Computing desk
< October 13	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 15 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 14

Font stylistic alternatives/sets in Word?

Is there any way to add stylistic alternates in Word 2010? This article mentions its use in Publisher but I'm not sure whether it can be done in Word or not. Inter change able|talk to me 00:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those answering the question, note that this user is referring to Stylistic sets, as shown here. (I'm not sure, myself.)

Curious: why are you using such high end fonts in Word? Fonts at that level of sophistication are designed for use in Quark or InDesign, really. Perhaps Scribus would do what you want? -- Zanimum (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be a bit more clear: this font says that it has an alternate circular a here, and I want to find a way to use that stylistic alternate instead of the ordinary a when I type. If I can just figure out how to do that I'll have found my perfect font. Is there any way to do that in Word 2010? The "Fonts" menu gives a box that says "Use Contextual Alternates", but when I check it absolutely nothing happens to the font, and when I select any of the 20 or so alternates in the unclear drop-down menu above that box nothing happens either. Inter change able|talk to me 15:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried every possible option in the font dialog box, but I can't figure out how to access the alternative a and in the "symbols" window it's nowhere to be found. The second link I mentioned states only that on Windows the letter can only be accessed with "OpenType aware software". Word 2010 is OpenType-aware and I can use OpenType functions from many other fonts in it, so how come I can't find the alternative a? Inter change able|talk to me 19:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

is interpreted code

inherently open source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.17.232 (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, it cannot inherently satisfy point 3 of the Open Source Definition since interpreted code may be under no license at all. 98.248.42.252 (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar as most developers do not distribute interpreted code in a way that makes it hard or impossible to read, yes, it's "open"; but "open source" is widely considered more than just having source that can be read, extending more to ensuring that it will continue to be that way via licensing. Unfortunately not everyone adheres to a particular interpretation, which leads to much confusion. Free software is an earlier concept, but unfortunately also suffers from being confused with being merely gratis software. Ultimately it comes down to one or two things: the specific license the source code is distributed under, and who you're relying on to develop that code. ¦ Reisio (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an article written by Richard Stallman called The JavaScript Trap. It deals with a few issues: first, there is a difference between "free software" and "open source software" (explored in detail in another article, Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software. Secondly, that many "interpreted" programs are intentionally obfuscated, so it's unfair to call the delivered code the source code (even if the two are syntactically equivalent). The source code is the "preferred form for modifying the program." Unfortunately, this is a little bit ambiguous! Suppose the creator of the software preferred writing code in MIPS assembly, or esoteric Perl? What then? Even if freely licensed, there may be no convenient way to use, study, or modify the program!

Ultimately, this all boils down to a problem of semantics: what counts as source-code? Technically, binary images are also source code - you can edit and modify executables and object files, it's just very very hard. Stallman's numerous essays essentially get to the philosophical core of the issue: free software is software that protects the users' right to use, study, and modify it. Whether this protection entails providing source-code in the format of ASCII text-files, or as binary objects that are readily modifiable using advanced software utilities, is sort of moot. (After all, without a text editor software, even the ASCII-text source-code document is basically just a giant, unalterable binary blob in an esoteric digital encoding! It is no coincidence that Stallman's first free software program was a text editor.)

It is probably safe to say that most interpreted code is, by default, "open source" software. I might exclude any interpreted code that is intentionally obfuscated, because this means the creator started off with something else other than what they gave you.

However, even if the original source-code for the interpreted program is provided, such code may still be non-free software, depending on the legal permissions that come along with it. Nimur (talk) 16:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Making a Word footnote do triple duty

I need to place a footnote in a Word document that is the same for three entries, and I don't want to duplicate. In other words, I want it to look like this:

Some text¹

Some text²

Some text³

with those footnotes displaying as one entry at the bottom of the page, like this:

_____

^{1 2 3} Text of single footnote

Does anyone know how (or if) I can do this? Thanks in advance.--108.14.196.193 (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no automatic way to do this in Word that I know of. What you could do is make Footnote 1 be a real footnote, and contain the other two superscripts in it. Then footnotes 2 and 3 are just superscripts, not "footnote" objects. Then when you want to jump to footnote 4, you would manually advance the footnote count. It would be a huge pain and hard to maintain. And very irregular.

