How to understand MS Word deletions and insertions


Luke Davis
 

Hello

I am the first to admit that I am no advanced MS Word user. Running Word 2019, Win 10 20H2, latest NVDA alpha (and earlier versions).

I am reviewing a protected document.
With UIA on, it contains the following line:

"
To that end, our client is proposes a settlement based on the following terms:
"

There is an obvious grammar error there. When I turn off UIA, I see that line as:

"
To that end, our client is deleted proposes inserted not deleted a not inserted settlement based on the following terms:
"

My question is: how am I to understand the final result of that line? It seems as if it would be:

"
To that end, our client is a settlement based on the following terms:
"

Which makes even less sense than the original grammar error.

And then, reading character by character, yields a completely different interpretation:

"
(First part the same)
i
s
space
deleted
p
inserted not deleted
r
o
p
o
s
e
s
space
a
not inserted
space
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
(rest the same)
"

Which makes me think that now the line should be expected to look like:

"
To that end, our client is roposes a settlement based on the following terms:
"

(Where the final result has the "p" missing from "proposes", and includes the word "a".)

But which does it actually look like?
Obviously this is a legal document, and before I complain about parts of it, I should avoid looking like an idiot by complaining about what the final result is meant to be, not partial edits that have already been inserted/deleted.

As a side note, thank God I turned off UIA, or I would have no idea that this thing was covered with edits in the first place.

Luke


 

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 07:36 PM, Luke Davis wrote:
Which makes me think that now the line should be expected to look like:

"
To that end, our client is roposes a settlement based on the following terms:
-
Luke,

I don't think you're going to get there via looking at the edits, because the editor(s) made error(s).

To me, it's pretty clear that the actual intended result should be:  To that end, our client proposes a settlement based on the following terms:
--

Brian - Windows 10, 64-Bit, Version 21H2, Build 19044

Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer.

        ~ Mark Twain


Quentin Christensen
 

Do you want to see the edits?

If not, you can show only the final version:
Press alt+r to open the review ribbon
Press z then t to choose "Tracking"
Press t then m to choose show markup
Press i to turn off showing insertions and deletions.

On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 11:36 AM Luke Davis <luke@...> wrote:
Hello

I am the first to admit that I am no advanced MS Word user. Running Word 2019,
Win 10 20H2, latest NVDA alpha (and earlier versions).

I am reviewing a protected document.
With UIA on, it contains the following line:

"
To that end, our client is proposes a settlement based on the following terms:
"

There is an obvious grammar error there. When I turn off UIA, I see that line
as:

"
To that end, our client is   deleted  proposes   inserted  not deleted  a   not inserted  settlement based on the following terms:
"

My question is: how am I to understand the final result of that line? It seems
as if it would be:

"
To that end, our client is a settlement based on the following terms:
"

Which makes even less sense than the original grammar error.

And then, reading character by character, yields a completely different
interpretation:

"
(First part the same)
i
s
space
deleted
p
inserted  not deleted
r
o
p
o
s
e
s
space
a
not inserted
space
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
(rest the same)
"

Which makes me think that now the line should be expected to look like:

"
To that end, our client is roposes a settlement based on the following terms:
"

(Where the final result has the "p" missing from "proposes", and includes the
word "a".)

But which does it actually look like?
Obviously this is a legal document, and before I complain about parts of it, I
should avoid looking like an idiot by complaining about what the final result is
meant to be, not partial edits that have already been inserted/deleted.

As a side note, thank God I turned off UIA, or I would have no idea that this
thing was covered with edits in the first place.

Luke


--
Quentin Christensen
Training and Support Manager


Luke Davis
 

Quentin

You wrote:

Do you want to see the edits?
The basic answer is: for this document itself, just reading it without them is sufficient.
But in other cases, actually being able to comprehend what is going on, might be very important.

Moreover, the fact that UIA doesn't indicate that there even are edits, or that track changes is turned on, is very troubling in light of #13437 being about to be adopted.
In my opinion UIA as default should absolutely not be the case while NVDA can't determine from it that the document you are hearing has text that will not appear in the final version.

> If not, you can show only the final version:
Press alt+r to open the review ribbon
Press z then t to choose "Tracking"
Press t then m to choose show markup
Press i to turn off showing insertions and deletions.
Thank you. That is a solution to the immediate question of understanding the most edited parts of the document, but I really was hoping to be able to comprehend it with the markup in place. I guess that shouldn't be expected, as Brian pointed out.

