Document file formats

[Richardk]

This should be a no-brainer but I'm in a group where everyone is using a different format for exchanging documents. Currently I've seen doc, docx, odt and pdf. The author uses what they know / like and is amazed that others can't open the document. I think everyone is using Windows though an Apple user is possible and I doubt there are any Linux users.

While I like PDF's unless they need to be edited, what is a good common format? I think doc's are probably the most common though I'm not familiar enough with Mac's to know whether MS Office is the dominant product there.

Any obvious suggestions that I'm overlooking? I'd like to say MS Office but these are volunteers and cost may be an issue.

[Walter Mitty]

You get a free MS Word viewer with windows.  It's called Wordpad.  It may not be able to read everything MS Word can write, but it's close.  I would expect that a free MS Word viewer is available for Macs.

Whenever this issue came up at a client site in the 1990s the answer was always the same:  We use MS Office; adapt to it; next issue.  This isn't necessarily the best answer, but it sure disposes of the problem fast.

The same issue came up at my church last year.  We got a couple in their 80s who are extremely technologically challenged.  They couldn't read the minutes of the last meeting.  The pastor imagines himself to be a technical genius, and has gone the way of "nothing microsoft", because that's what all the smart people do.  The thing is, he hasn't got the time to help the elderly couple, and I don't have the credibility.

I recommended PDF.  The eventually went that way, but it took about six months of theological debate to get there. Almost everybody has or can get PDF generating software.  But, as you say,  the ability to edit can make a difference. 

In volunteer organizations, I lean towards the inability to edit,  but that's just me.

[Carrie Cobol]

I have Office on my Mac, but it's a newer version that saves .docx files by default.  I can do "save as" and make a .doc version.  That's what I do when sending documents to my greyhound group who all run older Office versions.  I say go with the majority:  if most people can read/edit .doc, then make those with the newer versions use that file format.

[Richardk]

I'm thinking along the same lines but wanted to make sure that my POV isn't skewed.

I like PDF's for final copy's plus it's web friendly.

Word is a standard and as mentioned, there are free doc and docx viewers.

For editing, if money is an issue, OpenOffice can edit doc files though I don't think it can save as docx. I believe LibreOffice understands docx.

With that said, to accommodate older versions of Office, perhaps it's better to save as doc instead of docx? I wonder what the majority has?

[The Gorn]

Wordpad is not enough by far.

There is, or used to be, a free Word viewer available for download. Anyone viewing Word files who does not own Word should use it.

Plus, Open Office Writer (whatever the O.O. app is called) can open many Word files. (In general Open Office apps can handle most MS stuff like Powerpoints, etc.)

[datagirl]

If it's a collaborative effort and/or you don't mind it being on "the cloud," there's google docs.  I've dabbled with this for a few hobby projects that I wanted to share with others and it worked out quite nicely.  Only trouble is it's google... and it's "the cloud."

-DG

[Walter Mitty]

I've never had a problem reading doc files with Wordpad.  It's been a few years since I tried.

Sometimes the format was a little messed.

[Richardk]

I've never had a problem reading doc files with Wordpad.  It's been a few years since I tried.

I can open doc files with Wordpad but it doesn't know what to make of docx files.

There are plenty of free Word viewers plus the Open Office variants can edit them as noted.

So I guess, for no editing just create a PDF. Otherwise a doc file still seems to be the most universal.

If this was some project with long term retention then I'd probably shy away from doc files but I'm not sure which format I'd pick. Text comes to mind. I'm surprised that no one mentioned LaTex or something similar but that's pretty far from the norm.

[Walter Mitty]

Richard,

You're the one closest to the problem.  You know what people are trying to do with these documents.  You're better situated than the rest fo us to choose between the different formats that have been suggested.  Is the sharing for publication only, or do volunteers edit shared docs?  Can they all access a commonly available viewer for any one of the formats.

LaTex seems like an odd candidate to me, but you may know something I don't know.

