Blog Archives

But All I Want Is For It To Go Away

2/28/2013

OK, Microsoft, I get it. You want to be helpful in making all my documents format correctly. However, sometimes you go too far. Case in point: automatically inserting a space before or after parentheses and brackets. A behavior that didn't exist in the previous version of Word we used for document drafting (2003), but does now (Word 2010).

In my little niche-world, opening and closing brackets are used in tandem to denote a range of text that is being marked to be eventually removed. After something has been marked for delete it looks like this in the document (with the --> denoting a tab):

Original
-->(a)-->This is my text to be removed.
Marked up
-->[(a)-->This is my text to be removed.]

At times, when a set of characters are "bracketed" by the user (all through VBA code, by the way, by selecting text and pressing Delete), the user may have erroneously done it. HORRORS! There is an undelete function also in VBA where the user presses the appropriate keystroke (Ctrl-Delete) and the brackets and all formatting disappear, leaving the text pristine as is shown below.

What it should be
-->(a)-->This is my text to be removed.
What is happening (notice the extra space between the tab and the opening parenthesis)
--> (a)-->This is my text to be removed.

The brackets are typically handled quite easily by a one-liner command (after the bracket is identified and set to the range:
'Set range to the bracket first
BracketRange.Delete

However, if the situation is as shown above, Word doesn't allow the tab and opening parenthesis to co-exist next to each other; it automatically inserts a space. Manually selecting the bracket and pressing the delete key generates the same result: a space. If you don't select the bracket, but rather place the insertion point immediately preceding the character and press Delete, it will perform as expected, and make the bracket go away. Why, then, does having it selected prior to pressing the delete cause a space?

Note that this behavior is the same for trailing parentheses. Also, in addition to tabs, this behavior occurs if the abutting character is an em-space: Asc(8194)

I was able to address this by changing my one line of code to:
'Set range to the bracket first
BracketRange.Text = ""

Which effectively does the same thing. My irritation lies in why I had to make the code change in the first place.

0 Comments

Free* Writing Tools For Writers

2/11/2013

0 Comments

Got your attention with that magic word "Free" didn't I? I did use an asterisk, and since you are already here, please! read on.

I've been in contact with actual published authors recently. Once I got over the celebrity worship and envy, I wondered about the tools they use to get their thoughts down. This might be why I never quite get around to writing; I often get caught up in the what and how of the mechanics, rather than the actual doing. I also know that it is the truly rare and gifted writer that makes actual money from their efforts, and anything that can save money is a Good Thing.

I am rather familiar with word processing tools, after having written code-based document management systems embedded within the word processor itself, plus years and years of experience formatting document types to exacting specifications. You see, I am essentially lazy – as are most programmers – and instead of doing something repeatedly, I'll figure a way for the computer to do it for me. I leverage many of the existing tools in my work; it's easier than coding a function from scratch (again, I'm lazy) and there are a number of built-in features in most major word processors that – right out of the box – can greatly assist a writer in not only creating consistent format but consistent content as well.

Since you've probably already forked out some money for the word processor (I say probably, because OpenOffice is free), here are some tips to get the word processor to do more of the work, making the tools themselves free. See how I did that?

I discuss primarily MS Word tools for a couple of reasons: (1) It's what I am using now, and (2) it's common, but these same features are found in OpenOffice and likely in most other major word processors as well, regardless of the platform. Let the easing of the wordsmithing process begin!

AutoCorrect:

This function in word processors automatically corrects commonly misspelled words. If that weren't valuable enough, it can also be customized to correct intentionally entered gibberish into a meaningful word, phrase or even a sentence unique to your working environment.

For example you are working on your military thriller, and one of your characters is Master Gunnery Sergeant Bustamonte-Lopez. Due to the nature of your manuscript, you need to have his title often in the document. Sure, you can type it in each time, or you can even copy and paste. Though each time you use a copy function for something else, you have to either type it again, or hunt it down to copy again.

Or, you can set up an AutoCorrect entry. To do that, you would first identify the trigger text - the equivalent of a misspelled word - say "mgst." Then, you would also identify the full title and name that you want it to be corrected to: "Master Gunnery Sergeant Bustamonte-Lopez." Lock in the correction, and the next time in your document you type "mgst" and press the spacebar, the character's full name and title is entered. Pretty handy. This can work to expand your trigger to any word, phrase or sentence.

NOTE: It's probably not a good idea to use a real word as your trigger, just in case you need to use that word and don't want it always automatically corrected to your expanded form.

If you need more or totally need your trigger to be a real word not to be automatically corrected , read on about AutoText.

AutoText:

AutoText entries are somewhat similar to autocorrect with some significant added functionality – kind of like making them AutoCorrect’s bigger and much badder brother. In fact, you can bypass using autocorrect entirely and any of the entries you would have made using the autocorrect function instead. AutoText has a number of functionality advantages over autocorrect:

It can encompass multiple paragraphs, varying textual formats, even section breaks. Essentially, anything you can put into your manuscript, you can replicate with a simple set of keystrokes.
You can use any text as a trigger for creating the text: you are not limited to code words since inserting the AutoText entry requires a specific trigger action (in Word, it’s pressing the F3 key).
AutoText triggers can be saved with the current manuscript, or saved globally for use with any future document.

You can use it to create page layout changes on the fly, for example if you need to alter from portrait to landscape for an illustration and back. Oh, and have the font size and paragraph formatting different in the altered page. You can repeat the process of establishing the necessary breaks, and formatting, or you can do it once, save it as an AutoText entry, and re-use with only a few keystrokes. The hardest part is creating your block of formatted text - which you have to do anyway. Save it as an AutoText entry and you’re Ready to Rumble™ to use it again and again.

