Making good and solid templates

When your organization is migrating from Microsoft Office to LibreOffice its important that you provide the users with some good and robust templates. If your users are using LibreOffice in parallel with Microsoft Word or if your users are collaborating with other users outside the organization, then your templates must take this into consideration. The templates must in this case be extra robust when it comes to interoperability.

Why not just open your old .DOT or .DOTX templates in LibreOffice and save the result at .OTT?

Well this is exactly one of the most common mistakes. Making templates for Writer is NOT converting Word templates. Its building new templates from scratch using the best tool for it: LibreOffice. If you choose the short cut and converts Word templates to LibreOffice templates, you will get into trouble. Big trouble.

Experience show that lack of interoperability often comes down to poor quality templates.

Another advise: Don't try to make LibreOffice look like Word and don't try to make your templates look like Word templates. You can't fool the users.

If you are the expert in Word you might not be the right person to develop LibreOffice templates. Use LibreOffice as LibreOffice and don't pretend its Word.

Before you begin

Try to work smart - not hard. Analyze the existing Word templates into categories of logically connected templates. Does any of the templates have common properties? Identify the commons and put the templates into categories or “families”. For examples if you have several letter templates with different content or in different languages, they are most likely using the same font types and sizes. Identify these common properties and take notes.

Also try to get your hands on the company design strategy or design guidelines if they exist. Large organizations often have something in the communication department. Best case is if you can find a design and style guide for letter with precise measurements and color identification.

Ask the provider of the original Word templates to also give you a PDF-version of each template. That give both you and the owner of the templates a baseline reference for the layout and you can avoid later discussions about pixel precise position of an object somewhere. You can make the reference PDF your self, but its better and more correct if you can get it from the owner of the templates.

Think of who the users are

Don't believe that the IT department is qualified to define the requirements. First of all because this group of people in general has a higher understanding of how IT works and as a consequence of that are actually too high qualified. The average user should be setting requirement for the functionality while the department in charge of communication (who ever they are) should set requirements for the look and feel of the templates.

Users are different. Some users are very well educated and has a master in text editing. Others are just office clerks and has no idea of how text editing and office automation works. Your templates should be possible to operate by the people using them. Some templates can be very sophisticated and with a high level of automation while others - letter templates for example - should be as simple as possible to use.

Create the master

From there you can create what I use to call the master template. This template will actually not be used by any one else than template developers and it contains only the common styles and measurements. Only what can be defined in styles should be part of the master. In the future when you start creating new templates you can use the master template as the template. And when you need to make adjustments to the common properties, you can do it once in the master template and load the changes into all other templates.

Logo and objects

Always try to get the original source files in stead of trying to pick from the Word templates. When you resize images - and even if you are using high quality tools for it - will loose quality. If possible you should get the logos in some vector format like SVG or a Photoshop source file. Then you can compile image versions in the exact size and quality that you need. A logo compiled for the web site is normally compressed and optimized for smaller file size and is not good enough quality for a printed letter.

Interoperability

Making templates that are interoperable with Word is not easy. It requires a lot of work and a lot of testing. And one thing you must remember, is the fact that LibreOffice and Microsoft Office are two different applications with two different file formats. Conversion between the two are getting better for each version of LibreOffice, but its not perfect and it will most likely never become perfect. Document conversion is therefore to be considered a deviation from the normal. A special situation that should be taken special care of.

And round trip conversion? Forget it. It doesn't work.

Cross platform templates

LibreOffice is a cross platform application and it is possible to develop templates that works on multiple platforms. Most organizations has policies for this, but its a good idea to take the issue into consideration anyway. It might turn out that there actually are a few Mac computers even if the policy says the opposite. And it doesn't require much more than a thought now and then.

Cross platform templates has in general higher quality than templates that only works on one platform.

The dilemma

Do we want the LibreOffice templates to look pixel to pixel as the Word templates does?

Most would say yes, but I say no. I agree that it helps people to understand how it works if it works the same today than it did yesterday. But this pixel precise requirement is a misunderstanding. For more than two reasons.

First of all: Is our Word templates as good as we think? Perhaps they are but they might have been developed many years ago. So if we create new templates as exact copies of the existing ones we might inherit some legacy misunderstandings and lack of quality. So lets take the opportunity to make even better, more modern and robust templates now we are migrating. We might never get this opportunity again.

One of the main rules to remember while it comes to interoperability is, that the more you customize the less interoperable the template will be. So while you are trying to make them look exactly equal, you will loose the interoperability.

Try to stick to the defaults.

An example:

Footnotes in Writer looks pretty different from similar footnotes in Word. But they are quite easy to make interoperable if you leave them with the default settings. You can though make footnotes in Writer look precisely as they does in Word. But if you do, they will not survive a round trip conversion.

