TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
I had replied to Mr. Emory privately on this matter, but since this is still
on-list here is an excerpt of my reply:
<reply>
As for point #1, forgive me for speaking in synecdoche. What I meant was
that the PDF is a restrictive medium...I have since read Nielsen's article
and he points out that because of the page size and often sophisticated
formatting of PDFs, the viewing area for text is remarkably small and
difficult to navigate. Additionally, why restrict readers to a given page
size or length online? The great thing about HTML is its malleability.
Nielsen's best point is this: Use PDFs when you want someone to print
something out. It's unquestionably superior to HTML in this regard. There is
no good reason to deliver a document that is solely meant to be read online
in PDF formats. The real world supports this strategy: If PDF is really a
superior online format, wouldn't sites like ESPN, Salon and Diaryland be
delivering all of their content in PDF?
</reply>
To finish this off...it's a moot point whether PDF's are deployed over the
Internet, off a CD or across an intranet. Their characterisitics remain the
same. HTML is a totally logical option for presenting 'concise chunks of
information'. It's far superior to PDF in this regard, as long as you don't
want to print it. This is, as far as I can tell, the only major advantage
PDFs have over HTML--they retain formatting and pagination when printed.
That is the sole purpose for which they should be used.
When Web pages (wisely) present me with the option to view a document in
HTML or PDF, I always choose HTML if I'm going to read it onscreen, and I
always choose PDF if I'm going to print it out. It's that simple. That's why
we always distribute documents in both formats with our products. DB.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Swallow, William [mailto:WSwallow -at- courion -dot- com]
> Sent: 22 June 2001 13:23
> To: TECHWR-L
> Subject: RE: Nielsen's Rating
>
>
> :: While I'm sure both Mr. Emory and Mr. Nielsen make some
> :: salient points, I
> :: haven't got enough time or energy to address them all. But
> :: here's a basic
> :: point that someone recently made to me about PDFs: The
> :: Internet is not an
> :: 8.5 x 11 medium.
>
> And the Internet is not the only home for PDF. And who said
> PDFs have to be
> 8.5 X 11. Once again, that's an author's choice. While we're
> on the topic of
> information presentation, doesn't it make sense to have
> concise chunks of
> information separated by viewable sections? PDF is capable of
> that. HTML is
> not. To get the same effect in HTML (especially when
> printing) you'd have to
> use separate files, in which case the printing process is
> significantly more
> "work" for the reader.
>
*** Deva(tm) Tools for Dreamweaver and Deva(tm) Search ***
Build Contents, Indexes, and Search for Web Sites and Help Systems
Available now at http://www.devahelp.com or info -at- devahelp -dot- com
Sponsored by Cub Lea, specialist in low-cost outsourced development
and documentation. Overload and time-sensitive jobs at exceptional
rates. Unique free gifts for all visitors to http://www.cublea.com
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
