TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: problems with linked graphics in Word 7 From:"Bergerson, Carl A" <Carl -dot- Bergerson -at- UNISYS -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 16 Oct 1997 05:57:42 -0600
>From: Sandy Dryer[SMTP:sdryer -at- SCTCORP -dot- COM]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 1997 1:09 PM
>To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
>Subject: problems with linked graphics in Word 7
>We keep our screen captures (.tifs) in separate directories from our
>documents. Both are on a Novell server.
>The .docs were originally done in Word 6 and are now in Word 7. We use the
>Word "Insert Picture" command (choosing options "link to file" and "do not
>save in document"), to link the .tif files to our documents.
>1) Ever since we converted to Word 7, we have had problems with some of the
>.doc files. Specifically, we went into a file one day and found we couldn't
>see the graphics. We thought it was some sort of problem related to the
>"universal network symbol" (I hope that's what it's called -- that double
>\\ thing that shows up instead of a directory letter name when you link
>files in Word 7 - pardon my vocabulary deficiencies.)
>Anyway, we went through and relinked each graphic in the doc. It was fine
>for a while, but now the graphics are not showing up again.
>Does this sound familiar to anyone? Is it Word, or could it be caused by a
>blip on the Novell? We are wondering if we should just give up and save the
>.tifs in the .doc - obviously there are advantages to linking, especially
>since some of these are pretty large files, but we're starting to wonder
>whether it's worth it.
Yes, I've recently written (and need to rewrite) a procedure for part of
our department to do this. Our configuration is that we write documents
on our local disks, but archive and print from the network drives. And,
as the document moves through stages (draft, field test, etc.) the
location on the server changes. Linking the graphics and not saving them
in the document really helps keep the file size down. I inherited a
31-megabyte chapter that was close to 1/2-megabyte after I applied this
technique. You'll also want to set Tools, Options, View, Picture
Placeholders as you normal MO, so you don't force Word to down load the
graphics from the network each time you scroll a page.
(BTW, the \\machine\drive\directory\...\filename.extension is called UNC
or Uniform Naming Convention, or something close to that.)
When I was first experimenting with it I had the problem you described
(graphics disappearing) and the additional problem that sometimes I got
UNC file names and sometimes I got DOS (Novell) file names. At the time
I was bouncing back and forth between 95 and NT (don't ask why). I have
been on NT only for the last two months or so and haven't seen either
problem since. I don't know whether that's cause and effect or just
>2) We have the additional problem of being forced to provide Word .docs of
>our documentation to customers, who then have trouble seeing the graphics.
>We sent them the .tifs and tried to provide instructions so they could
>duplicate our linking setup, but since Word 7 uses the \\ instead of a
>directory letter name, we've so far been unable to do this. (We also
>provide Acrobat files, and we were hoping this would be enough, but are
>still being required to send the Word .docs.)
I also have this requirement, but haven't had to meet it yet. My plans
are to write a simple macro to search for InsertPicture fields and
Unlink them. This will take my 1/2-megabyte file back up to
31-megabytes, but I don't care; it won't be on my disk.
>Anyone who can shed any light on this has our eternal gratitude. Sign me --
>Frazzled in Columbia
Unisys, Mission Viejo, CA