Same thing can be said about indexes and other advanced office automation features.

Making templates that are interoperable doesn't mean they look like the Word templates. It means that they can work across the two applications.

Images and objects

Images like the company logo and objects like a text box with the company contact information and information about the sender of a letter are central to any templates. These things are on the other hand rather difficult to make in a way, that are acceptable after conversion to lets say Microsoft Word. The key problem is not the positioning (the exact place on the paper) but to what they are positioned. Its the anchor that matters. The reason for this problem is that Word and Writer has two different ways of thinking when it comes to this anchoring problem. The main rule is to use the same anchoring for objects that are placed together. If the text box with the address information is anchored "to page" then the logo just above should not be anchored "to paragraph". Use the same anchor method for all objects that are grouped together and you will make things much easier to develop, maintain and use.

In general you should ask you self if the object is to be positioned on a specific position on the page or at a position relative to something. A company logo on a letter template or a text box with the senders address is to be positioned at a specific position on the page and therefor anchored "to page". In case the object are supposed to be repeated on several pages it should be anchored “to paragraph” in the page header or footer but with measurement relative to the page.

Macros

Try to avoid using macros. Many templates developed for MS Office 2003 has embedded or referenced macros to obtain some advanced functionality. Using macros implies a risk that the document in special situations doesn't react as expected simply because the macro is not available or macro execution is disabled for security reasons. Using macros should not be necessary with modern office applications.

In case you have systems of macros running and being dependent on other macros being available, you should consider how to obtain the same functionality without using an office suite at all. Such systems of several macros are not suitable for business environments and should in most cases be developed as part of a document management system or similar. Putting business logic into a complex system of templates and macros is risky.

Tools

Generate content

When you design templates its important that you test the template with some content. For that purpose I have developed an extension to LibreOffice Writer that can generate large amounts of Lorem ipsum text. You can pick the extension for free here:

http://extensions.libreoffice.org/extension-center/magenta-lorem-ipsum-generator

As an alternative you can use the built in dummy text (writer dt and hit F3).

Word

Use word to see how the original templates works, looks and reacts.

Export the resulting document to PDF for comparison.

LibreOffice

Use LibreOffice to develop new templates. But before you begin; learn to use it. You will discover that the first three or four attempts to make a good template fails. But during the work you will learn from experience and your failures.

I recommend that you use the same operating system while developing the templates as the regular users of the templates will be using. LibreOffice is independent from platform but there are some minor differences from OS to OS. The safest approach is to use the same OS.

Compare result

Compare the result (PDF) with reference output from Word with diff-pdf. 

Compare output

With this nifty tool you can merge two PDF files as overlay and compare pixel precise position of e.g., the logo and margins. Get it here: https://github.com/vslavik/diff-pdf

LibreOffice is becoming the Swiss army knife in the office

What started as a simple text editor and later became am office suite is actually becoming a very comprehensive set of tools for the daily office work.

LibreOffice is most likely the only application that can open almost any office file format in the world. Legacy and modern - it doesn't matter LibreOffice can handle them. Even some legacy file formats from older versions of Microsoft Office that can't be recognized by supported versions of Microsoft Office can be opened and converted with LibreOffice. Its a well known fact that some corrupted files from legacy Microsoft Office versions can only be opened with LibreOffice. I'm just mentioning a few file formats here: Lotus Word Pro, MS Works, WordPerfect and Cores Draw. Also older versions of office files from outdated Mac computers like Microsoft Word for Mac, Write Now, MacWrite Pro and AppleWorks is now accessible.

See https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleaseNotes/4.1#Support_for_legacy_Mac_word-processing_documents

Besides that LibreOffice is constantly improving the Microsoft OOXML Import and Export filters as well as for the Microsoft Office binary file formats and the RTF format.

With LibreOffice you can store PDF-files and even embed the original text document or spreadsheet within the PDF. This makes it possible to do later edits of the file directly by loading it into LibreOffice. But there is more that. With the drawing application you can open any PDF-file that is stored without encryption. You can even edit the content and you can merge and split the document as you like. Hereby LibreOffice can replace some of the separate tools that is often used to do these tasks.

With the spreadsheet application Calc you can import CSV files and even arbitrary XML files into a spreadsheet.

LibreOffice runs on almost any thinkable platform ans operating system and its free. Free as in free beer and as in free speech. you can download it from here: https://www.libreoffice.org/download/ .

What more do you want of interoperability?

Best new feature in LibreOffice 4.1?

