Abbreviated directory

Many of the new directory features are great, but the old abbreviated directory had many useful features that I feel should continue to be available! Using this abbrecataed file with it's easy modification and a two column listing per pagae our entire ward is available on a double sided single sheet of paper. The new format requires four pages to print out which at best is a 100 percent increase in paper, where our ward membership is continually changing the paper wastage is a significant drain on our ward budget! With the normal print out being 4 single sided pages that is a 400% increase in paper usage.

Please continue to provide access to the abbreviated ward membership list. Thanks!!!

Vernon F. Parent

[Moderator note: I split this post from the Directory 2013 Beta Released topic, since it deals with a different issue.]

vfparent wrote:Many of the new directory features are great, but the old abbreviated directory had many useful features that I feel should continue to be available! Using this abbrecataed file with it's easy modification and a two column listing per pagae our entire ward is available on a double sided single sheet of paper. The new format requires four pages to print out which at best is a 100 percent increase in paper

The beta directory is no different from the released directory in this regard. I find that with appropriate adjustments, the new format takes no more paper than the old format. The key is to use the appropriate number of columns. The old format had the household name and phone number on the same line, whereas the new format puts the household name, the husband and wife name, and the phone number all on separate lines.

With my ward, I find that using 5 columns, all the families fit easily on two pages, which can of course be printed on one double-sided sheet of paper. It's really not much different from the total space occupied by the old format, and the paper consumption is exactly the same.

vfparent wrote:With the normal print out being 4 single sided pages that is a 400% increase in paper usage.

It's hardly fair to compare a double-sided printout with a single-sided printout (and even if it were, the increase would be 300%, not 400%). Your original 100% number was accurate.