Some people will receive via email Word and other Microsoft Office documents that they are unable to open since installing Windows Service Pack 3 because the documents were created in an earlier version than Office 2003 and Office 2007.  I have already mentioned the nonsense faced by any user who has earlier versions than Word 2007 who is unable to open the docx file the answer is here docx file opener But now we have a lock on earlier files. for security reasons. Really? why can't users just right click and select their favourite antivirus program - I use AVG -to scan the file? Instead they are instructed to alter their registry:

This file is so potentially dangerous that it can't even be sent from an IT advisor using Microsoft's own Outlook 2003 as an attachment - it is removed before sending. I presume that I need to use my car to deliver this Registry Fix to a client!  I do not believe for an instant that Microsoft would utilise these tactics to force users to upgrade their copy of Office to the most recent edition. However is this really the best that they can do. Or are we really facing such a serious threat to our security that these measures are neccessary?

I repeat is this the best that Microsoft can do, or is the threat so serious that this level of expert intervention is neccessary? In my case I need to visit the customer to download the registry fix, which is necessary to countermand the block created by Service Pack Three, that I am unable to send by Microdost Outlook 2003 -which blocks the transmission.

What a joke! The fix can't be sent as a file by Microsoft's software as being too dangerous to send! But the fix is certified by Microsoft!

Introduction

This article is really aimed at the computer professional and web designers. The article presents the difference between the CSS Box Model, Microsoft's Box Model and the relationship of those models to those of the artist's concept of Picture. I am quite sure that the differences can also be considered by the interested layman. There is a general confusion leading to problems in creating working websites that are seen by computer users using different Internet browsers. The two principal browsers are Internet Explorer and Mozilla's Firefox, but there are others and different versions of,  for example Internet Explorer, that may "render" the web site design in different ways.

Displaying web site pages

Quite apart from the different size of display unit that computer users have there is also a related issue of the resolution of the display unit. I usually have my display units set to a lower resolution than the maximum display resolution. Text size can also be set larger or smaller. These variables make web site creation a complicated task. Very rarely is a web site "page" set to a width with no divisions of the page. Usually the web page is composed of sections, divisions (divs) or boxes which may be created with tables to layout the page or with Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) or with a combination of both. Web pages may also have divisions created by using "frames" which can be scrolled independently of other parts of the web page. Indeed web pages may use CSS tables and frames and also use active scripts to enable the user to select and buy goods and services or to send information.

The Box Model

The layout of the page is fundamentally dependent on the concept of the Box Model. Central to the model is the notion of "width" Unfortunately, the width of the "box" is confused by the existence of the official Box Model concept and that in use by Microsoft. Apparently, Microsoft was using the concept before the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) defined theirs.

I have wasted a lot of my time, and still do, coming to grips with my web pages not appearing according to my planned design layout. The diagram below includes both the W3C and Microsoft's box model and an interpretation of what the box model should be. As a professional artist I believe that both the W3C and Microsoft have got it wrong.

The argument which I feel reflects what most people would consider sensible is derived from thinking about a picture and its frame on a wall:

The box model presents "Content" on a web page. In this argument the picture is the content.

1. a picture exists in a frame (we could refer to the frame as the Border property)
2. a picture, particularly a water colour would have a mount which separates it from the frame (we could refer to this as Padding)
3. a framed picture exists on a wall (we could refer to this as the Margin property)

If I take one of my pictures to be framed. The width of the frame would be the width of the picture plus the mount and the framer would discuss the size of the mount.

My conclusion is that the Artist's Box Model reflects accurately the way in which paintings have been considered in their environment for centuries.  It's too late to change the existing Box Models. Of the existing box models I prefer the Microsoft one as I can easily absorb the "border" element into the Width concept as the border is usually narrow. On reflection it's the W3C concept that has caused business to pay out possibly billions of pounds or dollars in additional website development work. A good reference is Wikipedia's Box Model Bug but I can't see how it's a bug.

On the other hand the Box Model doesn't just apply to pictures or passages of text it applies to every element on a web page. Each word, for example, can be considered as being the content of a "box" with the following properties: padding, border and margin. From this viewpoint restricting Width to content as in the W3C box model makes a lot of sense. Well it does if one contemplates the degree of flexibility this notion provides. 

Why Teach?

First some rant. I used to teach, my current status is retired. I am still allowed to teach until I'm 70. However, teachers although they have a unique DES  number which can be used to ensure that if they go off the straight and narrow can have their record of good service amended now need to subscribe to an inquisitorial panel. Several years ago the labour government introduced The General Teaching Council which every teacher must be registered with at a cost of £36 per annum. This is a supervisory quango-like organization that serves no useful purpose whatsoever.  In addition, every teacher needs to have a Police search made every three years at a cost of £32 if they are out off regular employment. Supply teachers thus have to pay the £32 every three years.

I could only work as a supply teacher as I am far too expensive to be employed otherwise. I have a higher degree and two vocational City and Guilds to level III in CAD and nearly twenty years experience in secondary education. I am a former moderator for GCE and GSCE examination boards. So do not even think that I am not a capable teacher. </rant>

It would be nice to have the occasional day or two a month in school, but I'm not paying for the privilege!

Educational Software Costs

As a teacher I always made sure that I had MS Office and other software so that I could teach IT as well as DT and also Art. The purchase of the software is not an item that can be offset for income tax purposes as the software would need to be an essential requirement for employment as a teacher. Teachers buy the software at their own expense. I have not since retirement decided to update my copy of Office 2003 to Office 2007.

The Ribbon

If I did I would need to become familiar with the changes that have been made by Microsoft. Even professional users of computers are having trouble learning the new software. The interface between the users has been altered. Whilst there are sound arguments for altering the interface there is a problem for users who are used to the familiar MS user interface. Furthermore many programs use the familiar MS user interface with their programs.

The principal change to MS Office software is the Ribbon and one can read about it and get help here: Word 2007 Cheat Sheet

My view of the changes, which I am not really familiar with, are Microsoft should provide the option for users to use the familiar user interface as well.  Of course, if that option is available to users of Office 2007 then it's is not apparent to those who have contacted me with their problems.