directly to new projects or easily modified to suit the preferences of various public sector owners. My solution to this problem, using WORD 2000, has been, section by section, to redefine a style associated with a particular outline level, rename that style using WORD's "Organizer", and then save the redefined and renamed style under a new template name. While this procedure avoids reformating a section paragraph by paragraph by using WORD's "paint brush", it does require modifying the outline styles in each section. Can anyone suggest a better method or does anyone have an idea what would be required to develop a macro or wizard within WORD to perform such conversions? I assume this is not a problem for those whose masters derive from SpecText, MasterSpec, or SpecLink, and, given their editing tools, I am tempted to recommend acquisition of one of those systems, but not yet. Ronald L. Geren, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 17 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 03:45 pm:    Reid: I work with MasterSpec and they have an excellent paragraph numbering and style setup. To save some trouble, obtain any MasterSpec document which has their paragraph styles. Delete the contents and save the document as a template. The next time you want to create a new section, open a new document using the template. All the paragraph styles will be there. To even simplify things further, you can save in the template file the Section Title, footers, PARTS, and even a paragraph in each PART. You can use the "increase indent" and "decrease indent" toolbar buttons to apply paragraph numbering levels. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 151 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 04:15 pm:    This thread is in the wrong location, but maybe Colin can move it into the computers area. Reid. You should read up on Word's template features. If you have an existing Word document that requires the reformatting, you should first import all the pre-defined styles from your template into the document to be formatted, using the organizer. Then you can assign the styles to each paragraph. There is no easy way to do this on an automated basis, however, since most paragraphs in a typical spec are the "A." type (that is, one level below an article title) I usually select the entire document and assign all paragraphs to that style. Then go back and change the ones that need to be. Another frequently required step, done before assigning styles, is to strip out all bad-practice formatting, such as extra paragaph marks, stray tabs, etc. My techniques for this involve repeated, carefully planned use of the find and replace command. Sometimes I'll even replace with a 'dummy' character temporarily, and then go back and take the dummy out, again with find and replace. All in all, there's not macro that can easily do this because the starting conditions vary a lot. However, if you use these types of techniques, no more than an hour or two should be required. Reid Pierre Condit Junior Member Username: pierre Post Number: 2 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Friday, October 24, 2003 - 08:18 pm:    Thanks for the rapid responses. Allow me to comment on both in order. First, Ronald: Yes, in the course of figuring out how to apply WORD's customized outline feature, I discovered the beautifully formatted Arcat specs which are readily available on the Arcat site. I would guess this formating is similar to, if not the same as, what is used by MasterSpec. The SpecText equivalent can be gleaned from the sample spec available on its site although that template I first found in the section of a civil consultant whose wordprocessor was, I think, unaware that one of the sections emailed to me was based on a SpecText template whose styles were not actually being applied in the section. BTW, it is possible to print out the specs for such styles by qualifying the print command to print "styles" rather than "document." Having the styles spec in hand can be very useful in modifying or correcting them. Nevertheless, although time-consuming, learning how to customize an outline on my own has been a useful exercise and consulting the MicroSoft website several months back revealed that there are some glitches in WORD's outline applications which can be frustrating if you are unaware of them. I recommend looking at the MicroSoft site. There is, or at least was, also to be found there a 25-page paper on how WORD deals with numbers in general. John: I can understand why a macro might be troublesome due to "starting conditions," but my assumption is that I am starting from sections perfectly formatted from a clean template and free from unknown styles or unwanted tabs. SpecText appears to offer macros such as Font Format Tool and Paragraph Indenter Tool which function in the way I envision. I would imagine MasterWorks offers similar features, but I don't have access to them either. With regard to the Organizer, I realize it can be used to import styles, but it is just as simple, if not easier, it seems to me, to import styles by applying in a couple of strokes a template which contains the wanted styles and then, using the Organizer, deleting the unwanted which remain from the previous template. . . Thanks for the tip about using select all and changing all styles to the A-para. level and proceeding from there, using the increase and decrease indent command. That's a great idea and brings to mind how I made WordPerfect work for me over 15 years ago. I could not understand why something that I had done so long ago using WordPefect should be so difficult today using WORD, but then again, figuring out how to apply the automatic outlining potential of WordPerfect (probably) 4.1 at that time was not so easy either. