New design guidelines from Cycling England

Following on from Tony Raven's message. . .

Quoted message said:

http://www.cyclingengland.co.uk/engineering2e.php

Sent to these twerps - I don't think they have got the faintest clue -
They certainly don't speak for me - Blair-blather all over.

--message--

Duh!

A Microsoft Word document is a STUPID IDEA.

Please provide this information on your website in PDF like any sensible
organisation would do.

In case quangoitis has melted your brains - We don't all use Word.

Please reply when you have a proper posting.

/-message--

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the statuette business went bust
[email hidden]
www.eminent.demon.co.uk - Lots for cyclists

"Peter Fox" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In case quangoitis has melted your brains - We don't all use Word.

Nor is there need to to read word documents - there is other software, some
available at no cost, which can understand them.

In this case, it's probably actually appropriate. PDFs are read only without
extra software which most people don't have, and it is reasonable for this
document to be edited - saves printing the thing out to fill in the answers.

It may be nice of them to offer a PDF version, but in the circumstances
offering a word doc is sensible.

cheers,
clive

Peter Fox wrote on 05/01/2007 01:19 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Duh!

A Microsoft Word document is a STUPID IDEA.

Please provide this information on your website in PDF like any sensible
organisation would do.

In case quangoitis has melted your brains - We don't all use Word.

Please reply when you have a proper posting.

Except I cannot add comments and tracked edits to a pdf (unless I spend
a lot of money with Adobe) - I have to print it out, write on it and
post it off or scan and e-mail it. You don't have to have Word - you
can get and use the open source community's excellent Open Office for
free to do all the things that Microsoft Office does
http://www.openoffice.org/

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

in message <[email hidden]>, Clive

George (') said:

It may be nice of them to offer a PDF version, but in the circumstances
offering a word doc is sensible.

The word you're looking for is 'illegal'; in the European Union, anyway.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

See one nuclear war, you've seen them all.

Clive George said:

"Peter Fox" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In case quangoitis has melted your brains - We don't all use Word.

Nor is there need to to read word documents - there is other software, some
available at no cost, which can understand them.

It may be nice of them to offer a PDF version, but in the circumstances
offering a word doc is sensible.

If they insist on using Word, they should at least provide a direct link to
_simple_ no-cost software that will enable non-Word users to read it.

IMO providing general info as Word documents without means of a single-click
access shows a discourtesy towards the reader.

John B

John B said:

IMO providing general info as Word documents without means of a single-click
access shows a discourtesy towards the reader.

On the one hand, yes, but on the other so is (a) providing it in a form
that can't be modified/annotated etc. or (b) not providing it at all,
which are the obvious options here.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Clive George said:

"Peter Fox" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In case quangoitis has melted your brains - We don't all use Word.

Nor is there need to to read word documents - there is other software, some
available at no cost, which can understand them.

In this case, it's probably actually appropriate. PDFs are read only without
extra software which most people don't have, and it is reasonable for this
document to be edited - saves printing the thing out to fill in the answers.

It may be nice of them to offer a PDF version, but in the circumstances
offering a word doc is sensible.

It should be noted that all the infrastructure guideline documents on
the same page are PDF's. Yes it would be nice to have a PDF of the
checklist (as Word is not terribly reliable wrt formatting issues.)

...d

"Peter Fox" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Following on from Tony Raven's message. . .

Quoted message said:

http://www.cyclingengland.co.uk/engineering2e.php

Sent to these twerps - I don't think they have got the faintest clue -
They certainly don't speak for me - Blair-blather all over.

--message--

Duh!

A Microsoft Word document is a STUPID IDEA.

Please provide this information on your website in PDF like any sensible
organisation would do.

In case quangoitis has melted your brains - We don't all use Word.

Please reply when you have a proper posting.

/-message--

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the statuette business went bust
[email hidden]
www.eminent.demon.co.uk - Lots for cyclists

As the word document offered is only an alternative presentation of the text
and links on the web page itself, and as 'other free editors for word
documents are available', I don't really think you've got much to complain
about here, let alone justification for gratuitous rudeness. I'd be more
interested to know about your views on the guidelines themselves, rather
than your dislike of Microsoft.