I still find it odd though, the way NVDA indicates where the deletion ends and the insertion begins (inside the end of the deletion). When reading the line, it's after the word "proposes". When reading by character, it's within the word.
It seems there should be a more clear way to speak that in the full line read.

Luke


 

On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 08:51 PM, Luke Davis wrote:
I guess that shouldn't be expected, as Brian pointed out.
-
Believe me, that was said without a trace of snark, too.  Depending on exactly how convoluted the editing was, it is very, very easy for that tracking to become very incomprehensible very quickly.  Lots of single character or functor word changes (e.g, is, a, of, in) not done at the same time but in back and forth makes things particularly crazy, and certain editors are far more structured in how they edit than others.

I always look at the text as it exists and if there are mistakes, remedying those, rather than trying to ferret out intent from edits.
--

Brian - Windows 10, 64-Bit, Version 21H2, Build 19044

Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer.

        ~ Mark Twain


Quentin Christensen
 

Tracking of deletions and insertions in Word can become very complex, very quickly.  I should say though, I can turn on track changes, edit a document, and NVDA - with UIA enabled - will report the changes correctly.

My comment about turning off showing the edits, was a suggestion based on that this particular document seemed quite convoluted and your wording indicated you were simply trying to read the latest version of it without needing to know what had been changed along the way.

I think a lot of the complexity can stem from how word records the changes and also how they are done.  Yes it could be simpler, but I think in this case, NVDA is simply reading what it gets from Word.

If the original sentence is "I have a cat", and you want to change it to "I have a dog", then exactly how you edit it will change how Word presents the change:

You could backspace over the word cat and then type dog
You could select the word cat, then delete it (or not) and then type the word dog
You could turn on overtype mode and type d o g over c a t

If a consistent way of making these changes is used then it might be easier to read a document knowing the inserted text is read before (or after) the deleted text, but in other cases, it could be either way.  It could even be parts of words - I might remove part of a sentence and make a word, previously in the middle of a sentence, start the new sentence, in that case, NVDA won't even read the full word as a word, because part has been deleted and part inserted.

If you can send me the original file off list confidentially, I'm happy to have a look.

Kind regards

Quentin.

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 12:59 PM Brian Vogel <britechguy@...> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 08:51 PM, Luke Davis wrote:
I guess that shouldn't be expected, as Brian pointed out.
-
Believe me, that was said without a trace of snark, too.  Depending on exactly how convoluted the editing was, it is very, very easy for that tracking to become very incomprehensible very quickly.  Lots of single character or functor word changes (e.g, is, a, of, in) not done at the same time but in back and forth makes things particularly crazy, and certain editors are far more structured in how they edit than others.

I always look at the text as it exists and if there are mistakes, remedying those, rather than trying to ferret out intent from edits.
--

Brian - Windows 10, 64-Bit, Version 21H2, Build 19044

Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer.

        ~ Mark Twain



--
Quentin Christensen
Training and Support Manager


Luke Davis
 

Quentin Christensen wrote:

Tracking of deletions and insertions in Word can become very complex, very quickly.  I should say though, I can turn on track changes, edit a document, and
NVDA - with UIA enabled - will report the changes correctly.
I find that when it is set to "always", it doesn't report them at all. At least not in Word 2019. Obviously that may be different for 16.X, so the PR I was talking about may not be affected.

I think a lot of the complexity can stem from how word records the changes and also how they are done.  Yes it could be simpler, but I think in this case,
NVDA is simply reading what it gets from Word.
I have been playing with it a bit, and I see what you mean. It is very non-intuitive.

If a consistent way of making these changes is used then it might be easier to read a document knowing the inserted text is read before (or after) the
deleted text, but in other cases, it could be either way.  It could even be parts of words - I might remove part of a sentence and make a word, previously
in the middle of a sentence, start the new sentence, in that case, NVDA won't even read the full word as a word, because part has been deleted and part
inserted.
Well that's what at first seemed to be happening with the word "proposes" in what I sent. It appeared that they deleted the "p", by the way character navigation was specifying the deletion marks. So I thought it should have said something like "p roposes", or "deleted p not deleted roposes".
But that's probably not what was actually going on there.
Not very important at this point, but it helped lead to my initial confusion and started all this.

Thanks for your explanations.

Luke