Use PDF or NOT?
Tanya Welch
company is trying to decide the 'best' way of placing documents on our
intranet/internet sites, to make available to customers. Originally, we
were attempting to leave the documents in MSWord format, but have found
this causes problems (i.e., incredibly long times for download, etc.).
Then- we tried converting these documents to HTML (through Word's 'save
as HTML' feature). The result- not very good. After converting,
required a lot of manual tweaking to get it back in its original layout,
etc.
I really know NOTHING about PDF files- have seen many; have downloaded,
etc. Regarding CREATING them is a different story! Also- a concern we
have is whether customers will object to receiving documents that
require them to download/use Adobe Reader (even though it's free), just
to view our documents. From what I've read, PDF files are becoming an
industry standard, but don't know for sure.
Maybe I should also add that our target audience = (for the most part)
high-end computer users. We are a computer/technical training company,
offering classes and certification in Microsoft, Novell, Informix,
Cisco, Web Development, etc., so the majority of our audience are not
'new' to using computers. The type of documents we're wanting to make
available are mainly course outlines, certification tracks, etc., which
include a minimal # of graphics (mainly, our logo, and the vendor's).
Based on all of the above- How can I justify purchasing/using Adobe
Acrobat Suite??? Also- forgot to ask- is it fairly easy to
learn/use??? It would be self-defeating to purchase, only to find it is
as time-consuming as trying to convert all of our docs. to HTML for
placement on our web sites.
Thanks MUCH(!) in advance...
Please send responses to: tan...@mindspring.com
Aandi Inston
>Based on all of the above- How can I justify purchasing/using Adobe
>Acrobat Suite??? Also- forgot to ask- is it fairly easy to
>learn/use??? It would be self-defeating to purchase, only to find it is
>as time-consuming as trying to convert all of our docs. to HTML for
>placement on our web sites.
Well, it doesn't cost much, so I think you should buy it TO evaluate;
the time saving justifies that alone.
It takes a little learning to use well - it is deceptively easy, but
has some "hidden" things you need to learn. It comes with a useful
tutorial on CDROM. But once you have that sorted out, making a PDF
file is as easy as printing a file. No tweaking is needed of the
finished product (and just as well, you CAN'T tweak it).
You might like to consider offering shorter information in some form
of HTML too. Remember: most people want information, not fancy layout.
However, for documents that run to more than about 10 pages, HTML is
not very effective in my (soon to be challenged) opinion.
---------------------------------------
Aandi Inston qu...@dial.pipex.com
Imposition and booklets for PDF - http://www.quite.com/imposing/
Bryan and Pam
First off PDF can take care of your page layout and formatting perfectly.
That's what it was designed to do. Accomplishing this with HTML is very tedious
as you have already discovered. PDF is the best way to go in this respect.
You have already downloaded some PDF files so you know how they handle and feel.
Basically, PDF is a paper metaphor, it's digital paper. Visit www.adobe.com/acrobat
to learn more about it.
Acrobat Reader is one of the most widely distributed pieces of software there is.
In my opinion, anyone who doesn't already have a copy of it, I would hardly consider
a high end computer user.
You can make the Acrobat Reader available on your intranet. It is freely distributable.
PDF is perfectly suited to the type of documentation you need to create.
Once your system is properly configured the production of PDF files becomes
very simple and efficient and in many cases a no brainer, just hit the print button and it's done.
But like anything else in the computer world garbage in = garbage out, so it is important
to design the original documents the right way to begin with. Poor design of Word (or any other type
of file) documents is what causes most of the problems involved in PDF production.
Acrobat requires a slight learning curve.
As a trainer I usually recommend a half day of custom training for each end user,
and 3 full days of custom training for at least one IT or support personnel.
This is well below the training requirements for most applications.
Bryan Guignard
Adobe Certified Expert
Tanya Welch wrote:
> Sure hope someone more knowledgeable about PDF, etc., can help me! My
> company is trying to decide the 'best' way of placing documents on our
> intranet/internet sites, to make available to customers. Originally, we
> were attempting to leave the documents in MSWord format, but have found
> this causes problems (i.e., incredibly long times for download, etc.).
> Then- we tried converting these documents to HTML (through Word's 'save
> as HTML' feature). The result- not very good. After converting,
> required a lot of manual tweaking to get it back in its original layout,
> etc.
