Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Practice Tips for Document Comparison
There are a variety of products and tools available for comparing Microsoft Word documents. Within native Word, edits can be tracked using the track changes tool that, by default, marks document edits with an underline as text is inserted and a line through text that is deleted. However, many firms have a policy against using the track changes feature because of concerns about metadata. As each edit is marked, Word also notes the author of the change and the date and time the change was made. Additionally, a record of the last 10 authors is embedded in the document as well. However, metadata scrubbers have eliminated this issue by allowing users to retain tracked changes but eradicate the metadata they contain as well as remove the complete author history. Tracking changes is finding new popularity in law firms because of the metadata cleaning capability.
Comparison Options
Tracking changes in this manner is efficient, the results are immediate, and the document is suitable for reuse. Using Word's Reviewing Toolbar, document reviewers can navigate through the document and accept or reject changes with a single click. This approval process removes the markings and the edits are no longer distinguishable. Because this feature is provided in Word, it is highly desired in the collaboration process.
Another method of document comparison establishes each round of document edits as a new document version. Different versions can be compared, generating a new document that marks the differences between the two. Again, Word provides a built-in tool called Compare and Merge Documents that will generate a legal blackline. However, Word's feature lacks the flexibility and precision in marking the changes accurately. Consequently, several products exist to provide improved accuracy, flexibility in formatting and reporting tools. Some products even include the accept and reject functionality for the result documents. This adds a new dimension to the document collaboration process.
Traditionally, a round of edits is followed by comparing the original and revised versions of the document. A new document generated from this comparison is marked noting insertions, deletions, moves and formatting changes. Field codes used in cross-references and tables of contents, for instance, and automatic paragraph numbering are typically converted to text in the result document. Consequently, after review by all parties, this result document is not retained. Instead, the approved edits are accomplished manually in a new version.
Until now, that had been the one advantage in tracking changes automatically over using document compare ” being able to use the actual marked up document as the new version. Today's document comparison products can retain document field codes and automatic numbering in the result document, and also provide the ability to accept and reject changes using the product tools. If the product tools are not available to all members in the editing and collaboration process, then track changes would be more feasible.
Beyond Track Changes
Although track changes is finding new acceptability in law firms, on its own it lacks the enhancements offered by document comparing. Reports, change lists, the ability to suppress comparison on certain elements of the document, and replacing deleted text with certain characters are not available in generic Word. Reports and change lists provide useful summaries of the document changes. These summaries are helpful for a quick review of the edits and can be retained for historical reference.
Further, because tracked changes are accessible to all parties in the editing process, the ability to convert the results of a document compare to a tracked changes document is often helpful. For instance, suppose that multiple versions of a document have been prepared and a comparison is needed. The document resulting from that comparison is only fully functional using the product that generated the result document. If the client desires to edit this result document, there is no automated tool available to remove the markings. Manually accepting and rejecting the changes requires that the formatting be removed from the text, one markup at a time. Not only is this laborious, but much metadata remains in styles and bookmarks that must then be removed.
An alternative, again, is to convert the comparison document to a tracked changes document. This not only avails the client access to accepting and rejecting changes using built-in Word tools, but the document is absent of the metadata that results from creating tracked changes directly.
The requirements of the collaboration process are evolving. Quite often, it is no longer sufficient to provide result documents with a short lifespan or processes that require collaborators to repeat edits. The concerns that limited choices for collaboration, tracking edits, and preserving edit history have been eliminated with products that enhance track changes, preserve document automation such as field codes and automatic paragraph numbering, and convert result documents to track changes.
Judye Carter Reynolds has 25 years of experience in various training roles spanning customer training, technical support and software implementation services for small to large law firms. A member of our Board of Editors, she is currently the Vice President of Client Experiences for Esquire Innovations, Inc., a CA-based provider of Microsoft Office integration software services and applications for the legal market.
There are a variety of products and tools available for comparing
Comparison Options
Tracking changes in this manner is efficient, the results are immediate, and the document is suitable for reuse. Using Word's Reviewing Toolbar, document reviewers can navigate through the document and accept or reject changes with a single click. This approval process removes the markings and the edits are no longer distinguishable. Because this feature is provided in Word, it is highly desired in the collaboration process.
Another method of document comparison establishes each round of document edits as a new document version. Different versions can be compared, generating a new document that marks the differences between the two. Again, Word provides a built-in tool called Compare and Merge Documents that will generate a legal blackline. However, Word's feature lacks the flexibility and precision in marking the changes accurately. Consequently, several products exist to provide improved accuracy, flexibility in formatting and reporting tools. Some products even include the accept and reject functionality for the result documents. This adds a new dimension to the document collaboration process.
Traditionally, a round of edits is followed by comparing the original and revised versions of the document. A new document generated from this comparison is marked noting insertions, deletions, moves and formatting changes. Field codes used in cross-references and tables of contents, for instance, and automatic paragraph numbering are typically converted to text in the result document. Consequently, after review by all parties, this result document is not retained. Instead, the approved edits are accomplished manually in a new version.
Until now, that had been the one advantage in tracking changes automatically over using document compare ” being able to use the actual marked up document as the new version. Today's document comparison products can retain document field codes and automatic numbering in the result document, and also provide the ability to accept and reject changes using the product tools. If the product tools are not available to all members in the editing and collaboration process, then track changes would be more feasible.
Beyond Track Changes
Although track changes is finding new acceptability in law firms, on its own it lacks the enhancements offered by document comparing. Reports, change lists, the ability to suppress comparison on certain elements of the document, and replacing deleted text with certain characters are not available in generic Word. Reports and change lists provide useful summaries of the document changes. These summaries are helpful for a quick review of the edits and can be retained for historical reference.
Further, because tracked changes are accessible to all parties in the editing process, the ability to convert the results of a document compare to a tracked changes document is often helpful. For instance, suppose that multiple versions of a document have been prepared and a comparison is needed. The document resulting from that comparison is only fully functional using the product that generated the result document. If the client desires to edit this result document, there is no automated tool available to remove the markings. Manually accepting and rejecting the changes requires that the formatting be removed from the text, one markup at a time. Not only is this laborious, but much metadata remains in styles and bookmarks that must then be removed.
An alternative, again, is to convert the comparison document to a tracked changes document. This not only avails the client access to accepting and rejecting changes using built-in Word tools, but the document is absent of the metadata that results from creating tracked changes directly.
The requirements of the collaboration process are evolving. Quite often, it is no longer sufficient to provide result documents with a short lifespan or processes that require collaborators to repeat edits. The concerns that limited choices for collaboration, tracking edits, and preserving edit history have been eliminated with products that enhance track changes, preserve document automation such as field codes and automatic paragraph numbering, and convert result documents to track changes.
Judye Carter Reynolds has 25 years of experience in various training roles spanning customer training, technical support and software implementation services for small to large law firms. A member of our Board of Editors, she is currently the Vice President of Client Experiences for Esquire Innovations, Inc., a CA-based provider of
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
The Cost of Making Partner
Making partner isn't cheap, and the cost is more than just the years of hard work and stress that associates put in as they reach for the brass ring.