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Clive

George (') said:

It may be nice of them to offer a PDF version, but in the circumstances
offering a word doc is sensible.

The word you're looking for is 'illegal'; in the European Union, anyway.

Do elaborate. Which format would you suggest they use that is easily usable
by the majority of people, can be used with easily available free software,
and supports more than just plain text? (I believe these mean PDF and .txt
files are out. HTML or SGML or similar get excluded by the first criterion,
which can be translated as "my mum can do it".)

cheers,
clive

Clive George said:

Do elaborate. Which format would you suggest they use that is easily usable
by the majority of people, can be used with easily available free software,
and supports more than just plain text? (I believe these mean PDF and .txt
files are out.

Why is PDF out?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

Clive George said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Clive

George (') said:

It may be nice of them to offer a PDF version, but in the circumstances
offering a word doc is sensible.

The word you're looking for is 'illegal'; in the European Union, anyway.

Do elaborate. Which format would you suggest they use that is easily
usable by the majority of people, can be used with easily available
free software, and supports more than just plain text? (I believe
these mean PDF and .txt files are out. HTML or SGML or similar get
excluded by the first criterion, which can be translated as "my mum
can do it".)

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying - but you're including word
documents, but excluding html by the criterion "easily usable by the
majority of people"?

Seems rather peculiar to me. Presumably the majority of people "use"
word documents via MS Word, which can also read and write html..

In any case "most people" are only really interested in reading, not
producing such things; so we don't need to worry about writing, just
reading. So html is just fine. It's well-defined and there is
reasonable-quality free software available to render it for just about
every platform under the sun. Which is not the case for word files.

"Ian Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Clive George said:

Do elaborate. Which format would you suggest they use that is easily
usable
by the majority of people, can be used with easily available free
software,
and supports more than just plain text? (I believe these mean PDF and
.txt
files are out.

Why is PDF out?

Bugger - sorry, forgot the "is editable" bit (aka isn't read-only) - I'd
included that in my previous post, but missed it this time. Does that answer
your question?

cheers,
clive

"Paul Rudin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Clive George said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Clive
George ([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

> It may be nice of them to offer a PDF version, but in the circumstances
> offering a word doc is sensible.

The word you're looking for is 'illegal'; in the European Union, anyway.

Do elaborate. Which format would you suggest they use that is easily
usable by the majority of people, can be used with easily available
free software, and supports more than just plain text? (I believe
these mean PDF and .txt files are out. HTML or SGML or similar get
excluded by the first criterion, which can be translated as "my mum
can do it".)

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying - but you're including word
documents, but excluding html by the criterion "easily usable by the
majority of people"?

Seems rather peculiar to me. Presumably the majority of people "use"
word documents via MS Word, which can also read and write html..

In any case "most people" are only really interested in reading, not
producing such things; so we don't need to worry about writing, just
reading. So html is just fine. It's well-defined and there is
reasonable-quality free software available to render it for just about
every platform under the sun. Which is not the case for word files.

I missed out one rather important bit in my second post : that the format
needs to be writable (read the doc in the OP - it's clearly designed to be
edited, not just read). Does that make more sense now?

(yes, read-only is a significantly easier problem, and PDF or HTM are both
appropriate for this).

cheers,
clive

"Clive George" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Peter Fox said:

In case quangoitis has melted your brains - We don't all use Word.

Nor is there need to to read word documents - there is other software, some
available at no cost, which can understand them.

Unfortunately, the conversion is unreliable, partly because the Word format
is not publicly standardised, unlike the Open Document Format, as used in
OpenOffice.org.

I've also requested a non-Microsoft copy: it sounds useful to have when
reviewing proposals off-line, but that Word doc looks like chutney in my
usual converter.

About the adding comments and so on: having it as a web page would be good,
readable without special extras and copy-pastable to many word processors.

I also commented on the missed opportunity to promote the pre-junction signs
required for smoother, safer, faster cycling, as seen in parts of Cambridge.
The reasons against 20mm cycle route at-junction fingerposts are the same as
for road fingerposts: they are only suitable for lightly-used low-speed
routes where people will stop at junctions to read them.

