Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.misc
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I have a problem with a worksheet that needs to "look good" both in print and
when displayed in Excel. Many of the cells contain text. The problem is that the line breaks seems to be different on-screen vs. in print. That is, some cells require only one line when printed, but on the display they wrap to 2 lines. Does anyone know why this is? And what I can do to make the on-screen display "match" the printed output? I'm not using AutoFit for the row height. I need some white space between the rows, so I'm manually setting the row height. Thanks, Betsy |
#2
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.misc
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Excel isn't really designed as a "What you see is what you get" program. It
has a number of idiosyncracies, especially with AutoFit and column widths. Usually I find that I can either get the print layout as I want it, or the screen layout as I want it but not both. Dave -- A hint to posters: Specific, detailed questions are more likely to be answered than questions that provide no detail about your problem. "Betsy" wrote: I have a problem with a worksheet that needs to "look good" both in print and when displayed in Excel. Many of the cells contain text. The problem is that the line breaks seems to be different on-screen vs. in print. That is, some cells require only one line when printed, but on the display they wrap to 2 lines. Does anyone know why this is? And what I can do to make the on-screen display "match" the printed output? I'm not using AutoFit for the row height. I need some white space between the rows, so I'm manually setting the row height. Thanks, Betsy |
#3
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.misc
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 12:41:08 -0800, Dave F
wrote: Excel isn't really designed as a "What you see is what you get" program. It has a number of idiosyncracies, especially with AutoFit and column widths. Usually I find that I can either get the print layout as I want it, or the screen layout as I want it but not both. Dave Sometimes this difference between displayed and printed column widths is caused by using a zoom factor (other than 100%). Different fonts and font sizes seem to scale slightly differently when the screen display is zoomed. I use 75% zoom with 10-point Arial or Courier New (you need a reasonably good hi-res monitor to see this easily) but still have to make some columns wider to display a number than is needed for printing. Using a fixed-width font like Courier makes column widths more predictable, but many people prefer proportional fonts. My recommendations: use a font size that prints the way you want, and a screen zoom factor that lets you see as much of the sheet as possible in terms of the size of the characters on the screen that you can tolerate. Then, for printing, use the widest margins that you can get away with on your printer, put in forced page breaks, and force print scaling to whatever number of horizontal and vertical pages gives you an acceptable layout. -Jay- |
#4
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.misc
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Another suggestion is to use two sheets, one optimized for viewing on
screen, the other for printing. Link one to the other so the values stay current. - Jon ------- Jon Peltier, Microsoft Excel MVP Tutorials and Custom Solutions http://PeltierTech.com _______ "Jay Somerset " wrote in message ... On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 12:41:08 -0800, Dave F wrote: Excel isn't really designed as a "What you see is what you get" program. It has a number of idiosyncracies, especially with AutoFit and column widths. Usually I find that I can either get the print layout as I want it, or the screen layout as I want it but not both. Dave Sometimes this difference between displayed and printed column widths is caused by using a zoom factor (other than 100%). Different fonts and font sizes seem to scale slightly differently when the screen display is zoomed. I use 75% zoom with 10-point Arial or Courier New (you need a reasonably good hi-res monitor to see this easily) but still have to make some columns wider to display a number than is needed for printing. Using a fixed-width font like Courier makes column widths more predictable, but many people prefer proportional fonts. My recommendations: use a font size that prints the way you want, and a screen zoom factor that lets you see as much of the sheet as possible in terms of the size of the characters on the screen that you can tolerate. Then, for printing, use the widest margins that you can get away with on your printer, put in forced page breaks, and force print scaling to whatever number of horizontal and vertical pages gives you an acceptable layout. -Jay- |
#5
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.misc
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Another good suggestion--thank!
"Jon Peltier" wrote: Another suggestion is to use two sheets, one optimized for viewing on screen, the other for printing. Link one to the other so the values stay current. - Jon ------- Jon Peltier, Microsoft Excel MVP Tutorials and Custom Solutions http://PeltierTech.com _______ "Jay Somerset " wrote in message ... On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 12:41:08 -0800, Dave F wrote: Excel isn't really designed as a "What you see is what you get" program. It has a number of idiosyncracies, especially with AutoFit and column widths. Usually I find that I can either get the print layout as I want it, or the screen layout as I want it but not both. Dave Sometimes this difference between displayed and printed column widths is caused by using a zoom factor (other than 100%). Different fonts and font sizes seem to scale slightly differently when the screen display is zoomed. I use 75% zoom with 10-point Arial or Courier New (you need a reasonably good hi-res monitor to see this easily) but still have to make some columns wider to display a number than is needed for printing. Using a fixed-width font like Courier makes column widths more predictable, but many people prefer proportional fonts. My recommendations: use a font size that prints the way you want, and a screen zoom factor that lets you see as much of the sheet as possible in terms of the size of the characters on the screen that you can tolerate. Then, for printing, use the widest margins that you can get away with on your printer, put in forced page breaks, and force print scaling to whatever number of horizontal and vertical pages gives you an acceptable layout. -Jay- |
#6
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.misc
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks for the additional info!
"Jay Somerset " wrote: On Tue, 6 Feb 2007 12:41:08 -0800, Dave F wrote: Excel isn't really designed as a "What you see is what you get" program. It has a number of idiosyncracies, especially with AutoFit and column widths. Usually I find that I can either get the print layout as I want it, or the screen layout as I want it but not both. Dave Sometimes this difference between displayed and printed column widths is caused by using a zoom factor (other than 100%). Different fonts and font sizes seem to scale slightly differently when the screen display is zoomed. I use 75% zoom with 10-point Arial or Courier New (you need a reasonably good hi-res monitor to see this easily) but still have to make some columns wider to display a number than is needed for printing. Using a fixed-width font like Courier makes column widths more predictable, but many people prefer proportional fonts. My recommendations: use a font size that prints the way you want, and a screen zoom factor that lets you see as much of the sheet as possible in terms of the size of the characters on the screen that you can tolerate. Then, for printing, use the widest margins that you can get away with on your printer, put in forced page breaks, and force print scaling to whatever number of horizontal and vertical pages gives you an acceptable layout. -Jay- |
#7
![]()
Posted to microsoft.public.excel.misc
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks for the reply--you've saved me a lot of time trying to figure out this
limitation for myself. "Dave F" wrote: Excel isn't really designed as a "What you see is what you get" program. It has a number of idiosyncracies, especially with AutoFit and column widths. Usually I find that I can either get the print layout as I want it, or the screen layout as I want it but not both. Dave -- A hint to posters: Specific, detailed questions are more likely to be answered than questions that provide no detail about your problem. "Betsy" wrote: I have a problem with a worksheet that needs to "look good" both in print and when displayed in Excel. Many of the cells contain text. The problem is that the line breaks seems to be different on-screen vs. in print. That is, some cells require only one line when printed, but on the display they wrap to 2 lines. Does anyone know why this is? And what I can do to make the on-screen display "match" the printed output? I'm not using AutoFit for the row height. I need some white space between the rows, so I'm manually setting the row height. Thanks, Betsy |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
GRAPHICS DO NOT PRINT IN SAME LOCATION AS SCREEN IN EXCEL 2007 | Excel Discussion (Misc queries) | |||
How do I get ONLY new info from 1 Worksheet to another automatical | Excel Worksheet Functions | |||
How do I keep my checkbox from moving after I print the worksheet | Excel Discussion (Misc queries) | |||
Excel cell looks good in print preview but doesn't print??? | Excel Discussion (Misc queries) | |||
Print and Print Preview don't match screen | Excel Worksheet Functions |