[Richardk]

Ah, LaTex was thrown out for fun. 

Some docs are read only. Some can be edited. The majority have been doc files but I'm now seeing other formats. Before things get out of hand, I thought I'd suggest a "standard".

I lean towards MS Office because my clients do.

That's my point of view but I don't know what Mac users use or even people using Linux, though that hasn't come up. I also see a lot of older versions of Word that don't understand docx files.

So before I suggest a format, I was wondering what does the rest of the world use? From my view, it's Word.

[benali72]

Use either --

.html -- Everybody can view it, and everybody can edit it through one of many different free HTML editors (Kompozer, etc). Runs on all platforms.
or
.doc --  Anyone can install free OO or LO to work with this format, if they need to.

Don't use ---

.docx  -- Many "MS compatible" products still don't support it.
.pdf -- not writable except with specialized editors
.rtf -- blech!

[Richardk]

Yes, that's a good list.

I like the idea of .html but is Kompozer easy enough for a non-programmer? Also it should generate 'clean' html compared to doing a 'save as' in Word.

I like pdf's for read only but people still have problems creating them.

[Walter Mitty]

And MS word has had a "save as HTML" option for I don't know how long. 

When I want to generate PDF's, I try to install a PDF printer. 

MS came out with their answer to PDF a few years back.  I can't remember what it's called, but one of my computers came with a printer for that format built in.  I wouldn't recommend that choice.  Certainly not over PDF.

[The Gorn]

The original question:

I'm in a group where everyone is using a different format for exchanging documents. Currently I've seen doc, docx, odt and pdf. The author uses what they know / like and is amazed that others can't open the document. I think everyone is using Windows though an Apple user is possible and I doubt there are any Linux users.

Here is part of the answer. The technical answer.

Everyone should use DOC (not DOCX) format for exchanging files to be edited. It has become virtually a standard for the last 5-10 years. Almost any word processing program, including open source and Apple ones, can open, view and edit DOC files. It's just that simple and I don't get why a bunch of techies can't agree that this is one de facto standard that all businesses use.   

Forget (please) PDF for the purpose of editable documents. Nobody uses PDF for this purpose, even if Open Office can do this.

But do use PDF for any and all non editable "display only" documents because it always captures the physical appearance of a printed page. A PDF is what you send the printer. A PDF is NOT!!! dammit what you send a team member who needs to add to your work.

ODT is questionable because the non Open Office users will have their little open source specific brains explode. Word 2003 (I checked) does not support it. Dunno about later versions (it was the last decent version without the ribbon bar.)

HTML - a really bad idea. Don't use that for editing documents, and don't use it for sending display only documents. It simply does not have the same characteristics for editing and layout as Word or any other word processing application, and HTML rendering still varies a little.

You knew all this already, right?

Now the human part. A bunch of volunteers sounds like nobody will pay attention to or understand a standard. Some will view it as a dictatorial limitation on their freedom.

Example interaction: "Why cant' I use DOCX? It's (duh duh duh) BETTER than DOC, right? Oh, and duh."

If you want to take control of this irritating problem, then circulate a memo where you explain exactly what the standard should be and why. And cover the most likely end user miscomprehensions and "getting creative"sideshows. Especially tell them why the default file type that the stupid word processing program wants to write out won't be editable by some others on the team.

[Richardk]

That pretty much sums it up.

Use DOC, not DOCX. Also ODT is not as common. I don't know if it's "better" but that doesn't matter.

PDF for "display only" works for me but you still need a DOC if you want to edit it later.

HTML sounded so good but as noted, it has its problems. There's probably a place for it but not with documents. If we were talking about a 'historical' group or something along those lines, I'd even suggest TEXT files but then you lose all your formatting ability. For something like that, I can understand where 'paper' documents come into play.

Lastly "dictatorial limitation on their freedom" is exactly the point if they want to exchange documents. A short memo should do it since I'm sure the groups leader will endorse it.

Thanks again to everyone.