RE: Image placement in Word

Subject: RE: Image placement in Word
From: "Sean Brierley" <sbrierley -at- Accu-Time -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 13:41:10 -0400

I know those things. Floating graphics are useful in ways inline
graphics are not, and tables complicate things unnecessarily. Frames are
better, but still kludgy. Linked graphics can be more easily updated if
images change or when translating, and using language-specific graphics.
PNG and JPG are fine, but WMF is sloppy format that has issues and EPS
is much better, or AI. Save as HTML is a poor way to recreate the
original files for a project.

But, yes, I know of these things.



-----Original Message-----
From: techwr-l-bounces+sbrierley=accu-time -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
[mailto:techwr-l-bounces+sbrierley=accu-time -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com] On
Behalf Of Dan Goldstein
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 1:36 PM
Subject: Image placement in Word

Just as with numbering, Word offers many ways to place images. I've been
using the following rules for years:

* Wherever possible, avoid floating graphics. Anchored ("in-line")
graphics can be positioned using tables, style definitions, frames, and
other methods. (MS tried to push everyone from frames to text boxes, but
the frames are still available, and still better.)

* Unless you're creating documents that only you will be using, avoid
linked graphics.

* Insert graphics from PNG files (for GUI screencaps), WMF files (for
vector graphics), or JPG files (for photos and the like).

* If you have to retrieve someone else's poorly placed graphics, use
save-as-HTML to extract the JPG or PNG versions.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Brierley
> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 1:08 PM
> To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> Subject: RE: A doozy even for Word (Joe Armstrong)
> Since it's Friday, what's the new thing they did? There's
> that big round button in the top left that has no text. This
> nameless menu is certainly an interesting approach to GUI
> design, as even the image within it does not provide clues
> that it is selectable nor about what it contains. But, yes,
> it is different. So, those familiar with the interface will
> struggle and those new to the product will seemingly have no
> advantage over being new to one of the older versions. While,
> numbering continues to be troublesome and arranging more than
> two graphics on a page continues to be a pain also .... Thank
> God for multiple undo! This is one program that needs it.
> That being said, yes, I've done long documents in Word. It's
> just more difficult than it should be, automations (again,
> image placement) work against you, ctrl+z becomes your friend
> to undo what Word did, and editing the document later is also
> labor intensive.

ComponentOne Doc-To-Help 2009 is your all-in-one authoring and publishing
solution. Author in Doc-To-Help's XML-based editor, Microsoft Word or
HTML and publish to the Web, Help systems or printed manuals.

Help & Manual 5: The complete help authoring tool for individual
authors and teams. Professional power, intuitive interface. Write
once, publish to 8 formats. Multi-user authoring and version control!

You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-unsubscribe -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
or visit

To subscribe, send a blank email to techwr-l-join -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com

Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit for more resources and info.

Please move off-topic discussions to the Chat list, at:


Image placement in Word: From: Dan Goldstein

Previous by Author: RE: A doozy even for Word (Joe Armstrong)
Next by Author: Help & Manual, image maps, flowcharts
Previous by Thread: Image placement in Word
Next by Thread: RE: Image placement in Word

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads