Problems with Annotated Hyperlinks in Preview Document
TaliesinSoft
The newsletter is created with Pages using the Page Layout mode. After the
newsletter is completed in Pages it is exported as a PDF document, which is
then opened in Preview and a number of internal to the document hyperlinks
are added using Preview's annotation capabilities. These annotations create a
click-point link to another page in the same PDF document.
Subsequent to the annotating, when the document is viewed in either Preview
or Adobe Reader the internal hyperlinks work as expected, but only if the
View options in each of the readers is set to "single page" mode. If the view
options are set otherwise the hyperlinks added by annotation will take one to
the wrong page or not work at all.
The most recent issue of the newsletter can be downloaded at
<http://www.capmac.org/newsletters/CapMac_Offline-2009-11.pdf>.
I'm curious as to whether other PDF readers, such as Acrobat, also experience
this problem.
--
James Leo Ryan --- Austin, Texas --- talies...@me.com
dorayme
TaliesinSoft <talies...@me.com> wrote:
> I create a monthly newsletter for Capitol Macintosh here in Austin, Texas.
> The newsletter is created with Pages using the Page Layout mode. After the
> newsletter is completed in Pages it is exported as a PDF document, which is
> then opened in Preview and a number of internal to the document hyperlinks
> are added using Preview's annotation capabilities. These annotations create a
> click-point link to another page in the same PDF document.
>
> Subsequent to the annotating, when the document is viewed in either Preview
> or Adobe Reader the internal hyperlinks work as expected, but only if the
> View options in each of the readers is set to "single page" mode.
Not in my Preview. Links work fine when not in single page view. mail
address links open in Mail, other links open in Safari.
Same with the Schubert plugin PDF on my Safari. And same with Acrobat
Pro.
> If the view
> options are set otherwise the hyperlinks added by annotation will take one to
> the wrong page or not work at all.
>
> The most recent issue of the newsletter can be downloaded at
> <http://www.capmac.org/newsletters/CapMac_Offline-2009-11.pdf>.
>
> I'm curious as to whether other PDF readers, such as Acrobat, also experience
> this problem.
--
dorayme
TaliesinSoft
<doraymeRidThis-01E...@news.albasani.net>):
I appreciate your taking the time to run some tests and report the results.
I may not have been clear as I should have been about the hyperlinks that
fail to work correctly all of the time. These are the hyperlinks that take
you to another page in the same document. They are....
a) each line in the table of contents which takes you to the appropriate
page.
b) the left and right pointing wedges in the gray bar on each page. The right
facing wedge takes you to the following page and the left facing wedge takes
you to the preceding page. An exception being the left facing wedge on the
first page which takes you to the last page and the right facing wedge on the
last page which takes you to the first page.
c) The word "CapMac Offline" in the gray bar on each page which takes you
back to the table of contents page.
d) The little square at the end of a multi-page article which takes you to
the opening page for that article.
e) The "continued on" and "continued from" text which takes you to the next
or preceding page as appropriate.
f) The month of the issue in the gray bar on the table of contents page which
takes you to a similar page but with the contents listing removed and the
background picture having full opacity. The reverse effect is on the same
month of issue in the gray bar on that page.
Nick Naym
at talies...@me.com wrote on 11/6/09 12:12 AM:
...
...
>
> I may not have been clear as I should have been about the hyperlinks that
> fail to work correctly all of the time. These are the hyperlinks that take
> you to another page in the same document. They are....
>
> a) each line in the table of contents which takes you to the appropriate
> page.
>
> b) the left and right pointing wedges in the gray bar on each page. The right
> facing wedge takes you to the following page and the left facing wedge takes
> you to the preceding page. An exception being the left facing wedge on the
> first page which takes you to the last page and the right facing wedge on the
> last page which takes you to the first page.
>
> c) The word "CapMac Offline" in the gray bar on each page which takes you
> back to the table of contents page.
>
> d) The little square at the end of a multi-page article which takes you to
> the opening page for that article.
>
> e) The "continued on" and "continued from" text which takes you to the next
> or preceding page as appropriate.
>
> f) The month of the issue in the gray bar on the table of contents page which
> takes you to a similar page but with the contents listing removed and the
> background picture having full opacity. The reverse effect is on the same
> month of issue in the gray bar on that page.
>
It works as advertised on my machine in both Preview and Acrobat Pro.
--
iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.8)
dorayme
TaliesinSoft <talies...@me.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 16:42:58 -0600, dorayme wrote (in article
> <doraymeRidThis-01E...@news.albasani.net>):
>
> > In article <0001HW.C71869B2...@News.Individual.NET>,
> > TaliesinSoft <talies...@me.com> wrote:
> > Links work fine when not in single page view. mail
> > address links open in Mail, other links open in Safari.
> >
> > Same with the Schubert plugin PDF on my Safari. And same with Acrobat Pro.
> >
>
> I may not have been clear as I should have been about the hyperlinks that
> fail to work correctly all of the time. These are the hyperlinks that take
> you to another page in the same document. They are....
>
I tried all the wrong links!
<http://www.capmac.org/newsletters/CapMac_Offline-2009-11.pdf>
None of these links work properly under any conditions (not even single
page view) in my Schubert plugin. In my Preview they work under the
conditions you noted but not in single page view. And in Acrobat Pro,
things work in double page spread but not properly otherwise.
I imagine a lot has to happen for such links to work well across
different page views and apps.
If you cannot solve, don't worry. But do not make them links. The PDF is
not so long. And in Acrobat and Preview and other apps, there are
facilities to navigate by page (either via thumbnail panel or other
means). But make it clear, as you do really what is on what page in your
index.
(It is horrible technology for screens, a camel adapting from desert
life to the city, whereas HTML is exactly the right technology for this.
The main point for a PDF is to print it. And links are not part of the
game there. Be nice though, you touch a link on the page and the papers
fly around till the right page is on top for you! <g>)
--
dorayme
dorayme
TaliesinSoft
(in article <doraymeRidThis-1CD...@news.albasani.net>):
For clarification....
All of the hyperlinks work in both Preview and Adobe Reader, but only when
the View option is set to Single Page.
Nick Naym
at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/6/09 1:30 AM:
By "as advertised" I meant all of the following hyperlinks work in Preview
as well as Acrobat Pro in both single and single continuous as well as both
two-page (two-up) and two-page (two-up) continuous views:
> a) each line in the table of contents which takes you to the appropriate
> page.
>
> b) the left and right pointing wedges in the gray bar on each page. The right
> facing wedge takes you to the following page and the left facing wedge takes
> you to the preceding page. An exception being the left facing wedge on the
> first page which takes you to the last page and the right facing wedge on the
> last page which takes you to the first page.
>
> c) The word "CapMac Offline" in the gray bar on each page which takes you
> back to the table of contents page.
>
> d) The little square at the end of a multi-page article which takes you to
> the opening page for that article.
>
> e) The "continued on" and "continued from" text which takes you to the next
> or preceding page as appropriate.
>
> f) The month of the issue in the gray bar on the table of contents page which
> takes you to a similar page but with the contents listing removed and the
> background picture having full opacity. The reverse effect is on the same
> month of issue in the gray bar on that page.
>
--
dorayme
Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> In article doraymeRidThis-1CD...@news.albasani.net, dorayme
> at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/6/09 1:30 AM:
>
> > In article <C719268C.4B332%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
> > Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> It works as advertised on my machine in both Preview and Acrobat Pro.
> >
> > Do the arrows and internal links work in single page view in your
> > Acrobat Pro version what or not?
>
>
> ... Acrobat Pro in ... single and single continuous
Version of Acrobat Pro? And a movie of it working on your machine please.
--
dorayme
Nick Naym
at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/6/09 8:24 PM:
9.2
> And a movie of it working on your machine please.
I'm not Steven Spielberg.
dorayme
Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> In article doraymeRidThis-EC4...@news.albasani.net, dorayme
> at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/6/09 8:24 PM:
>
> > In article <C719AEF3.4B372%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
> > Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article doraymeRidThis-1CD...@news.albasani.net, dorayme
> >> at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/6/09 1:30 AM:
> >>
> >>> In article <C719268C.4B332%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
> >>> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> It works as advertised on my machine in both Preview and Acrobat Pro.
> >>>
> >>> Do the arrows and internal links work in single page view in your
> >>> Acrobat Pro version what or not?
> >>
> >>
> >> ... Acrobat Pro in ... single and single continuous
> >
> > Version of Acrobat Pro?
>
> 9.2
>
Show-off!
Anyway, to the OP, they don't work in single and single continuous in
Acrobat Pro 7.
> > And a movie of it working on your machine please.
>
> I'm not Steven Spielberg.
I was prepared to accept B Grade.
(Not, btw, that Spielberg is really A grade on the whole, but I know
yours is an expression).
--
dorayme
TaliesinSoft
<doraymeRidThis-53D...@news.albasani.net>):
[continuing in the discussion about hyperlinks in my PDF document, a link to
which was in the opening posting in this thread, may or may not work in
either Preview or Adobe Reader depending on the display settings in each of
those applications]
> Anyway, to the OP, they don't work in single and single continuous in
> Acrobat Pro 7.
I spent some time in the Apple store today, demonstrating and discussing the
behaviors mentioned earlier in this thread and the three persons I
demonstrated and spoke with agreed that the behavior of the hyperlinks was
not as one would desire. So the question now is the problem with the
annotation procedure used within Preview to add the hyperlinks to a document
originally created in Pages and exported as a PDF, or is the problem with
both Preview and Adobe Reader themselves.
dorayme
TaliesinSoft <talies...@me.com> wrote:
Good question and difficult. There seems some evidence that some modern
programs work your links correctly under all circumstances - see Nick's.
Which suggests you are doing right in Preview but that the algorithms in
the programs that the PDF work in are not up to scratch. There may be no
way to fix this reliably. I advise, not having internal links to short
docs like newsletters, for reasons I outlined before.
--
dorayme
TaliesinSoft
<doraymeRidThis-C30...@news.albasani.net>):
[in regards to the hyperlink problem discussed beginning with my opening
posting in this thread]
> I advise, not having internal links to short docs like newsletters, for
> reasons I outlined before.
Interestingly, the problem with the hyperlinks was never reported to me from
any readers of the newsletter in question, but was something I discovered on
my own. Amusingly, on the few occasions when I misdirected a hyperlink I was
quickly made aware of such by one or more readers of the newsletter, which
suggests to me that the hyperlinks are used and appreciated.
Nick Naym
at talies...@me.com wrote on 11/9/09 6:52 PM:
...
...
>... on the few occasions when I misdirected a hyperlink I was
> quickly made aware of such by one or more readers of the newsletter, which
> suggests to me that the hyperlinks are used and appreciated.
>
...which further suggests that their software is (somehow) more "up to
scratch" (to use dorayme's expression) than yours. Now _that_ I find odd!
dorayme
TaliesinSoft <talies...@me.com> wrote:
> Amusingly, on the few occasions when I misdirected a hyperlink I was
> quickly made aware of such by one or more readers of the newsletter, which
> suggests to me that the hyperlinks are used and appreciated.
Not sure how you can conclude this on this basis, even if the conclusion
is true. Everyone can get by whether or not the links 'work' 100% with
your PDF.
Besides, why *would* they appreciate it in such a short newsletter? It
would be different in a very long PDF, but then, as I have already
mentioned there are many ways that PDF readers (including Preview) have
to get an overall navigational look at docs. If you provide page numbers
or other signposts in your index, this would be better than links that
only work sometimes. More elegant. There is a queue at The Gates at
which you will be asked, "Did you do inelegant things?" and if there are
many such instances, it can count towards where you go in the afterlife.
--
dorayme
Nick Naym
at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/9/09 7:58 PM:
> In article <0001HW.C71E0744...@News.Individual.NET>,
> TaliesinSoft <talies...@me.com> wrote:
>
>> Amusingly, on the few occasions when I misdirected a hyperlink I was
>> quickly made aware of such by one or more readers of the newsletter, which
>> suggests to me that the hyperlinks are used and appreciated.
>
> Not sure how you can conclude this on this basis, even if the conclusion
> is true. Everyone can get by whether or not the links 'work' 100% with
> your PDF.
When someone says "Hey...that link didn't take me to the right place!,"
don't you think it's logical to conclude that he/she ...ummm... actually
_uses_ the damn links? Or do you somehow think it makes more sense to
conclude he/she accidentally clicked on a link that one time, realized that
he/she accidentally clicked on that particular link, further realized that
said particular link misdirected him/her, and then decided -- for whatever
reason -- to notify Jim that one of those links that he/she doesn't normally
use nor appreciate misdirected him/her?
> Besides, why *would* they appreciate it in such a short newsletter? It
> would be different in a very long PDF, but then, as I have already
> mentioned there are many ways that PDF readers (including Preview) have
> to get an overall navigational look at docs. If you provide page numbers
> or other signposts in your index, this would be better than links that
> only work sometimes. More elegant. There is a queue at The Gates at
> which you will be asked, "Did you do inelegant things?" and if there are
> many such instances, it can count towards where you go in the afterlife.
What in the hell are you talking about?? (Better yet: What in the hell are
you smoking? ;P )
dorayme
Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> In article doraymeRidThis-6F6...@news.albasani.net, dorayme
> at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/9/09 7:58 PM:
>
> > In article <0001HW.C71E0744...@News.Individual.NET>,
> > TaliesinSoft <talies...@me.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Amusingly, on the few occasions when I misdirected a hyperlink I was
> >> quickly made aware of such by one or more readers of the newsletter, which
> >> suggests to me that the hyperlinks are used and appreciated.
> >
> > Not sure how you can conclude this on this basis, even if the conclusion
> > is true. Everyone can get by whether or not the links 'work' 100% with
> > your PDF.
>
> When someone says "Hey...that link didn't take me to the right place!,"
> don't you think it's logical to conclude that he/she ...ummm... actually
> _uses_ the damn links?
And who was denying *this*?
> Or do you [non sequitor snipped]
>
>
> > Besides, why *would* they appreciate it in such a short newsletter? It
> > would be different in a very long PDF, but then, as I have already
> > mentioned there are many ways that PDF readers (including Preview) have
> > to get an overall navigational look at docs. If you provide page numbers
> > or other signposts in your index, this would be better than links that
> > only work sometimes. More elegant.
>
> What in the hell are you talking about?? (Better yet: What in the hell are
> you smoking? ;P )
You have cast this aspersion on me before, I don't smoke, perhaps you
are thinking of yourself and or your own circle?
Before you take the flying fuck that I recommend you take, what is it
about this that you fail to understand.
--
dorayme
dorayme
dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> If you provide page numbers
> > > or other signposts in your index, this would be better than links that
> > > only work sometimes. More elegant.
I have since paid attention to links in some PDF manuals I have on
various things like electrical appliances. The links often work well on
my Schubert browser plug in under all views (double page or single etc).
So I guess it is a matter of you getting better software to make the PDF
in the first place. Via Preview seems simply fraught.
I repeat, there is no need to bother for such a small doc as a
newsletter but I suppose you are tired of hearing this from me and are
impressed by such things as when you get a link wrong, people scream. Of
course some people will scream! If I bought a car with a fifth unneeded
wheel and it kept getting a flat, it would piss me off and I would say
so. But the wheel is *not really needed anyway*. Elegance is simplicity.
My recommendation is a "in the meantime" one (till you solve the
problem)
--
dorayme
Nick Naym
at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/9/09 10:31 PM:
Not I.
> I don't smoke, perhaps you
> are thinking of yourself and or your own circle?
>
> Before you take the flying fuck that I recommend you take, what is it
> about this that you fail to understand.
--
TaliesinSoft
<doraymeRidThis-B67...@news.albasani.net>):
> I have since paid attention to links in some PDF manuals I have on various
> things like electrical appliances. The links often work well on my
> Schubert browser plug in under all views (double page or single etc). So I
> guess it is a matter of you getting better software to make the PDF in the
> first place. Via Preview seems simply fraught.
Continuing in my testing, being careful to always set the view in both
Preview and Adobe Reader to "zoom to fit", the behavior of the two in each of
the four modes is essentially consistant.
I've now run my tests with both the newsletter issue the link to which was
posted here in these discussions and with an earlier issue of the newsletter
which was created and the hyperlinks added in InDesign CS3.
The document that was annotated in Preview and viewed both in Preview and
Adobe Reader worked as wanted in the single page and two page modes, and
having problems in the "contiguous" modes where the links only took you to
even numbered pages.
The document that was created in InDesign CS3 and viewed both in Preview and
Adobe Reader worked correctly in all four modes.
The current conclusion is that there is indeed a problem with the annotations
created in Preview when the document is viewed in the contiguous modes in
both Preview and Adobe Reader.
I have scheduled an appointment at the Apple store to review my experiences
in this regard and to, if needed, submit an appropriate bug report to Apple.
As a somewhat practical matter, given that I haven't received any "links not
working" comments from readers of the newsletter my expectation is to
continue the annotating in Preview as I'm no longer running InDesign.
I've already submitted a list of feature requests to Apple regarding Pages,
in particular the ability to create embedded hyperlinks to other pages within
the same document and to automatically create a table of contents when that
document is created using "page layout" mode, things you can currently do
when using Pages "word processing" mode.
> I repeat, there is no need to bother for such a small doc as a newsletter
> but I suppose you are tired of hearing this from me and are impressed by
> such things as when you get a link wrong, people scream. Of course some
> people will scream! If I bought a car with a fifth unneeded wheel and it
> kept getting a flat, it would piss me off and I would say so. But the
> wheel is *not really needed anyway*. Elegance is simplicity. My
> recommendation is a "in the meantime" one (till you solve the problem.)
Actually I'm not tired of hearing your comments, and I do take them into
consideration. The particular issue I posted the link to happened to be one
of the smaller ones. And, in recent conversations with some members of the
user group for which the newsletter is published there was literally complete
agreement that the hyperlinks were a desirable feature, something that they
would like to see continued.
dorayme
TaliesinSoft <talies...@me.com> wrote:
> And, in recent conversations with some members of the
> user group for which the newsletter is published there was literally complete
> agreement that the hyperlinks were a desirable feature, something that they
> would like to see continued.
Well, your links work well enough to make it sensible enough to keep
using them.
I am always slightly puzzled by the attachment people have towards PDF
for material that is *almost certainly* not going to be printed. I hated
wading through the long PDF manual on a cordless phone yesterday, had it
been a well made HTML set of pages, it would have been a breeze to get
the info I wanted. PDFs are clumsy beasts and your own story in this
thread further convinces me, just look at the apps you have mentioned
and have used in the construction of these things.
With a proper web page, all you basically need is a text editor. A lot
from a little. It is the great principle that will get you into a
particularly cosy corner of heaven. <g>
--
dorayme
Tony Lawrence
>
> I am always slightly puzzled by the attachment people have towards PDF
> for material that is *almost certainly* not going to be printed. I hated
> wading through the long PDF manual on a cordless phone yesterday, had it
> been a well made HTML set of pages, it would have been a breeze to get
> the info I wanted. PDFs are clumsy beasts and your own story in this
> thread further convinces me, just look at the apps you have mentioned
> and have used in the construction of these things.
>
> With a proper web page, all you basically need is a text editor. A lot
> from a little. It is the great principle that will get you into a
> particularly cosy corner of heaven. <g>
I'll second that. Unless you need precise control of the way the
thing looks, stay away from PDF. It just adds unnecessary
complication for everyone.
dorayme
AES
and dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > I am always slightly puzzled by the attachment people have towards PDF
> > for material that is *almost certainly* not going to be printed. I hated
> > wading through the long PDF manual on a cordless phone yesterday, had it
> > been a well made HTML set of pages, it would have been a breeze to get
> > the info I wanted. PDFs are clumsy beasts and your own story in this
> > thread further convinces me, just look at the apps you have mentioned
> > and have used in the construction of these things.
> >
> > With a proper web page, all you basically need is a text editor. A lot
> > from a little. It is the great principle that will get you into a
> > particularly cosy corner of heaven. <g>
and dorayme <doraymeRidT...@optusnet.com.au> ADDED:
> I'll second that. Unless you need precise control of the way the
> thing looks, stay away from PDF. It just adds unnecessary
> complication for everyone.
I'll second the first line of the first post, and add that posting a
document on a web site rather than distributing it as an email
attachment should be mandatory for any case where said document needs to
be called to the attention of a large distribution list, but will only
actually be opened and read by a very few of those.
(My university has a maddening tendency to email documents like huge
policy manuals, and then repeated policy manual revisions, to huge
faculty and staff mailing lists as email attachments, when there are
maybe 3 people in the whole university who really want a personal
working copy of those documents on their desk or their HD -- and if you
have several responsibilities in the hierarchy, or are listed in several
departments, you get sent multiple copies of these massive documents).
But that said, if you're actually going to distribute a document that
some people are going to want to print, PDF is the _only_ way to go --
despite the assertions of the second post.
[Although I'm in the happy situation of being retired but still having
certain organizations that want me to help out with things, and even
occasionally pay me. Nonetheless, I no longer need to maintain or
continually upgrade, re-learn, and pay for programs like MS Office -- I
can just alert any such organization that emails that come to me with
attachments having suffixes like .doc, .docx, .xls, .ppt are caught by
filters and simply go straight to the Trash.]
Nick Naym
at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/10/09 7:34 PM:
You're the accuser...the burden of proof is _yours_! :P
dorayme
Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> In article doraymeRidThis-B5E...@news.albasani.net, dorayme
> at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/10/09 7:34 PM:
>
> > In article <C71E8290.4B5A8%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
> > Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>> What in the hell are you talking about?? (Better yet: What in the hell
> >>>> are
> >>>> you smoking? ;P )
> >>>
> >>> You have cast this aspersion on me before,
> >>
> >> Not I.
> >
> > Prove it! <g>
>
>
> You're the accuser...the burden of proof is _yours_! :P
Nick, you are the first with the impertinence, that makes it your cross
to bear. Here is your chance to extirpate your sin. Have you got better
things to do? No? Right, then get cracking on an exhaustive list of
those who have doubted my sobriety and I want to see you missing.
--
dorayme
Nick Naym
at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/10/09 8:12 PM:
Yeah, right. Have another drink (or smoke...whatever).
dorayme
Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> In article doraymeRidThis-ED0...@news.albasani.net, dorayme
> at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/10/09 8:12 PM:
>
> > In article <C71F75C0.4B615%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
> > Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article doraymeRidThis-B5E...@news.albasani.net, dorayme
> >> at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/10/09 7:34 PM:
> >>
> >>> In article <C71E8290.4B5A8%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
> >>> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>> What in the hell are you talking about?? (Better yet: What in the hell
> >>>>>> are
> >>>>>> you smoking? ;P )
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You have cast this aspersion on me before,
> >>>>
> >>>> Not I.
> >>>
> >>> Prove it! <g>
> >>
> >>
> >> You're the accuser...the burden of proof is _yours_! :P
> >
> > Nick, you are the first with the impertinence, that makes it your cross
> > to bear. Here is your chance to extirpate your sin. Have you got better
> > things to do? No? Right, then get cracking on an exhaustive list of
> > those who have doubted my sobriety and I want to see you missing.
>
>
> Yeah, right. Have another drink (or smoke...whatever).
While you have another sheep? <g>
At least now you cannot deny you have cast aspersions on more than one
occasion!
--
dorayme
Nick Naym
at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/10/09 9:12 PM:
Baaaahhhhh. :P
> At least now you cannot deny you have cast aspersions on more than one
> occasion!
The "aspersions" as you call them weren't anything of the sort; they were
simply rhetorical questions regarding some of your rambling commentary.
dorayme
Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The "aspersions" as you call them weren't anything of the sort
You mean my reputation is so bad that nothing could harm it further? How
dare you! Or are you just in denial?
As it happens I am having my one drink of the day right now and it is
not even a true half long-neck, it is Bavaria, 330ml beer made in
Holland. It beats the pants off most Australian mass produced. Must
return to brewing my own next winter.
--
dorayme
Nick Naym
at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/11/09 2:00 AM:
> In article <C71FC3AD.4B63C%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The "aspersions" as you call them weren't anything of the sort
>
> You mean my reputation is so bad that nothing could harm it further? How
> dare you! Or are you just in denial?
I have no idea about your so-called "reputation." But you seem to be
obsessed with it... dorayme doth protest too much, methinks.
> As it happens I am having my one drink of the day right now and it is
> not even a true half long-neck, it is Bavaria, 330ml beer made in
> Holland. It beats the pants off most Australian mass produced. Must
> return to brewing my own next winter.
--
Nick Naym
at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/11/09 2:00 AM:
..
..
>
> As it happens I am having my one drink of the day right now and it is
> not even a true half long-neck, it is Bavaria, 330ml beer made in
> Holland. It beats the pants off most Australian mass produced. Must
> return to brewing my own next winter.
The best beer I recall having (and my tastes may very well have changed
since then) was while a grad student traveling through Holland...though I
don't recall its name or origin, and subsequently was unsuccessful at
tracking it down.
The worst brew was, is, and likely will remain forever, American mass-
produced stuff...not-so-fondly referred to as "panther piss." AFAIC,
referring to it as beer does the term "beer" a gross injustice.(Referring to
it as "panther piss" may very well "piss off" a few leopards, as well. ;) )
TaliesinSoft
> I have scheduled an appointment at the Apple store to review my
> experiences in this regard and to, if needed, submit an appropriate bug
> report to Apple.
This morning I had the appointment at the Genius Bar and it ended up to be
somewhat of a "reversed genius appointment" as those on duty were not aware
that one could not create in Pages embedded hyperlinks or a table of contents
when working in page layout mode, and were also not aware that one could
create such hyperlinks in Preview once the document had been exported from
Pages as a PDF.
Interestingly last night was the monthly general meeting of CapMac, our
Austin, Texas Macintosh group and the presentation featured Jean MacDonald
from SmileOnMyMac who gave a demonstration of PDFpen which allows one to
create embedded hyperlinks in a PDF document, the hyperlinks being associated
with either text or a graphic. The ability to associate with a graphic would
be helpful since as things now stand with Preview I can only assoicate the
hyperlinks with text, requiring me when in Pages and prior to the exporting
as a PDF to overlay the appropriate graphics with text with the opacity set
to zero. I'll be giving PDFpen a try with the forthcoming December issue of
the newsletter.
Also, and again at the meeting last night, I queried those in attendance and
what seemed to be a great majority did indeed use the hyperlinks as a means
of navigation in the document.
Nick Naym
at talies...@me.com wrote on 11/11/09 12:40 PM:
...
...
>
> Also, and again at the meeting last night, I queried those in attendance and
> what seemed to be a great majority did indeed use the hyperlinks as a means
> of navigation in the document.
>
I don't know why you seemingly find it necessary to repeatedly "justify"
your desire to use PDF format and its hyperlinks to create your newsletter.
TaliesinSoft
<C720B591.4B6C6%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>):
[responding to my having stated in the preceding posting in this thread]
>> Also, and again at the meeting last night, I queried those in attendance
>> and what seemed to be a great majority did indeed use the hyperlinks as a
>> means of navigation in the document.
>>
>
> I don't know why you seemingly find it necessary to repeatedly "justify"
> your desire to use PDF format and its hyperlinks to create your
> newsletter.
There have been several postings in this thread critical of PDF as a means of
document distribution and I felt the need to yet again "justify" that form of
publication of the newsletter.
Nick Naym
at talies...@me.com wrote on 11/11/09 6:56 PM:
If they had anything that could help resolve the difficulties you've run
into, they would've already offered -- after all, that's what these NGs are
supposed to be primarily all about. The fact that all they have offered is
criticism (for whatever their own personal choice/taste/rationalizations)
should tell you clearly that they will not/can not offer any help, and no
amount of "justification" on your part will change that.
(FWIW, I for one prefer PDF formatted documents -- on the web and off the
web.)
dorayme
Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> If they had anything that could help resolve the difficulties you've run
> into, they would've already offered -- after all, that's what these NGs are
> supposed to be primarily all about. The fact that all they have offered is
> criticism (for whatever their own personal choice/taste/rationalizations)
> should tell you clearly that they will not/can not offer any help, and no
> amount of "justification" on your part will change that.
>
> (FWIW, I for one prefer PDF formatted documents -- on the web and off the
> web.)
Sometimes there comes a point where one should be assessing the
worthwhileness of solving a problem rather than avoiding it. This is the
bit you don't get.
Your *general* statement that you prefer PDF to a website for on 'the
web' (you mean 'on screen') is either a statement of extreme ignorance
and foolishness or a world weary exasperation at the number of badly
made web pages and sites. And I would hate to guess in your case,
perhaps if I looked up sites on sheepophilia, I would gain some insight
into your condition, I have heard anecdotal evidence that this damages
the brain.
--
dorayme
Nick Naym
at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/12/09 5:10 PM:
> In article <C7211633.4B6E9%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If they had anything that could help resolve the difficulties you've run
>> into, they would've already offered -- after all, that's what these NGs are
>> supposed to be primarily all about. The fact that all they have offered is
>> criticism (for whatever their own personal choice/taste/rationalizations)
>> should tell you clearly that they will not/can not offer any help, and no
>> amount of "justification" on your part will change that.
>>
>> (FWIW, I for one prefer PDF formatted documents -- on the web and off the
>> web.)
>
> Sometimes there comes a point where one should be assessing the
> worthwhileness of solving a problem rather than avoiding it. This is the
> bit you don't get.
>
> Your *general* statement that you prefer PDF to a website for on 'the
> web' (you mean 'on screen')
"On the web" is what I meant; "off the web" means "offline but onscreen" as
well as a format for creating and saving documents for exchange or printing.
> is either a statement of extreme ignorance
> and foolishness or a world weary exasperation at the number of badly
> made web pages and sites.
The fact that some folks lack the skills necessary to create decent web
pages or sites is irrelevant to the discussion: PDF was designed to be a
platform-independent format for representing documents that are to be viewed
and transmitted electronically as well as saved and printed. Because some
folks don't know how to properly apply the format is not a reason for
dismissing it as undesirable, and telling Jim that he shouldn't be using it
for his newsletter. _That_, sir, is arrogance born of "extreme ignorance and
foolishness."
> And I would hate to guess in your case,
> perhaps if I looked up sites on sheepophilia, I would gain some insight
> into your condition, I have heard anecdotal evidence that this damages
> the brain.
For someone who is so quick to accuse others of "casting aspersions" and
soiling your so-called "reputation," you sure are not adverse to sprinkling
your posts with insults. You remind me of the self-righteous TV Evangelists
who condemn their "flocks" for "sinning," while they themselves commit
adultery and engage in pedophilia.
Have you humped any small woodland creatures lately? ;P (A "yes" or "no"
answer will suffice.)
dorayme
Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> In article doraymeRidThis-B8D...@news.albasani.net, dorayme
> at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/12/09 5:10 PM:
>
> > In article <C7211633.4B6E9%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
> > Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Your *general* statement that you prefer PDF to a website for on 'the
> > web' (you mean 'on screen')
>
> "On the web" is what I meant; "off the web" means "offline but onscreen"
> well as a format for creating and saving documents for exchange or printing.
>
Bullshit. "Off the web" can mean a printed copy, it can mean rooting a
sheep in your local pub, it can mean anything at all as long as it is
not something online. Chuck that prissy dictionary in your head out.
> > is either a statement of extreme ignorance
> > and foolishness or a world weary exasperation at the number of badly
> > made web pages and sites.
>
> The fact that some folks lack the skills necessary to create decent web
> pages or sites is irrelevant to the discussion: PDF was designed to be a
> platform-independent format for representing documents that are to be viewed
> and transmitted electronically as well as saved and printed.
It was not well designed from the ground up to be something to be viewed
on a screen. The wide choice of browsers, the technology of HTML and CSS
is altogether better geared for conveying *information* across the
internet than PDF. Don't get me wrong, I love PDFs. I keep several as
pets.
> Because some
> folks don't know how to properly apply the format is not a reason for
> dismissing it as undesirable, and telling Jim that he shouldn't be using it
> for his newsletter. _That_, sir, is arrogance born of "extreme ignorance and
> foolishness."
>
I did not exactly tell him that he "shouldn't", it was more a gentle
suggestion, to avoid the inconvenience of my mission impossible team
turning up and shooting his dog, stealing all his latest gear, and
grabbing all in his liquor cabinet in a night raid.
Why don't you loosen up! No wonder I like to tease you a bit. It has not
helped you that Michele (a valued sparring partner) won't take a single
bait from me these days. In other words, that leaves you!
>
> For someone who is so quick to accuse others of "casting aspersions" and
> soiling your so-called "reputation," you sure are not adverse to sprinkling
> your posts with insults.
I am not quick to do this at all. I hold my powder admirably in my own
opinion, it is just that it appropriate to expend a bit of it with you
(have a good look at what you have said to me to trigger it off).
> You remind me of the self-righteous TV Evangelists
> who condemn their "flocks" for "sinning," while they themselves commit
> adultery and engage in pedophilia.
>
I resent this a great deal, no one is fairer, more helpful, lovely in
all respects than me and I demand you withdraw it. In the meantime I am
going to take a nice bath, the taps are running my own glory...
--
dorayme
Tony Lawrence
My, a lot of rancor here.
PDF has been the obvious choice when the intent is to be able to
display and or print it and have it appear precisely as the author
intended.
I say "has been" because for certain subsets like e-books, there are
emerging choices that may be better (epub, for example).
My gripe with PDF is that it is often used where there is no good
reason to use it AND the information would be better in a different
format - whether that's HTML, a text file or a CSV file, I've seen $#!
@@-ing idiots use PDF when they shouldn't have.
That's probably why people get so ticked off. When I have to
download a PDF for information that should have been HTML, I'm
annoyed. When precise printing is required and it's NOT PDF, I can
be just as annoyed.
One format does not fit all.
dorayme
<b397050c-0ff6-4925...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Tony Lawrence <pcu...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> PDF has been the obvious choice when the intent is to be able to
> display and or print it and have it appear precisely as the author
> intended.
>
Sometimes it is unwise *to desire* to make things appear *exactly* the
same for everyone.
> I say "has been" because for certain subsets like e-books, there are
> emerging choices that may be better (epub, for example).
>
Yes, it is an interesting new field and may have to be more tailored to
actual hardware.
> My gripe with PDF is that it is often used where there is no good
> reason to use it AND the information would be better in a different
> format - whether that's HTML, a text file or a CSV file, I've seen $#!
> @@-ing idiots use PDF when they shouldn't have.
>
> That's probably why people get so ticked off. When I have to
> download a PDF for information that should have been HTML, I'm
> annoyed. When precise printing is required and it's NOT PDF, I can
> be just as annoyed.
>
> One format does not fit all.
No argument from me on this. Well said.
--
dorayme
Mike Rosenberg
> My, a lot of rancor here.
Sometimes I think we just shouldn't let these kids sit at the same
table.
--
My latest dance performance <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvB98fgse-s>
Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi>
Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi>
dorayme
mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> Tony Lawrence <pcu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My, a lot of rancor here.
>
> Sometimes I think we just shouldn't let these kids sit at the same
> table.
It is better that we sit where you can keep an eye on us, no telling
what we might get up to otherwise... <g>
--
dorayme
Mike Rosenberg
> > Sometimes I think we just shouldn't let these kids sit at the same
> > table.
>
> It is better that we sit where you can keep an eye on us, no telling
> what we might get up to otherwise... <g>
Definitely a good idea to keep an eye on you, but that's why I have a
camera with a telephoto lens.
dorayme
mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > Sometimes I think we just shouldn't let these kids sit at the same
> > > table.
> >
> > It is better that we sit where you can keep an eye on us, no telling
> > what we might get up to otherwise... <g>
>
> Definitely a good idea to keep an eye on you, but that's why I have a
> camera with a telephoto lens.
The main thing is the mike (no pun intended but what does it matter)
picks up every tiny thing I have to say. <g>
--
dorayme
Nick Naym
at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/14/09 3:29 PM:
> In article <C7246E22.4B855%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In article doraymeRidThis-B8D...@news.albasani.net, dorayme
>> at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/12/09 5:10 PM:
>>
>>> In article <C7211633.4B6E9%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
>>> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>
>>> Your *general* statement that you prefer PDF to a website for on 'the
>>> web' (you mean 'on screen')
>>
>> "On the web" is what I meant; "off the web" means "offline but onscreen"
>> well as a format for creating and saving documents for exchange or printing.
>>
>
> Bullshit. "Off the web" can mean a printed copy, it can mean rooting a
> sheep in your local pub, it can mean anything at all as long as it is
> not something online. Chuck that prissy dictionary in your head out.
>
Oh...I see. So now you're telling me what it is that I meant when I used the
terms "on the web" and "off the web" -- not withstanding what it is that I
said I meant. Thanks for the clarification.
(You really love telling people not only what they should do, but also what
they meant, don't you?)
>>> is either a statement of extreme ignorance
>>> and foolishness or a world weary exasperation at the number of badly
>>> made web pages and sites.
>>
>> The fact that some folks lack the skills necessary to create decent web
>> pages or sites is irrelevant to the discussion: PDF was designed to be a
>> platform-independent format for representing documents that are to be viewed
>> and transmitted electronically as well as saved and printed.
>
> It was not well designed from the ground up to be something to be viewed
> on a screen. The wide choice of browsers, the technology of HTML and CSS
> is altogether better geared for conveying *information* across the
> internet than PDF.
Why don't you apply for a job advising Adobe how to redesign PDF to meet
users' needs (as you define them, of course).
> Don't get me wrong, I love PDFs. I keep several as
> pets.
In lieu of those small woodland creatures?
>> Because some
>> folks don't know how to properly apply the format is not a reason for
>> dismissing it as undesirable, and telling Jim that he shouldn't be using it
>> for his newsletter. _That_, sir, is arrogance born of "extreme ignorance and
>> foolishness."
>>
>
> I did not exactly tell him that he "shouldn't", it was more a gentle
> suggestion,
If you call repeated hammering rants "gentle," then yes, indeed, it
certainly was a "gentle suggestion."
> to avoid the inconvenience of my mission impossible team
> turning up and shooting his dog,
Back to the helpless pets, eh?
> stealing all his latest gear, and
> grabbing all in his liquor cabinet in a night raid.
So, you think he has cool gear and is an alcoholic?
> Why don't you loosen up!