>
> I really know NOTHING about PDF files- have seen many; have downloaded,
> etc. Regarding CREATING them is a different story! Also- a concern we
> have is whether customers will object to receiving documents that
> require them to download/use Adobe Reader (even though it's free), just
> to view our documents. From what I've read, PDF files are becoming an
> industry standard, but don't know for sure.
>
> Maybe I should also add that our target audience = (for the most part)
> high-end computer users. We are a computer/technical training company,
> offering classes and certification in Microsoft, Novell, Informix,
> Cisco, Web Development, etc., so the majority of our audience are not
> 'new' to using computers. The type of documents we're wanting to make
> available are mainly course outlines, certification tracks, etc., which
> include a minimal # of graphics (mainly, our logo, and the vendor's).
>
> Based on all of the above- How can I justify purchasing/using Adobe
> Acrobat Suite??? Also- forgot to ask- is it fairly easy to
> learn/use??? It would be self-defeating to purchase, only to find it is
> as time-consuming as trying to convert all of our docs. to HTML for
> placement on our web sites.
>
Ashby and Kindred
Acrobat Reader is included with most new computer software packages,
IBM & MAC.
Also Reader 3.0 is included in an "Extras" folder on the ubiquitous
Compuserve junk-mail disk.
You should encourage customers make sure they have at least version
3.0...earlier versions often won't open pdf files made with Acrobat 3.0x.
It would be wise to include a link to Adobe's free download site.
Good luck!
lennart...@draco.se.astra.com
qu...@dial.pipex.com (Aandi Inston) wrote:
> Tanya Welch <tan...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
> You might like to consider offering shorter information in some form
> of HTML too. Remember: most people want information, not fancy layout.
> However, for documents that run to more than about 10 pages, HTML is
> not very effective in my (soon to be challenged) opinion.
> ---------------------------------------
> Aandi Inston qu...@dial.pipex.com
> Imposition and booklets for PDF - http://www.quite.com/imposing/
>
You are right, there are others that think HTML is much better for long
documents on the web :-).
I had just to read a long PDF document on the web. It was so difficult that I
started searching again on dejanews for an easy way to convert PDF to HTML so
I could read what I was after without the pain of using a print format on my
screen. I mean either the PDF-doc does not fit on the screen or the letters
shows up as some foggy small things that you are more guessing than reading.
Use PDF for print not for the web.
HTML with XSSL will be far superior. It is built to have different format on
the web than on a paper page. PDF does not see any difference between a
terminal and a printer. I do not see what PDF is supposed to show me...
- Lennart
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Bryan and Pam
is not a PDF problem but rather poor design, or poor use of the technology,
or dare I say perhaps poor use on your part??? (-:
If a document is designed to be printed, then what can I say...print it!
PDF can successfully be used to display on screen if the design is correct.
HTML is pretty much the reverse, looks good on screen, but lousy in print.
Even the best technology isn't of much use when there is a total disrespect
for design, style, beauty, and practicality. HTML and PDF are no match for abuse.
Just my $.02 worth.
Bryan Guignard
Steve Rindsberg
>HTML with XSSL will be far superior. It is built to have different format
on
>the web than on a paper page. PDF does not see any difference between a
>terminal and a printer. I do not see what PDF is supposed to show me...
>
As long as there are people are rude enough to force readers to read
print-pages on screen, and too lazy to do a version for both, I really doubt
that any change from PDF to HTML to XXXwhatever will matter. There'll
still be good PDF and bad, good HTML and bad. It isn't PDF that makes the
documents bad, it's the designer. HTML or XSSL or any other three alphabets
worth of standards won't make the designer any better, just give him or her
more tongues in which to be fluently bad.
Kyler Laird
>PDF can successfully be used to display on screen if the design is correct.
*If* by "design" you include the user's environment. I
suppose you can readily dictate that in a kiosk
environment, but you can't even begin to know how I
have my reader set at home (on any of several different
machines at different times of the day for different
purposes in different moods...).
I appreciate people who work *with* me (HTML) not
against me (PDF).
--kyler
John Morris
>shows up as some foggy small things that you are more guessing than reading.
