Hello Team,
There is a discrepancy across the features of ClauseBuddy between the Word Add-in and the browser app (i.e. the Word Add-in seems to be more comprehensive than the browser). Can we please confirm if this discrepancy view is expected, and if the reason behind the Word Add-in having more features is because we would be working within a Word document and therefore have more available features to work with? Thank you.
Hi Mary-Jane,
You are correct about this discrepancy.
We try to keep as much feature-parity as possible between browser and Word-addin; in fact, both versions are generated from the same source code, with some parts selectively modified or turned off.
But for some modules it make no sense to be used from within the browser, due to the lack of a Word-document being available (as you correctly inferred). Examples:
There are also some features that are not possible without an MS Word file. For example, inserting a clause directly into some kind of Word-file is obviously not possible without a Word-file, so the next best alternative we offer is to copy the clause in question to the computer’s clipboard. Similarly, selecting a clause from a Word-document to upload to the quality clause library, must also be done through copy-paste if you’re using the browser version.
For other modules, there is a theoretical possibility to emulate the behaviour of an opened Word-document inside of the browser. This is for example the case with proofreading & reviewing a document. We can theoretically envisage that these features could be run by uploading a DOCX/PDF document into the browser, and then showing what’s wrong with them with some kind of paragraph list in the browser.
However, the user experience for such emulated environment would be quite poor. Given that 90% of our users are using the MS Word version, there has been little request for this, so far.
But if there’s something missing from the browser version that you think would be critical for your workflow, please let us know.