I wrote about embedding of fonts in this blogpost: http://lodahl.blogspot.dk/2013/06/libreoffice-41-most-important-new.html

The embedded fonts will most likely result in better interoperability with Microsoft Office and between different OS'. But there is even more coming on that shelf: Even better interoperability.

From the release notes: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleaseNotes/4.1

• Import and export of graphical bullets of numberings in the DOC, DOCX and RTF filters.
• Numerous improvements have been made to the Microsoft OOXML Import and Export filters as well as for the Microsoft Office binary file formats and the RTF format.

These new features (or fixes) is absolutely on my list of favorites in this upcoming version.

LibreOffice 4.1: Most important new feature?

In an earlier post (http://lodahl.blogspot.dk/2013/05/exiting-new-design-initiative.html) I wrote about the new design features that will be exposed as experimental feature in LibreOffice 4.1.

Among the other new features, there is one that I believe is worth noticing. Embedding fonts in documents will make a interoperability much better - both between Office suites but also between different operating systems as Windows, Linux and Mac.

Under normal circumstances fonts are not embedded in the document, and when the document is opened on another computer that doesn't have the used font installed, then the application will try to replace the fonts "best possible". The problem is that best possible is not always good enough.

If (or when) the fonts are embedded in the document the rendering of the document will always be more accurate as the fonts used is exactly the same as on the original machine.

The feature in LibreOffice works in all modules, text editing, spreadsheet, drawings and presentations. Besides that this opportunity is compatible with Microsoft Office, and no matter if the document is interchanged as .odt or .docx, then the document is opened in the opposite application with the original fonts.

I have performed a small and very simple test both ways (between Linux and Windows, and LibreOffice versus Microsoft Office accordingly) with success.

Embedding fonts is activated for each document in the dialog Files - Properties on the tab Fonts.

This medal has a back side, as the file will become large compared with the same document without embedded fonts. Although I will recommend that fonts are embedded in all documents that will be exchanged between operating systems or office suites.

Sanders expert report is ready

Helge Sander, Danish Minister of Science and Technology earlier this year asked an expert committee to look into the technical and legal implications of the introduction of two standards for documents in the government. The report is now ready.

The committee consists of

• Professor dr. jur. Mads Bryde Andersen, University of Copenhagen (Chairman)
• Associate Professor Jens Hørlück, Aarhus University
• IT centerchef Jorgen Kristensen, Association of Local IT managers
• Professor Kim V. Andersen, CBS
• Professor Mogens Kühn Pedersen, CBS

The report is mainly a review and summation of said words in the matter and the committee does not take their own opinion. It seems a little disappointing, because the committee members probably could find something more meaningfull to do than to quote what others have said and written.

The only new topic the report brings to light is a recommendation of the PDF format for final documents. One detail that has previously been completely overlooked in the political debate. The few conclusions in the report is so vague that it is almost comical. Among other things, the conclusion is ...

In summary, the Committee believes that interoperability between ODF and OOXML continues to represent a challenge.

It is another way of saying ...

It is not possible to achieve full interoperability between OOXML and ODF. The two formats is simply not interoperabile.

It is, I believe so uncritical that it becoms self-contradictory in some areas. Among others the report includes Ramboll Management TCO reports quite indiscriminate, despite the fact that these reports are made on a critisized base and criticized by many. The reports from Ramboll are by many regarded as worthless. One of the TCO report's assumptions were that every document needed ten minutes to convert. A prerequisite as Ramboll Management itself points out is a very sensitive parameter: Changing this parameter just a little bit, will change the conclusion in the report.

Expert Committee's report emphasizes that the imposition of the PDF format for final documents will end up with only a small part of the existing documents should be converted. It disappoints me very much that the report does not identify that this observation makes TCO report by Ramboll Management inappropriate in context.

In addition, the ISO approval of OOXML is concidered as the final conclusion that the OOXML is an open and appropriate standard. This despite the fact that even Dansih Standards recognizes that the approval process was perhaps not completely clean and OOXML might not be quite as qualified as it seems.

The experts completely ignores the world around us. I believe that we in Denmark can't take such decisions without first looking around us. The countries which we usually compare ourselves with, may have been through similar problems. But the report is also completely ignoring this.

Repport from IT-og Teleagency : http://budurl.com/ekspert
Computerworld.dk: http://www.computerworld.dk/art/49464

Unfortunately there isn't an English translation, but you can try with Google Translate here: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fbudurl.com%2Fekspert&sl=da&tl=en&history_state0=

Everyday should be freedom day

Yesterday I spoke at the Software Freedom Day at Copenhagen Business School. I spoke about my view of the expression Software Freedom. I also gave a brief demonstration of the new features in OpenOffice.org 3.0. The concentration was about the ability to open pdf files for editing in Draw and to save (or export) pdf files as hybrid.

