Thanks for these concise points. Being the only Office 2007 user in my comapany, I have to defend agains claims from time to time, that try to account non-explainable symptoms in office document files by hitting on Office 2007.

So, I guess this list will be very useful for me :-)

Cheers,

toby

Sorry to say but the conversion of the Compatibility Pack is quite buggy. In addition to the unfixed Style-Font-Conversion bug described before I discovered another one regarding heading numbers and indents. I've got a docx that when imported to Word 2000 displays headings right. But the heading styles themselves are buggy, i.e. on Word 2007 the numbering of the heading style is "1." but in Word 2000 it's "i.". However the document is displayed correctly in Word 2000 because the Compatibility Pack created DIRECT formatting on the actual heading paragraphs (in the docx). So only this DIRECT formatting applies the correct numbering to the converted text. If you want to add a new heading to the docx with Word 2000 this does not help you of course.

I don't understand how you can say that end-users don't need to know that "Word 2007 has new features that cannot be edited or cannot be represented in previous versions of Word"

What about this scenario?:  Some new features CAN INDEED be edited in 2003, and if they are, they will be permanently converted to a graphic object, rendering them "uneditable" with the original feature used to create them.  Example:  Open a .docx file in Word 2003 + Compatibility pack that contains an item of SmartArt.  Now "edit" that item with the Picture Tools in Word 2003 to change:  brightness, contrast or cropping.  Open it again in Word 2007... it will have been permanently converted to a graphic object. The same thing happens to Equation objects, only different picture tools will permanently convert them.  

What are you going to tell the end-user who spent a whole day creating that SmartArt graphic?  That he/she didn't need to know that could happen?  Now that end user will have to "get their work done" all over again.

Furthermore, Excel 2007 provides a safety mechanism that makes stomping on new features less likely:  .xlsx files containing new features open in READ-ONLY mode in Excel 2003 + Compatibility Pack and the informational message states:  "The file has been opened in read-only mode to protect the original file."  Why doesn't Word 2007 provide the same protection?

RE:  "Word 2007 provides a way to ensure that features that cannot be edited or represented in previous versions of Word cannot be put into documents (via Compatibility Mode)"

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don’t think that is entirely true.

Bibliography, Citations, and Placeholder text are 3 new features that are available (not disabled like Themes and Equations or substituted with old features like SmartArt and Charts) for use in [Compatibility Mode].

Unless an end-user hovers over the feature icon long enough to see the "Functionality is currently limited” notice, and then surfs Help to try to figure out exactly how it’s limited, he/she can still create content using these new features in [Compatibility Mode], only learning at the moment of saving that “Citations and bibliographies will be converted to static text and will no longer be updated automatically”.

Furthermore, all new blank documents in Word 2007 created with Office Button / New / Blank Document / Create will not “start” in [Compatibility Mode], regardless of setting “Save Files in this format” to the 97-2003 formats.   Because of this, an end-user can start a new blank document and “get their work done” using any of the new features, but not find out until they actually save the file that the new feature content will get permanently converted into a state that will be uneditable using the new feature again if they proceed to save in the 97-2003 formats.

I totally agree that “end users don’t want to care and shouldn’t have to care.”   But I believe that unless the behavior and informational messages of Word 2007 are improved when it comes to compatibility, end-users (especially those who will be collaborating on the same files with users of previous versions) will definitely have to care.

So for your guide, I'd suggest moving this item:

"Word 2007 provides a way to ensure that features that cannot be edited or represented in previous versions of Word cannot be put into documents (via Compatibility Mode)"

under the heading "End Users Need to Know" and adding "with the exception of Bibliography, Citations, and Placeholder text." to the end of the sentence.

I'd also change this:  " …because it is new to Word 2007 and can improve their ability to get work done"

and add this:

" and retain the future edit ability of that work using the new feature."

Thank you for your clarification, but thank you even more for your refreshing frankness (e.g. "... I agree that we have room for improvement when it comes to compatibility.")  