I've been following this thread with great
interest as I am a newbie to PDF and trying to
understand it and it's uses better. The statement
above is my feelings exactly..... i.e that PDF
docs either don't fit on the screen or the letters
show up as so small as to be unreadable.
Can someone explain why that is? IOW... why is
PDF not formatted for a computer monitor very
well?
>Use PDF for print not for the web.
Good idea. PDF makes for good print outs.... but
not good online reading. Is this a valid
statement.... or is my logic wrong on this? <G>
John Morris
Can you please explain to this newbie how a good
PDF design should be??
IOW..... are you saying that a PDF doc "could" be
designed so that it fit a computer monitor
format... AND still be readable as far as text
size..... AND still print out on paper correct??
Bryan and Pam
The short answer to your question is YES.
A good PDF design is no different than any other design. Design is NOT the way something looks, this
is esthetics or ornament.
Design comes before that. Design is about making something satisfy a need.
So therefore a design that satisfies the needs of printing on A4 paper may be considerably different
from a design that satisfies the needs of a computer monitor. PDF has some features to help overcome
at least some of these different needs, (different views and zoom factors, article threads etc).
An A4 page with 12 point type and full justification may look good on a laser printout, but try
reading it at a suitable size on a monitor and you will only be able to see about half a line of
text at one time, and if you use "fit view" in Reader then the type is too small to read.
Some reasonable solutions are to increase the point size of type to 20pt. and use landscape
orientation.
These two things in combination produce very readable PDF documents on a monitor. If you plan to use
the PDf in full screen mode then the type size can be dropped to 16 points while still maintaining
readability.
Go to your fav bookstore and look for some books printed in landscape format. There aren't many
but you should find a few. Chances are that they are nice looking and very functional books with a
lot of white space (that's a good thing) and at least 3 text columns.
So another option is to use portrait orientation and to use 2 or 3 columns of text. These pages
print well
and you can use a feature that was specially to help make such PDF pages more readable. The PDF
article thread feature. It really works well if it's used with a page that is designed with columns
of text (either in portrait or landscape orientation).
Ideally it is best to create a dual set of PDF documents. One for print, and another for monitor
viewing.
Acrobat 4 will provide powerful tools to help simplify this process.
But it is still possible to create "hybrid" documents that satisfy most of the needs of both
delivery systems fairly well. Creating a landscape layout, with 3 text columns with 10 or 12 point
type
and plenty of margin and gutter spage and ample white space is a very functional, esthetically
pleasing,
and increasingly popular format for hybrid documents.
I could go on and on, but perhaps the easiest thing for you to do is to track down some
professionally
created documents and examine the layouts and adapt them to your needs. There are many of them on
the WWW.
So keep in mind that design comes first (even if it's initially ugly, and many designs are).
You must design a solid structure that satisfies all the needs (creates repose).
Then you can start applying ornaments and making it "look" good.
And once you have a rock solid design and sufficient beauty, then you can enhance it with
PDF features.
Bryan Guignard
Steve Rindsberg
>
> Can you please explain to this newbie how a good
> PDF design should be??
>
> IOW..... are you saying that a PDF doc "could" be
> designed so that it fit a computer monitor
> format... AND still be readable as far as text
> size..... AND still print out on paper correct??
>
I doubt that it can be done perfectly either way, but I suspect that's true
of any other format as well.
Depending on the authoring tools, it's possible to produce two versions of
the PDF (and to be fair, other formats, I'd assume); one optimized for
on-screen viewing, the other for printing. Aandi Inston's pointed out
before that a knowledgeable FrameMaker user can automate this quite
handily. I don't use Frame, but I have no reason to doubt Aandi.
For one project I'm working on, I'm setting things up so that the text is
very much optimized for screen viewing, as that's the main intent of the
doc, but plan to distribute a version that's been imposed 4-up for users
who want to print it. Sub-optimal, admittedly, but the screen version will
be preferable to most (500+ cross links and such to make it much simpler to
navigate) so that's where I've concentrated the attention. For other docs,
I might well do the reverse ... depending on the intended audience and how
they'll likely use the doc.
None of which is really the point, which was that it doesn't make sense to
say that "The PDF format is lousy" just because a particular PDF is lousy.
We can easily enough find bad examples of nearly anything, and dismissing
them all on that basis won't leave us any tools to work with.