But also the new commenting feature (create a note) found some intereset among people. I explainen that comments could be shared with friends and kollegeas that are using MS Office too. A guy from the audience asked me if the function that registers changes in OpenOffice.org was compatibel with the simular function in MS Office. I had to admit that I couldn't answer that question at the scene.

When I got home from the arrangement I tried to create a document in OpenOffice.org and register som changes. The I saved the document as .doc. I opened the document with MS Office 2003 and I could clearly see and work with the changes. I made some further changes in MS Office 2003 and saved the document again. I then openned the document in OpenOffice.org again and the changes made with MS Office 2003 was tracked as changes and I could approve or dismess the changes as they where made with OpenOffice.org.

Conclusion
The funcion Track changes in OpenOffice.org is fully competibal with Micrsoft Office 2003. Because OpenOffice.org does not write MS Office 2007 format, the track-trace function is obviously not compatible with that format. But I would expect OpenOffice.org 3.0 to show track-trace information when reading files in .docx format but this is not something I have been testing.

MS answers to Master Thesis

Microsoft is commenting on the master thesis I wrote about a few days ago (http://lodahl.blogspot.com/2008/04/master-thesis-openofficeorg-vs.html) on the website Comon (http://www.comon.dk/index.php/news/show/id=35500) .
Among other things, Jasper Bojsen from Microsoft in Denmark says that...

It is not possible to say, that the same calculations are valid for all public institutions, because there are big differences between the medical systems etc. used and in the way they are integrated.

I say: True enough. There are big differences between the public institutions and the medical systems etc. That is already taken into consideration by the author. Further more has Microsoft promised us full interoperability in Office 2007 and OOXML, so the integration shouldn't be any problem, or should it ?

Microsoft also claims that there should be taken into consideration, the productivity-advantages in Microsoft Office. This is precisely what shouldn't be, because that subject is covered in another chapter in the master thesis, and the conslusion is, that there is very limitted advantage in Microsoft Office compared to OpenOffice.org.

OpenOffice.org Newsletter in Danish

The monthly Danish newsletter is released and can be downloaded here: http://doc.oooforum.dk/Nyhed/2008April.pdf

Here is my own translation of one of the articles...
Standards and free competition

by Leif Lodahl, spokesman for OpenOffice.org in Denmark

The international organization for standardization ISO is about to decide if the document format from Microsoft can be accepted as an international standard.

The problem with standards is, that there shouldn't be more than one standard covering a single subject. Microsoft has being pointing out that OOXML as the format is called, covers another subject than covered by the already approved standard ODF. And furthermore Microsoft points that more standards will increase free competition.

Think about this example: If we had two (or more) standards covering the subject power outlets. This is a very good example how free competition should take action on the product and not the standard. With the standard in common, anybody can get access to the marketplace, if only you can fulfill the standard covering that subject.

Interoperability

Standards secures that we can change one product with another without worries. This is called interoperability: No matter what lamp you buy, you can be sure that the plug fits in the power outlet in your home. Interoperability was one of the most important arguments when the Danish parliament decided to implement open standards for office documents in the public sector.

Interoperability creates free competition. The situation today is, that Microsoft covers about 90% of the market for office applications in Denmark. Microsoft Office is the dominating product at that means that the document format used by this product becomes a de facto standard. If we can reach full interoperability, this will cause the end user to be able to decide what program to use. So Microsoft will loose the dominant position and more and more users will select other (less expensive) programs. Microsoft will then be forced to decrease the prize for the office suite. Microsoft is not motivated to reach interoperability.

Can't we just use one of those converter plug-ins ? Yes, but that will not be interoperability but compatibility. This will be the case when we have two different standards for power outlets. If you buy a lamp that doesn't fit in your power outlet, you must also buy a converter to but in between the outlet and the lamp. A converter can translate the power to another standard but you must expect to loose some quality.

Microsoft is trying to convince us, that interoperability between ODF and OOXML can be achieved using converters and plug-ins. What they really is trying, is to make us satisfied with compatibility. Microsoft is doing that by hinder true interoperability by not use or support ODF and by pushing compatibility by using and supporting the development of plug-ins.

Consequences

If we can reach true interoperability, we as consumers can make a free choise. Microsoft Office, OpenOffice.org or what ever you find most appropriate. If we don't reach interoperability, but instead accepts compatibility, we will continuously be tight up with Microsoft document format OOXML– no matter if we like it or not. Simply because 90% of us will be using it before we know it.

But can't OpenOffice.org just use OOXML as well ? Yes, but Microsoft will always be ahead. Because the core purpose of the format is to be a Microsoft format (thats how it is in the spec). We will not reach free competition.