That's not the cycling infrastructure we should be aiming for.

Regards,
--
MJR/slef
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2007/environment#cycling

"MJ Ray" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately, the conversion is unreliable, partly because the Word
format
is not publicly standardised, unlike the Open Document Format, as used in
OpenOffice.org.

One problem with the Open Document Format - it's useless for rather more
people than the word format is useless for. And those for whom the word
format is useless are rather more likely to be able to get round this, since
they've deliberately chosen to avoid the mass market.
(useless as in my dad wouldn't be able to read it. MS don't support it,
therefore it's of no use to the majority of people)

I'm not terribly interested in discussing the evils of MS - IMO that belongs
elsewhere. Ditto Cycling England - they're not about discussing esoteric
document formats, but rather disseminating information to as many people as
possible. Which means using the de-facto standard, which is MS-Word format.

Yes, I know it's not the ideal state of affairs. But this is not the place
to complain about it.

cheers,
clive

MJ Ray said:

I also commented on the missed opportunity to promote the pre-junction signs
required for smoother, safer, faster cycling, as seen in parts of Cambridge.
The reasons against 20mm cycle route at-junction fingerposts are the same as
for road fingerposts: they are only suitable for lightly-used low-speed
routes where people will stop at junctions to read them.

I agree with this in principle, but what do you do when you're
signposting a right turn off a road which has one every 50m or so?
It's very difficult to make it clear which junction is referred to
unless the sign is dead opposite it. More than one sign tends to be
ruled out on clutter grounds.

Colin McKenzie

--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at
the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as
walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

MJ Ray wrote on 05/01/2007 20:51 +0100:

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately, the conversion is unreliable, partly because the Word format
is not publicly standardised, unlike the Open Document Format, as used in
OpenOffice.org.

It opens fine for me in Open Office

Quoted message said:

I've also requested a non-Microsoft copy: it sounds useful to have when
reviewing proposals off-line, but that Word doc looks like chutney in my
usual converter.

Use Open Office then - I find very few Word documents that don't work
fully in it.

Quoted message said:

About the adding comments and so on: having it as a web page would be good,
readable without special extras and copy-pastable to many word processors.

Having looked at it for the first time to test it out in Open Office,
unless I am missing something the Word document is just the same as the
linked web page, both of which have links to PDFs of the individual
sections.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

in message <[email hidden]>, Clive

George (') said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Clive

George (') said:

It may be nice of them to offer a PDF version, but in the circumstances
offering a word doc is sensible.

The word you're looking for is 'illegal'; in the European Union, anyway.

Do elaborate. Which format would you suggest they use that is easily
usable by the majority of people, can be used with easily available free
software, and supports more than just plain text? (I believe these mean
PDF and .txt files are out. HTML or SGML or similar get excluded by the
first criterion, which can be translated as "my mum can do it".)

Open Document format, a standard endorsed not only by the OSI but also by
the EU? Not subject to patent, not proprietary, can be read using free
software on virtually any platform in current use (including Microsoft
Word, not that I'm saying that's free)?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

<p>Schroedinger's cat is <blink><strong>NOT</strong></blink> dead.</p>

in message <[email hidden]>, Paul Rudin

(') said:

Clive George said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Clive
George ([email hidden]'😉 wrote:

> It may be nice of them to offer a PDF version, but in the
> circumstances offering a word doc is sensible.

The word you're looking for is 'illegal'; in the European Union,
anyway.

Do elaborate. Which format would you suggest they use that is easily
usable by the majority of people, can be used with easily available
free software, and supports more than just plain text? (I believe
these mean PDF and .txt files are out. HTML or SGML or similar get
excluded by the first criterion, which can be translated as "my mum
can do it".)

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying - but you're including word
documents, but excluding html by the criterion "easily usable by the
majority of people"?

Seems rather peculiar to me. Presumably the majority of people "use"
word documents via MS Word, which can also read and write html..

Minor problem with that. MS Word cannot write standards conformant HTML.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Life would be much easier if I had the source code.