John Doherty
| None of which is really the point, which was that it doesn't make sense to
| say that "The PDF format is lousy" just because a particular PDF is lousy.
| We can easily enough find bad examples of nearly anything, and dismissing
| them all on that basis won't leave us any tools to work with.
But we can certainly say that for making pages that both view well on
a screen with a 4:3 aspect ratio *and* on printed pages with some other
aspect ratio (that's usually less than 1), PDF doesn't work. You either
compose PDFs to be read on a screen, or you compose PDFs that are meant
to be printed before reading. That's pretty much it.
Steven M. Scotten
> But we can certainly say that for making pages that both view well on
> a screen with a 4:3 aspect ratio *and* on printed pages with some other
> aspect ratio (that's usually less than 1), PDF doesn't work. You either
> compose PDFs to be read on a screen, or you compose PDFs that are meant
> to be printed before reading. That's pretty much it.
I dunno. I usually prefer to have a portrait-oriented document that I
can view at "Page Width" and just thump my PGDN key as I read
along. With all this talk about designing for the screen vs designing
for print, I guess I'm standing alone. If I'm going to read a PDF on
screen, I usually prefer to have it formatted for print. I can see how
that would suck if you insisted on looking at it at "fit to page" but
I fail to see the problem with viewing print page-like text streams on
screen.
CTRL-SHIFT-L, then CTRL-K, then PGDN a bunch.
I'm not saying that design isn't important; it most certainly is. I
just don't experience the abject horror described in this NG of having
documents formatted for print and then viewed on screen.
Steve
John Doherty
| jdoh...@ix.netcom.com (John Doherty) writes:
|
| > But we can certainly say that for making pages that both view well on
| > a screen with a 4:3 aspect ratio *and* on printed pages with some other
| > aspect ratio (that's usually less than 1), PDF doesn't work. You either
| > compose PDFs to be read on a screen, or you compose PDFs that are meant
| > to be printed before reading. That's pretty much it.
|
| I dunno. I usually prefer to have a portrait-oriented document that I
| can view at "Page Width" and just thump my PGDN key as I read
| along.
It's all those PGDNs that make reading PDFs composed for print on a 4:3
screen a pain in the ass.
| With all this talk about designing for the screen vs designing
| for print, I guess I'm standing alone. If I'm going to read a PDF on
| screen, I usually prefer to have it formatted for print. I can see how
| that would suck if you insisted on looking at it at "fit to page" but
| I fail to see the problem with viewing print page-like text streams on
| screen.
That's exactly the problem: PDF is not stream-oriented, it's page-oriented,
and the skips between pages not formatted to fit on a screen are nothing
but disruptions to the process of reading.
| I'm not saying that design isn't important; it most certainly is. I
| just don't experience the abject horror described in this NG of having
| documents formatted for print and then viewed on screen.
It's not unbearable, but it's not that nice, either. If you're producing
material you expect to be read from a 4:3 screen, you do well to make it
fit. You also do well to make material you expect to be read from printed
pages fit the shape of those pages, which is almost always different from
the shape of a 4:3 screen.
A single PDF can't do both of these things as well as either should be
done, so you make your choice and take your chances.
Best regards.
John Morris
>can view at "Page Width" and just thump my PGDN key as I read
>for print, I guess I'm standing alone. If I'm going to read a PDF on
>screen, I usually prefer to have it formatted for print. I can see how
>that would suck if you insisted on looking at it at "fit to page" but
>I fail to see the problem with viewing print page-like text streams on
>screen.
>
>
>just don't experience the abject horror described in this NG of having
>documents formatted for print and then viewed on screen.
Good point Steven! I just tried the above and it
does work OK.
Never occurred to me to just use the page down
button and have the doc "fit to width" on the
screen... but yet be formatted for paper print
out.
I am new to PDF and this thread has been great
learning experience.... i.e hearing all opinions
on PDF vs other formats, etc
Thanks all!!
John Morris
>compose PDFs to be read on a screen, or you compose PDFs that are meant
>to be printed before reading. That's pretty much it.
Does anyone know of an example PDF file that is
formatted both ways...... i.e. one way to fit
paper.. and another to be viewed online??
I would like to see the differences.