Alternatively, you could do what everybody else does when they don't want to repeat the exact same footnote, and just write "Ibid." --Mr.98 (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you could do is make the first a real footnote, then for the second and third insert a cross-reference to the existing first footnote. You'll need to manually superscript the 2nd and 3rd footnote numbers, but they'll be correctly numbered (as ref fields). Subsequent footnotes are then correctly numbered. You'll end up with:

Some text¹

Some more text with a different note²

with those footnotes displaying as one entry at the bottom of the page, like this:

_____

¹ Text of single footnote

² Text of different footnote

I just checked this with Word 97 - I presume it still works with later versions. (Yes it's a really old version, but it does the job, so I see no reason to change it.) Mitch Ames (talk) 10:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to confirm that you have almost no reason to change. Despite having gone through a few upgrades, MS Word is functionally identical all this time later, except the interface has been overhauled and not, in my opinion, for the better. None of the new bells and whistles are of any real consequence. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

desktop and date rather than default sub sub sub subfiling

Mac and especially Windows computers are set up by default to save new or downloaded files in various subfolders something like computer/user/programs/windows/office/word which I find very inconvenient. I can't stand having to look for one text document in one place because it was created in word and another somewhere else because it was downloaded from gmail. So, instead, I save every newly created or downloaded file directly to the desktop. I have created a few un-nested folders on the desktop such as "images" or "documents" or "videos" and once I have a half dozen or so recently added files of a certain type that I am not actively using I will move them into the appropriate folders directly on the desktop. Then, every once in a while I will create a folder "Backup/2011/8/14" copy all the desktop's contents into it, download that to an external harddrive and then, often, crosswise from my PC to my Mac or vice versa.

This seems like such an intuitive system, yet most people I see simply stick with the default highly-nested folders that are the default for their operating systems. My dad, for instance, can never find anything if it doesn't show up in the "recent" drag down. I have to wonder, am I doing something wrong in a mechanical sense? For instance, is my desire to have everything on the desktop running up processing time or setting me up for some sort of failure? I can't imagine why having everything download to some obscurely nested sub sub sub sub folder is the default everybody sticks with, unless there is something wrong with having all new and active files go to the desktop. Am I missing something? μηδείς (talk) 19:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, Windows tends to save things in the "My Documents" folder. That is a shortcut to something like \\Windows\Users\YourUserName\Documents, but the user only sees "My Documents" on the desktop and/or when he/she clicks on the start button. So, while it is a sub sub sub folder, it is not seen as such by the user.

Second, you can save files in any way you see fit. Your organization must work for you. The problem with Windows and Mac is that they push the idea that there is a correct way to organize things. People don't think alike. What works for one person won't work for another. Therefore, the system must allow for high flexibility. But, if you give someone a ball of clay and tell them it can be anything because it is flexible, they probably don't have the skills to make it anything they may want. They probably don't know what they want. So, they prefer you do make something and tell them it is what they want. That is why we have Windows/Mac operating systems. If you find you are being constrained by the lack of flexibility, you need to expand to something that allows for more flexibility, be it an add-on for what you are using or a new OS all together. -- kainaw ™ 19:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like Medeis, I never use the "My documents" folder after it was accidentally deleted under an old operating system many years ago. For the same reason, I never save files to the desktop which is a similar sub-folder. I create appropriate folders in the root directory of my data partition, and set default save locations of all applications to point to this folder. I then have desktop shortcuts to these safe folders. I find this safer, simpler and more logical. Dbfirs 16:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answers. Yes, I am aware that technically the desktop is sub-folder of the drive. But since I use Windows 7 and OSX and not command prompts the desktop is the immediately visible interface upon logging on or after closing all active programs. (I do not usually have my external hard drive connected, and would not know how to use the root directory, but get the idea of what you are doing.) So I don't have to open anything, including having to click on the start button, before being able to double click a recent file to open it. I did not mean to imply dissatisfaction with my current OS's as such. I was just worried that, especially with windows, which, in older versions, would freak out if you moved files around, perhaps I was causing unobvious processing delays or setting myself up for some grand failure by unwittingly creating feedback or something. More of a superstition induced by having been told by others the fewer icons on your desktop the better than anything else. μηδείς (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be aware that desktops can be specific to each user, and each desktop can be a separate sub-folder of each user's profile. Lots of files on the desktop does slow things down, but this is a serious problem only on a network with roaming profiles. I still think it is good practice to use the desktop for shortcuts to a fixed location, because then if anything goes wrong with the user profile and the desktop is deleted, the files are still safe. Perhaps I'm paranoid because of problems with earlier less-stable versions of Windows? Dbfirs 09:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do get that the desktop is not the most un-nested location on a hard drive, but for my use it is the location accessible with the least number of clicks and keystrokes. By network with roaming profiles I assume you mean as in a workplace where employees switch seats and sign on at different computers? I am talking about my private home use of computers to which no one else has access or will have access and which are not networked to share files with anyone. μηδείς (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]