Example: I used MS Word as a report generator for SQL database queries. (There, I just lost two of my now three regular readers.) Depending on the data I returned, I needed to have a differently formatted document, combining font names, sizes and table shape. Instead of using multiple templates (to be discussed later), I created the different configurations ahead of time, and saved them as AutoText entries. Then, when the user needed to create the report, using a macro (also to be discussed later) the fully formatted AutoText configuration is placed in the document and filled with the query results. Probably far more complicated than will commonly be used, but a illustrative example of what can be done.

That should give you a couple of ideas about how you can more effectively use your creative time writing, instead of typing. Next up: styles, templates and *gasp* macros.

0 Comments

Hierarchy of Certainty

2/6/2013

8 Comments

Along the lines of Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs in the field of psychology, I've come up with a Hierarchy of Certainty in science. The certainty of being able to accurately and truthfully state something increases as more and more supporting evidence is discovered. Logical, right? The more support there is, the more likely it is to be accurate and factual. In other words, as more evidence supports an assertion, that assertion is more and more likely to be correct. In science, this IS science. However, if any evidence is discovered that refutes, or doesn't amply support an assertion, the assertion is changed until the statement one makes can support ALL the evidence. This is also science. A single supporting observation is nice, a million of them is virtually unassailable.

At each step along the way, the certainty of stating the situation as fact increases until you reach the top, when you can state with certainty. At the pinnacle of the Hierarchy of Certainty in science is the Scientific Theory. A person can - with all the power of SCIENCE! behind him or her - state a scientific theory as fact.

The development of a scientific theory follows this sort of path (Grossly simplified, I know.):

Someone has an idea and they form a hypothesis*. They then make a prediction, and create methods to analyze and test. If the hypothesis or prediction fails in the testing or the analysis proves either incorrect, the hypothesis and/or prediction gets refined to support the evidence and analysis. Or in the more egregious failures, hypotheses and predictions get completely tossed, and the process starts anew.

After rigorous testing, and the resulting measurable, repeatable and objective evidence is compiled, a scientific law* is formulated.

After one or more laws are established, a means of explaining the law(s) is formulated. THIS IS THE THEORY.

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

As a result, scientific theory sits at the top of the Hierarchy of Certainty, be it the Cell Theory, the Big Bang or the Evolution or any other. Statements along the lines of "I can't go along with evolution, it's just a theory, after all." are as ridiculous as stating "I just can't believe gravity works. It's just a theory." and stepping off the roof of a 10 story building and not expecting the inevitable. They're both scientific theories - equal in their assertions as can be made given all the evidence.

(Note there is a BIG difference in definition of a scientific theory and the word "theory" as a general-use thing.)

Despite a theory being at the top of the Hierarchy, it doesn't mean it cannot be assailed and or refined. It means that given all the knowledge of the topic, that is what best describes the circumstances. A number of theories have fallen by the wayside as more information was obtained that eventually superseded the theory such as the Geocentric Theory, the Flat Earth Theory or biological Spontaneous Generation.

Who knows, all our current theories might be tossed out as new scientific methods are created to test them. Though, the progression (as far as I know) is that they are getting more and more support as testing methods are created and made more sensitive.

*A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested.
**A scientific law is a distillation of the results of repeated observation.

8 Comments

One Hundred Trillion Dollars

2/5/2013

0 Comments

This weekend, when not working, I played some Texas Hold-Em poker for *puts pinky to corner of mouth* One hundred trillion dollars! (Yes, that is a real bit of currency. No, I didn't win, and when in circulation, I understand was worth about $1. Inflation's a bitch, eh?)

Seems yours truly does not have the magic touch when it comes to gambling. I guess the adage "Unlucky at cards... sorry, got nothin'" fits in this case. During my time at the table, my best hand was two (low) pair. The only time I even stayed to the bitter end was during a bluff run, where my awesome pair of fives was bested by my neighbor's overpowering pair of sixes. I'm not saying the decision to go bluff (rather than go buff) was fueled by the presence and ready availability of free Glenmorangie 18, but I wouldn't rule it out, either.

It didn't matter anyway. The game was a fund-raiser for my kids' school athletic program. Since my daughter is currently playing volleyball, my son played basketball and will be wrestling, and they both will be playing soccer later this spring, I think having the opportunity to toss a few (real) dollars down for the program was a Good Thing. Though for efficiency's sake, walking in, handing over the buy-in and immediately leaving would have been optimal, but then I wouldn't have had the chance to taste the Glenmorangie, and the chance to let all the others laugh at my ineptitude. Ah, the sacrifices we make for our kids!

Earlier in the day, I was able to escape for a bit of a jaunt. The weather forecast was for highs around 10C/50F, and sunny, but it didn't quite pan out that way. It wasn't cold, but with the thin cloud layer, and a slight breeze, only having two sweaty layers on top made things a bit nipply when I had to stop and check where I was going which I needed to do a couple of times.

The route was new to me, I wanted to stay low to avoid crusty snow, but wanted to see some new terrain. I planned a route south east of Mexican Dam on the east side of the Carson River to go out straight on the power line track and wind my way back up higher on the hills.

The route was pretty sandy; especially on the power line track. A lot of truck, ATV and motorcycle traffic will do that. To make it just that much more fun, the way was - as I call them - loaded with dipsy-dos; those sine-wave crests and troughs created by uneven accelerations of powered vehicles on soft dirt. Two steps up, one stride down, leap the deepest part of the trough, and repeat. For about 5 miles / 8 km. The grade was steadily climbing, but didn't seem like it. I guess fighting the sand distracted my calves from noticing I was climbing.

The views were really rather nice, though with a sunny day, it would have been even better:

0 Comments

But All I Want Is For It To Go Away

Free* Writing Tools For Writers

Hierarchy of Certainty

One Hundred Trillion Dollars

Author

Archives

Categories