David N. Williams
>
> >You either
> >compose PDFs to be read on a screen, or you compose PDFs that are meant
> >to be printed before reading. That's pretty much it.
>
> Does anyone know of an example PDF file that is
> formatted both ways...... i.e. one way to fit
> paper.. and another to be viewed online??
I did a whole book of 'em, available at
http://www.physics.lsa.umich.edu/phys240k/book/
Unit 2 is a reasonably short one to look at. The version optimized for
printing is not available on the web. These were produced with LaTeX.
There were two optimizations. The basic one was to simply reduce the
margins around the text for the web version. As a matter of fact, they
print reasonably well, too, just a bit high on the page.
The other optimization comes in later units, where some of the
figures were scanned rather than being drawn with a postscript drawing
program. These were converted to eps and jpeg at much higher
resolution for the print version than the web version, to keep
the web pdf file sizes reasonable, but with enough resolution for
screen viewing. Example: Unit 9.
There's a link to the details at the bottom of the web page under
"Production Notes".
--David
_ _________________________________________________________________
(_\(__
_|__) David N. Williams Phone: 1-(734)-764-5236
__|___ University of Michigan Fax: 1-(734)-763-2213
\ |:-) Physics Department Email: David.N....@umich.edu
\| Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1120 Office: 3421 Randall Laboratory
Steven M. Scotten
> | I dunno. I usually prefer to have a portrait-oriented document that I
> | can view at "Page Width" and just thump my PGDN key as I read
> | along.
>
> It's all those PGDNs that make reading PDFs composed for print on a 4:3
> screen a pain in the ass.
I don't get it. If the page is composed for a 4:3 page, or the text is
is a "stream-oriented" format like HTML, do you not have to still PGDN
to get from one screenful of information to the next? Or mouseclick or
something, at least.
> That's exactly the problem: PDF is not stream-oriented, it's page-oriented,
> and the skips between pages not formatted to fit on a screen are nothing
> but disruptions to the process of reading.
Shrug. Page-turning while reading a deadtree edition "disrupts the
process" the same way, but billions of people do it every day without
complain. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I don't see it as a big
deal.
> It's not unbearable, but it's not that nice, either. If you're producing
> material you expect to be read from a 4:3 screen, you do well to make it
> fit. You also do well to make material you expect to be read from printed
> pages fit the shape of those pages, which is almost always different from
> the shape of a 4:3 screen.
Maybe. One of my first PDF projects was a 300+ page document for
CD-ROM with pages taken from so many sources I don't even want to
think about it. The "master" pages, the ones that contained the TOC
and tutorial information and so on--which is to say the pages that I
designed rather than repurposed--all started out exactly as you
described: in a landscape orientation (I can't swear that the aspect
ratio was exactly 4:3, but...). We wrestled with that for a while and
found that making a portrait-orientation page with type large enough
to be read on screen worked better (in that instance) than trying to
make the page fit sideways.
Or solution may have wasted a lot od screen space, but it was entirely
readable on a 640x480 screen using 16 colors (our test platform), and
our testers were more comfortable with it over any of our attempts at
matching the screen's aspect ratio.
So while I think your design principles are in the right place, I
can't say I agree with a hard-and fast rule about fitting the shape to
the screen, especially today when portrait monitors as well as
widescreen monitors are becoming increasingly popular.
> A single PDF can't do both of these things as well as either should be
> done, so you make your choice and take your chances.
Well put. In any media, design is about capitalizing on the strong
parts of the media and covering over the weak parts. I think a good
designer can do that as successfully with PDF as with HTML, radio, or
oil-on-canvas.
Steve
Steven M. Scotten
http://www.splicer.com/images/flatland66.pdf
pages formatted for screen:
http://www.splicer.com/images/AFABLES.PDF
page formatted for print that should be useful on screen:
http://www.splicer.com/resume/res98.pdf
page formatted for screen that should be useful printed:
http://www.splicer.com/images/pcsysex.pdf
...although I'm sure that some will disagree!
Steve
jmo...@nemonet.com (John Morris) writes:
> >You either
> >compose PDFs to be read on a screen, or you compose PDFs that are meant
> >to be printed before reading. That's pretty much it.
>
>
> Does anyone know of an example PDF file that is
> formatted both ways...... i.e. one way to fit
> paper.. and another to be viewed online??
>