This _is_ "loosened up." :P
> No wonder I like to tease you a bit. It has not
> helped you that Michele (a valued sparring partner) won't take a single
> bait from me these days.
A valued sparring partner who refuses to spar? Hmmm...perhaps "value" is in
the eye of the beholder?
> In other words, that leaves you!
>
Leaves me what?
>> For someone who is so quick to accuse others of "casting aspersions" and
>> soiling your so-called "reputation," you sure are not adverse to sprinkling
>> your posts with insults.
>
> I am not quick to do this at all. I hold my powder admirably in my own
> opinion, it is just that it appropriate to expend a bit of it with you
> (have a good look at what you have said to me to trigger it off).
>
He who lives in glass houses should not throw stones.
>> You remind me of the self-righteous TV Evangelists
>> who condemn their "flocks" for "sinning," while they themselves commit
>> adultery and engage in pedophilia.
>>
>
> I resent this a great deal,
You're just overly sensitive from all of those aspersions folks continually
cast upon you.
> no one is fairer, more helpful, lovely in
> all respects than me
Is that what you say to woo those married women, innocent children, and
small woodland creatures?
> and I demand you withdraw it. In the meantime I am
> going to take a nice bath, the taps are running my own glory...
Yeah...you're all "tapped out" all right!
Nick Naym
at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/14/09 6:50 PM:
Notice that he singled out _you_.
Mike Rosenberg
> >>>> Sometimes I think we just shouldn't let these kids sit at the same
> >>>> table.
> >>>
> >>> It is better that we sit where you can keep an eye on us, no telling
> >>> what we might get up to otherwise... <g>
> >>
> >> Definitely a good idea to keep an eye on you, but that's why I have a
> >> camera with a telephoto lens.
> >
> > The main thing is the mike (no pun intended but what does it matter)
> > picks up every tiny thing I have to say. <g>
>
>
> Notice that he singled out _you_.
He did no such thing.
Nick Naym
Rosenberg at mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com wrote on 11/14/09 7:49 PM:
> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Sometimes I think we just shouldn't let these kids sit at the same
>>>>>> table.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is better that we sit where you can keep an eye on us, no telling
>>>>> what we might get up to otherwise... <g>
>>>>
>>>> Definitely a good idea to keep an eye on you, but that's why I have a
>>>> camera with a telephoto lens.
>>>
>>> The main thing is the mike (no pun intended but what does it matter)
>>> picks up every tiny thing I have to say. <g>
>>
>>
>> Notice that he singled out _you_.
>
> He did no such thing.
He may not have meant to ;P ...but that's what he did:
*****************************************
dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > Sometimes I think we just shouldn't let these kids sit at the same
> > table.
>
> It is better that we sit where you can keep an eye on us, no telling
> what we might get up to otherwise... <g>
Definitely a good idea to keep an eye on you, but that's why I have a
camera with a telephoto lens.
--
My latest dance performance <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvB98fgse-s>
Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi>
Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi>
*****************************************
dorayme
Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Oh...I see. So now you're telling me what it is that I meant when I used the
> terms "on the web" and "off the web"
You see nothing. I am telling you what you ought to be meaning. You can
hardly expect it to be acceptable for someone to be making up their own
language and explaining it *later on*!
> > grabbing all in his liquor cabinet in a night raid.
>
> So, you think he has cool gear and is an alcoholic?
>
What an extraordinary mind you have, how you leap from "dorayme's liquor
thieving group" to "this group only targets alcoholics". I told you that
"activity" you indulge in can damage your brain. Stop it immediately.
> > Why don't you loosen up!
>
> This _is_ "loosened up." :P
>
I'm sorry, do I resemble your therapist?
--
dorayme
Mike Rosenberg
> >> Notice that he singled out _you_.
> >
> > He did no such thing.
>
> He may not have meant to ;P ...but that's what he did:
I was referring to you both.
Nick Naym
at dorayme...@optusnet.com.au wrote on 11/14/09 8:35 PM:
> In article <C724B402.4B872%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>,
> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Oh...I see. So now you're telling me what it is that I meant when I used the
>> terms "on the web" and "off the web"
>
> You see nothing. I am telling you what you ought to be meaning. You can
> hardly expect it to be acceptable for someone to be making up their own
> language and explaining it *later on*!
>
You didn't like my word choice, so I told you what I meant -- how _I_ was
using the terms. One would expect that would be the end of it. But no...you
then did what you seem to do best: Tell people what they ought to be
saying/doing.
>>> grabbing all in his liquor cabinet in a night raid.
>>
>> So, you think he has cool gear and is an alcoholic?
>>
>
> What an extraordinary mind you have, how you leap from "dorayme's liquor
> thieving group" to "this group only targets alcoholics". I told you that
> "activity" you indulge in can damage your brain. Stop it immediately.
Is that how you damaged yours?
>
>>> Why don't you loosen up!
>>
>> This _is_ "loosened up." :P
>>
>
> I'm sorry,
I'll forgive you, if you promise to behave.
> do I resemble your therapist?
Dunno...what are you wearing?
Nick Naym
Rosenberg at mike...@TOGROUPmacconsult.com wrote on 11/14/09 9:13 PM:
> Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Notice that he singled out _you_.
>>>
>>> He did no such thing.
>>
>> He may not have meant to ;P ...but that's what he did:
>
> I was referring to you both.
What you said:
Definitely a good idea to keep an eye on you, but that's why I have a
camera with a telephoto lens.
What you (apparently) meant:
Definitely a good idea to keep an eye on you two, but that's why I have a
camera with a telephoto lens.
--
Mike Rosenberg
> What you (apparently) meant
When I said I was referring to you both that's exactly what meant.