Word or PDF for Specs Online

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

Author Message Colin Gilboy Senior Member Username: colin Post Number: 340 Registered: 09-2005 Posted on Friday, April 26, 2013 - 09:06 am:    This has been hashed over before and i just received this from an advertiser. My requirements for a specs icon is that the specs be available in Word. Your comments and suggestions please. "Regarding the specs, we have moved away from providing word docs as they can be edited by the end user, relinquishing control of our data. We were advised by several firms that PDFs are safer as they can’t be edited, and that the architect needs the raw data. "They also recommended placing the specs as an HTML page: For all our architectural [xxx] specs, we built them into each products page. For example, go to [xxx] At the bottom of the page is a lick titled “Technical Data & Installation Guide”. Click on that, and it slides open to reveal our specs. If you copy & past those, the formatting remains. So in a nutshell, we have all the specs ready to go for all [xxx] products. (My sense is you’ll see less folks posting editable Word docs in the near future.)" Colin Gilboy Publisher, 4specs.com 435.654.5775 - Utah 800.369.8008 Margaret G. Chewning FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: presbspec Post Number: 234 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, April 26, 2013 - 09:25 am:    AS one who works alot in SpecsIntact and often my clients will require a section that is not contained in the UFGS, I find the Word documents from manufacturer's easier to work with than PDF's in obtaining the desired information for my section. Also any specifier who uses a manufacturer's spec verbatim without modifying it for the project is looking for trouble. Besides, a PDF is no guaranty that changes can't be made unless they are locked. Which presents a problem in its self. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 639 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, April 26, 2013 - 09:34 am:    Really, "relinquishing control"? Apparently, the advertiser hasn't heard of optical character recognition, and isn't aware that anyone can key in the information that appears in the pdf. If they offer the information on a web page, and suggest the user copy and paste from there, what's the difference? To answer the question, I would like to see the specs icon if the specs are available in any format. Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 103 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Friday, April 26, 2013 - 09:45 am:    I choose Word or rtf if I'm given choices among those, PDF, and HTML. Funny that they think I'd use the document unedited. Maybe their products do not have any options, though, or they have provided a section for every possible combination. Even for a sole-source product, all I copy from a manufacturer's specs are paragraphs or subparagraphs at a time. (Not even a whole article, usually.) Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate Senior Member Username: lynn_javoroski Post Number: 1633 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, April 26, 2013 - 10:10 am:    An rtf format would be more universal, but the ideas that (1) you can't alter a pdf and (2) that a spec writer wouldn't edit are laughable. I agree with Sheldon; I really want to know if specs are available. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 583 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Friday, April 26, 2013 - 10:10 am:    Colin, Advertiser said "Regarding the specs, we have moved away from providing word docs as they can be edited by the end user, relinquishing control of our data. Of course we have to edit the word docs because the format in some cases is from another planet that has not heard of Masterformat nor Section format. Stupid is as stupid does. Text usually is not streamlined nor abbreviated. What we really want is the Part 2 information. If they want us to use their specs they should be useable out of the box. CSI has a certification program for manufacturers specs. My choices for format are *.dox and *.rtf. Pdf ranks last. I encounter many *.pdf files where OCR will not work. I am not a world class typist, let alone an all city typist. Any format that permits cut and paste is for me. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 977 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Friday, April 26, 2013 - 10:28 am:    I use manufacturer's specifications for reference only. PDF is preferred. On most projects these days we reference Manufacturer's Installation Instructions, which are included in the Submittals and 80% of the time manufacturer's specifications are attached. Let the free for all begin ladies and gentleman. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 1111 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, April 26, 2013 - 10:34 am:    Ditto, Sheldon and Lynn. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Robert W. Johnson Senior Member Username: robert_w_johnson Post Number: 232 Registered: 03-2009 Posted on Friday, April 26, 2013 - 10:45 am:    In agreement with those above: - Word or rtf. - No experienced specifier will use a manufacturer's spec verbatim. John McGrann Senior Member Username: jmcgrann Post Number: 100 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, April 26, 2013 - 11:36 am:    I’m not particularly concerned with format since my practice is to use manufacturer specifications much like other product data; as reference material to create my own document. I don’t copy much if anything directly in order to preserve and maintain overall consistency of format and voice. It’s usually faster just to type in what I need. The only time I believe it appropriate to use manufacturer-generated specifications directly are when the product or assembly is being provided as part of a design-build package where the manufacturer bears responsibility for the design. Even then I expect some level of coordination (not that I always get it). John T. McGrann, Jr., AIA, CSI, CCS, LEED AP J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 557 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, April 26, 2013 - 11:48 am:    The comment "relinquish control" reveals a lack of understanding about the architect's role in producing construction documents. It is the architect who is responsible for product selection and specification. I am with Mr. McGrann on this one. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1347 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Friday, April 26, 2013 - 04:23 pm:    agree with all the other folks -- a manufacturer's spec is reference material. I've found even if the spec is in Word, if I try to copy any of the information (like product, model name and number) the formating gets all messed up anyway if I try to import it. PDF is just fine. I'm not saying PDF because the text so gosh-darned exclusive and important. If I REALLY wanted to copy verbatim some manufacturer's spec, I could do it in any number of ways. and Peter is right on the money: if the manufacturer is concerned about "control" then they probably shouldn't be trying to sell a product -- or at least not selling it to a subcontractor. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 506 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Monday, April 29, 2013 - 12:04 pm:    Agree with the rest of the postings. Manufacturer needs some educating. At least they're willing to put something that may be useful on their website instead of just a bunch of marketing fluff. Test reports in PDF is fine. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1501 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, April 30, 2013 - 10:45 am:    Even if you were willing to use the manufacturer's spec as is (I'm just saying), you wouldn't even be able to put the project name in the header in a PDF. Or select from the handful of options that they may offer. If they don't want to give out Word specs, then they should skip the spec altogether and just give complete, accessible, and well-organized product data. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 509 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, April 30, 2013 - 11:28 am:    Agreed John. Actually, that would be preferable for those of us who won't use their specs. Ann G. Baker, RA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP, LEED AP BD+C Member Username: ann Post Number: 3 Registered: 03-2013 Posted on Tuesday, April 30, 2013 - 07:11 pm:    Manufacturers specs as pdf's do me very little good - I'll find another manufacturer to use. Chris Grimm, CSI, CCS, SCIPa, LEED AP BD+C, MAI, RLA Senior Member Username: tsugaguy Post Number: 282 Registered: 06-2005 Posted on Tuesday, May 07, 2013 - 12:02 am:    the notion that it would not require editing is contrary to the term SPECIFCation. or perhaps this mfr makes a one size fits all widget that cures all construction evils. my list in order of preference: 1. "catalog cut" / product data from the design team with options marked. (whatever happened to the 10-point format for product datasheets by the way? the ones that are still around are excellent) 2. mfr spec in any format, from the design team with options marked. May accompany #1. (as others have said, document formatting is inconsistent, contains useless information, and numerous products. That is why product data is often more useful than a mfr spec.) 3. mfr spec with changes to the master marked (e.g. Product MasterSpec) so we can see how the mfr compares with others. 4. BPM document master in e-SPECS (doesn't have changes marked from a master). 5. Word (.rtf, .docx, .doc). 6. Html. 7. PDF.(Can't copy without manual line breaks - unless OCR works; still has to be pasted as unformatted text and reformatted a paragraph at a time.) 8. A post-it note from designer with mfr and product name, model#, options, 2 other mfrs. 9. A note on a napkin with mfr and product name. 10. Email # 23464 added to my inbox containing a list of partially answered questions and among them is a request to add product x with no explanation. 11. Email blasts and newsletters added to my junk mail with random marketing information. Richard Hird (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, May 08, 2013 - 10:17 am:    Ann Suggest you look into programs that OCR a pdf. It easier to OCR a pdf and reformat the file than to fix screwed up formating that comes with WORD. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 643 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, May 08, 2013 - 10:50 am:    Give it a rest, Richard! John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1502 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, May 08, 2013 - 04:40 pm:    I don't think fixing an OCR document is easier than fixing a Word document. OCR-processed docs also require fixing spelling errors, which are generally numerous. If you want to strip out formatting from a Word document and start over: type CTRL-A, CTRL-shift-N, CTRL-Q, CTRL-space. et voila, no more formatting. (If you are unfamiliar with these commands, this performs the following: selects the entire document, make all paragraphs normal style, remove applied paragraph formatting, remove applied character formatting.) Note: will not remove extra paragraph marks, though these would be abundant in an OCR-processed document, too. D. Marshall Fryer, CSI, CCS, CCCA, Assoc. AIA Senior Member Username: dmfryer Post Number: 81 Registered: 09-2003 Posted on Wednesday, May 08, 2013 - 05:08 pm:    I'm not a Word user, but presuming that Word still allows you to create macros you could create one with the four commands indicated above, followed by a step that searches for all double paragraph returns and replaces them with single returns. I have used a similar process successfully in Wordperfect. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1503 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Friday, May 10, 2013 - 02:27 pm:    You could create the macro easily. But since manually typing them takes less than five seconds, the time needed to build the macro may never pay off. D. Marshall Fryer, CSI, CCS, CCCA, Assoc. AIA Senior Member Username: dmfryer Post Number: 82 Registered: 09-2003 Posted on Friday, May 10, 2013 - 02:35 pm:    You are correct, John. It is only if you want to add the search and replace for double paragraph returns that the macro starts to be a time saver. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 584 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Friday, May 10, 2013 - 02:52 pm:    Regardless of whether I recieve a spec in Word or PDF, I ususally convert the PDF to Word, and then save them as "plain text". this gets rid of all of the formatting. I then open it and save it as a word document and go from there. Don Harris CSI, CCS, CCCA, AIA Senior Member Username: don_harris Post Number: 269 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 - 04:43 pm:    If it is not a scanned image, I can take a pdf spec, copy and paste as unformatted text, run a couple macros and voila...editable Word file with MasterSpec styles. The only issue is the need to manually remove the headers and footers, either before or after the conversion. Any manufacturer that thinks that I'm not going to edit their spec is wrong. Paul Gerber Senior Member Username: paulgerber Post Number: 146 Registered: 04-2010 Posted on Tuesday, June 04, 2013 - 01:58 pm:    Wow...it always amazes me that some manufacturer's still think there guide specs are "Top Secret" information! Come on people, get into the 80's!! There is at least one comment (from Anne Whitacre - I skimmed some of the comments) about formatting from Word documents screwing up your spec section...solution is to copy from manufacturer's Word document (or website you are borrowing information from) and pasting using "Keep Text Only" option in Word(you have to right click and pick correct Paste option instead of Ctrl-V). It pastes the text into your document keeping the current Style you are using where your cursor is. The most annoying thing with pasting this way is if the manufacturer actually uses auto paragraph numbering, you have to go back and delete the paragraph number Word pastes into your document. Ride it like you stole it!!!