Re: [TCLUG:14011] [rant] pdf on the web

[Jacqueline Urick <jacque@opencitizen.com>]

>         personally, I think it's used because people are lazy and don't want
> to HTML-ize a document (and make it look good); but don't want to appear
> lazy, by just scanning a page to a .jpg image. (it wouldn't be any larger
> bytewise!)
>         but I could be wrong.
> 

Yup I think you're wrong. Usually documents like manuals are layed out
in Illustrator, Pagemaker, Quark, etc. Since Companies are generally big
on image, they want all their documentation to look good too. It's easy
to create a .pdf from any of the above programs. That way the document
design integrity remains standard to people who don't have those
programs. I think its a great idea. Designers tend to get pretty zealous
about people messing with their design.

>         I disagree. the documentation was difficult to read anyway; not just
> because of the wasted space on the sides of the page; nor because half the
> page was cut off at the top or bottom of the window (at a readable
> resolution); but because the text looked like *crap*! it was too small and
> blurred to read at 100% size; and too pixelated and (still!) blurred at 125%!
> 
> I'd *fire* a webmaster who put that kind of crap on a company web site.
> look at www.3ware.com yourself; or
> http://www.3ware.com/products/ntservers.shtml, which is the page linking
> their .pdf docs.

I'll agree that this particular .pdf is *crappy* and hard to read,
someone didn't change their fonts to outlines before exporting to
.pdf..tsk tsk!

I don't think they should have .pdf only, tho. They should have some
basic text or html documentation too. I mean, hello, copy-paste!


~jacque