I understand now, thanks.  There is an underlying assumption I missed.  This guide is geared towards End-users upgrading from a previous version of Word who already know everything there is to know about what to expect as far as compatibility goes when new features come along with a new version of Word.  It assumes that End-users already have an understanding and an expectation that new features get compromised in previous versions of Word and/or when saved in non-default file formats.  

I think that is a pretty big assumption to make for “A Compatibility Guide for the ‘End User’”.

I still think that "Word 2007 has new features that cannot be edited or cannot be represented in previous versions of Word" should be moved out from under a heading reading "End Users Don't Need to Know", regardless of the small print underneath it, and regardless of whether or not this behavior is “not different/worse than previous versions of Word.”

Here's why:

Word 2007 end-users will be much more likely to start using features (new or old) they've never used before because:

1) The new ribbon design makes features/functions previously buried in drop-down menus more accessible. I've already observed our Office 2007 users using SmartArt when they never even thought about using the old Diagramming gallery in 2003.  They are also starting to use table auto-formatting when they never touched it in Word 2003.  Why?  The ribbon puts the feature in their face, and now they’re enticed to use it.   They don’t already know what to expect of backward-compatibility, because they’ve never tried features like this in a previous version.

2) Microsoft is citing new features much more aggressively as primary benefits of Office 2007, especially SmartArt.  I rolled out Office 2003 at my company, and I don't even remember table auto-formatting being talked-up near as much in the marketing materials, tutorials, online training, etc…

Therefore, it is highly unlikely that Word 2007 end-users will already know what to expect as far as compatibility goes when new features come along with a new version of Word.  

I can appreciate not wanting to “lose site of the forest for the trees”, but I also think that in some situations (like this one), over-simplification can lead to a false sense of security for many end-users, and ultimately lead to them losing their ability to edit, or re-use their "work done".

P.S.  I totally agree that when it comes to backwards compatibility of new features, Word 2007 is no worse than previous versions, and has actually improved in many ways.  

I just have a concern that documentation such as guides, help verbiage, training materials, and informational messages that make sweeping statements at the forest-level may leave out pertinent tree-level details that could result in shadows cast over those improvements.

And on a semi-unrelated note:  I also think that there has been a vast improvement in the end-user tools provided to ease the adjustment to a new version... the most brilliant of which is the interactive guide.  Whoever came up with that gem deserves a big bonus!

Re. the "End Users Need to Know" bullet above:

I agree that they do need to know that there is a new file format. However, I don't see what good the knowledge that the people they are communicating with need to 'download a compatibility pack' will do them, though. It's the people who are attempting to open the files and then wasting time emailing back and forth - i.e. the recipients, not the authors - who need to know this latter fact. It's kind of useful on a second-order level to the author, but it doesn't help the author get heard.

Maybe this should read:

The user needs to know that once they have spent some time figuring out the new UI in order to work on some time sensitive documents, that once these documents have been sent out, and the user has gotten a good nights rest, that their email in-boxes the next morning will have messages from people saying "I can't open the document that you sent me."

;)

Hi Jonathan -

Hmm, I don't think so. In the user's mind, while knowledge of the existence of the Compatibility Pack as a way to read .docx files does solve the problem of how to open the file in the abstract,  again in the users' mind, it does not address their immediate, pressing and concrete task of how to communicate something quickly and easily with a recipient. As you say above, "end users don’t want to care and shouldn’t have to care" about any compatibility issues.

For myself, it's currently easier for me to address the issue by continuing to save everything as a Word 97-03 .doc file, which I figure will be readable by all versions of Word (right?). If I do that, then I don't have to explain myself repeatedly to everyone I send a document to, particularly if I send to lists; and I also don't look like a klutz for apparently sending broken attachments.

So maybe the second thing that a user would need to know about is the existence of the 'save as a previous version of Word' option - which is now accessed in the top left-hand corner. Took me a few minutes to figure that one out, too ;)

Yes, I guess I am. For me the issue is compatibility, and not the Compatibility Pack. The user's key task is to generate compatible documents. As such, compatibility could be handled by Word - more easily, in my opinion - by prompting the user to save their documents in a legacy .doc format (unless, perhaps, the user knew that all recipients, e.g. within one office, would actually be able to read the .docx format).