The message from soup contains these words:
It makes sesnse to send correspondence as a PDF file with embedded fonts.
Try to send a file in the native docx format of the current version of Word and a great many (probably most) companies will be unable to read it.
The message from "Dave Liquorice" contains these words:
I agree. Embed the fonts and possibly even send it as a graphic if there's no likelihood of it being edited.
The message from Jules contains these words:
You have now.
Who knows what it will look like to the recipient. I was at a committee meeting yesterday considering a document which had been circulated in Word format. Everyone present had vastly different rubbish -- ten people round the table, ten different documents, none of them right.
The message from Huge contains these words:
That's my policy.
The message from Owain contains these words:
A perennial problem
The message from Janet Tweedy contains these words:
So save them in Word 2003 format if you MUST save them in a Word format
Very true indeed.
Quite -- but then presumably you live and work in the real world :-)
The message from %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) contains these words:
Glad we agree on at least one thing! :-)
Which really shows how incompetent they are, since the 2003 add-in works fine.
(I accept that some may have earlier still versions)
In article , Appin scribeth thus
Why can't they use PDF then?..
PDF still depends on the viewer version to display the file correctly.
In article , Appin scribeth thus
I know someone who can hardly spell yet he's very competent at his job and is a really pleasant person to have around, and never misses work tho I doubt he could write a CV that would pass first inspection...
One thing I'm bloody glad of is that being self employed some 23 years now is that I don't have to bother with them:))
Poncy description anyway CV and that Americanism .. Resume ;!...
I still use MS Office '97! I've never needed to "upgrade" since the older version does everything I need (except read .docx files)
If you deal a lot with non technical people it is almost impossible to get them to do this IME. At best I just get a blank look.
Only if you use its more abstruse features.
In article , Dave Plowman (News) scribeth thus
Really?, what's wrong with Foxit reader then?..
Is that not what spellcheckers are for? You could also have a knowledgeable mate/neighbour WHY cast an eye over it to spot any mistakes. Then pop to the library to use their "all singing all dancing" laser printer (O.K. it's more expensive than running them off yourself, if to a better quality, but for a 'decent' job a bit extra effort is warranted).
Sod's law say they will.
They make such a complete balls-up of the job, though - I'm forever spotting things where text has obviously been through a spell-checker and various incorrect words have been used. I'd much rather people either left the errors intact or did their own proof-reading; the sign of something that's been badly spell-checked implies laziness or over-reliance on tools...
I've not had any printing even set up on any of my computers in a good five years now - for the rare times when I do need something printed, it's easy to just swing by somewhere and have it done on decent equipment. Consumer-grade printers seem to by and large be complete crap, plus they really screw you on the consumables.
cheers
Jules
IT's not Adobe and so quite obviously crap, even though it isn't cruddy bloatware (unlike Acrobat) and (IME) does a far better job with far less than Adobe's own offering ;-)
Sorry to disappoint you, but that's rubbish. I have a .docx doc here which opens just fine in Word 2003. It pops up a little dialog to warn me some features may have been removed.
I think the reality is if you UTILIZE FEATURES OF docx then there may be problems. For a simple doc like a CV I would anticipate very few problems.
MBQ
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.