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 152 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, October 27, 2003 - 08:50 am:    Reid, you are right about attaching templates. I have used that technique extensively as well, though for other publications than specs. Works fantastically if you want to make a global change for an entire batch of documents - just open up the document and the change is done. Outline numbering in Word is notoriously tricky. I probably spent a full week studying it and learning its ins-and-outs. Microsoft's site is probably the least useful. I found some other sites, such as MS Word MVP FAQ site and Woody's Office Watch, that have much more thorough discussions about LISTNUM, which is the Word feature in question. One other tip, which you, Reid, may have figured out but could be useful to others: to clean up a file thoroughly, the best method is to start with a blank document (can be based upon your spec template if desired). Open the file to be cleaned, select all text (ctrl-a) and copy it. Use "Edit/Paste Special/Unformatted Text" to paste into the new document. All formatting is stripped in this process, and no old or "broken" styles will come across. You are then free to properly format. Helaine K. Robinson CCS Senior Member Username: hollyrob Post Number: 16 Registered: 07-2003 Posted on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 - 05:28 pm:    Here is a current link to David Lorenzini's article "Unlock the Power of Word" in the online archives of The Construction Specifier: http://old.csinet.org/xp/p-cs/i-2002030101/a-1018966289/article.view William H.Carey, CCS (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 01:57 pm:    We have Windows XP and have recently moved to MS Word 2003. Now we are having problems with styles and templates. Anyone else having this problem? David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 428 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 03:31 pm:    William, What sort of problems are you having? John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 339 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 03:37 pm:    I have XP plus Office 2003 at home, and have occasionally edited ARCOM MasterSpec specifications there without any difficulty, including the use of Masterworks. That's not to say that I like all of the new features of Word 2003, however. Nevertheless, I will adapt: "resistance is futile" Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 27 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 03:57 pm:    I'm, no expert, but I had some issues when I switched to Word 2003. A couple of things happened. There was a conflict between Word 2003 and Adobe Acrobat 6. When I upgraded to 6.0.3(free at the adobe site) the problems were alot less frequent. Also had some formatting and style issues. Once again it seems like Microsoft wants to "help" you more than you need to be helped. I can't remember exactly what I did, but, Tools, Options, Edit helps. Go to the area titled "Cut and Paste Options". Uncheck "Show Paste Options Button". I found this "helpful" item to be completely annoying and distracting. Then check the box next to "Smart Cut and Paste", click the settings button and play with the settings there. I have the following boxes checked from top to bottom...1, 3, 4, 5, 7. No guarantees, but hope it helps. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 340 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 05:02 pm:    Don, you are absolutely correct about Microsoft offering more help than you need. Those are the exact issues that drive me most nuts with new releases. The shortcut or easy way to do a few things invariably gets longer. For example, creating styles is now more complex than before (I can't figure out how to update a style by example--used to be able to just put the cursor in the style drop down and hit enter). Previous versions of word years back were very simple to create styles. Office 2000 you have to work your way down several layers of dialog boxes. Newest version--I have not yet mastered. William H. Carey CCS (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 04:32 pm:    We have had several projects recently where we are the consultant with the necessity of conforming to a variety of formats. What I am hearing from the word processing people is that the modifications are made and saved. Next time the Section is called up it has reverted to previous condition. David Stutzman Senior Member Username: david_stutzman Post Number: 38 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 06:12 pm:    William It sounds as though you have a template attached to your files with the option set to update the file from the template when the file is opened. You can change this from the Tools/Templates and Add-Ins menu and deselecting the automatically update checkbox. Save the document after making this change. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 51 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 12:48 pm:    I have been making extensive use of MSWord for several years now including the outline and template features without a lot of headaches (except for documents from outside sources--owners, manufacturers--that do not use such features). This is what MasterSpec uses these feathures in their Word documents and it works quite well. You need to include the MasterSpec style names with your style names (separate with a comma). When you copy a MasterSpec document into your project template, everything is updated to the new style and template. I also use the "Properties" dialog box and put the Section number in the "Title" field and the Section title in the "Subject" field. I then insert the appropriate fields in the document itself (first page, header, footer, etc.; depends on format being used). If you turn on "Update Fields" in Print Options, these will update automatically when you print. I also use Outlook to list the directory where my specs are located. I include the "Title" and "Subject" fields and print to a .pdf file which I then convert to Word. All my titles and numbers are then consistent. If I remember correctly, Dave Lorenzini's article used similar techniques. I have experiemented with ARCOM's MasterWorks tools to accomplish the same thing, but like the way that my procedure ties everything together. Use of templates and styles will allow certain types of changes to be made late in the game (type face, margins, numbering style, etc.) without significant effort; change the template, then load up.