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.
A few folks have already written in to express various combinations of
support for Nielsen about the complete unsuitability of PDF for anything
other than distributing printable files. Poppycock!
The issue isn't whether PDF is inherently suitable for online viewing, but
rather whether those who use the technology take the time to use it well.
It's trivially easy to find examples of PDFs that are entirely unsuitable
for onscreen viewing: illegible type, fuzzy graphics, and designs that
neither match the screen nor take advantage of the onscreen medium. The same
criticism could be leveled with equal justification against a near-majority
of the Web pages, Word files, and other formats I've encountered, not to
mention a distressing number of printed manuals.
Nielsen is someone I continue to read with interest and attention, because
he's an extremely bright guy who regularly makes valuable contributions to
the practice of our art. If he had directed his argument against the
practice of dumping printed documents online in place of creating PDF
designed for onscreen use, I'd agree enthusiastically with him and be the
loudest voice in the cheerleading section. But he doesn't do this, and
thereby throws the baby out with the bathwater.
I'll believe Nielsen's opinion on the unsuitability of PDF when it stands up
to the kind of rigorous analysis necessary for it to appear in a
peer-reviewed journal. I'd love to comment on whether the current study
meets this standard, but I'm not going to spend US$250 for a chance to
critique his methodology. But based on previous Nielsen studies, I'm willing
to bet you that he used print-formatted PDF posted with no consideration
whatsoever for optimal use of the technology or how it would be used; he
even lists "formatted for print, not for onscreen viewing" as one of the
problems with PDF. Isn't that a straw-man argument, every bit as valid as
saying that Web sites have poor interactivity when printed out on paper?
--Geoff Hart, geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca
(speaking solely on my own behalf)
"The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite
of a profound truth may well be another profound truth."--Niels Bohr,
physicist (1885-1962)
NEED TO PUBLISH FRAMEMAKER CONTENT ONLINE? "Mustang" is a NEW single
sourcing tool for FrameMaker that lets you easily publish your content
online. No macro language required! http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l3
Mercer University's online MS Program in Technical Communication Management:
Preparing leaders of tomorrow's technical communication organizations today.
See www.mercer.edu/mstco or write George Hayhoe at hayhoe_g -at- mercer -dot- edu -dot-
---
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.
