|
WebWord Weblog Posting Posting Date: August 21, 2002 WebWord Comment -- What do you think of Dan Brown's portfolio? This brings up a side question: Do you like the PDFs on his portfolio page or are they evil? (Or, 99% bad.) And this brings up yet another question: What is the penetration rate of Acrobat Reader? Many people attack Flash because not everyone has Flash yet there are many PDFs floating around. Why don't more people bash Adobe? Flash is evil but PDFs are not? Aren't both proprietary? Aren't both difficult to use sometimes? Don't both suck sometimes?
Reader Comments...
PDFs are great for printing, but they're LOUSY for reading online. If you want people to read your stuff on a computer screen, then make the damn thing available in HTML format. Posted by: MadMan on August 21, 2002 03:07 AM
Madman his right: Html ( and maybe also Flash now ) great for interaction and PDF great for printing. But don't you think PDF are doom? Why create 2 documents for the same content when you can create one document with 2 type of style sheet: one for computer, one for printing. I know it's not always possible but they are so many occasion when it his. Posted by: Richard Lehoux on August 21, 2002 08:28 AM
"If you have trouble viewing these PDFs in-line, please download them to your computer and open them there" Translation: Potential employers, you must take time out of your day to treat me special. Plus, talk about poor text/background contrast and, of course, unresizeable type. I'm not going to spend one minute trying to read that web page. Posted by: Jack on August 21, 2002 09:19 AM
While I don't love the HTML color choices, I did bother to take a minute to read the page and download a few of the PDFs. Happily, they were well worth the download. The original purpose was apparently as large-format printed pieces for direct presentation to clients (some being as large as 36" x 50") and as such they would have been more friendly to users than opening up a browser during a client meeting and showing an HTML/CSS version of the same detailed schematic diagram--no matter how talented the programmer. That Dan could then export the same document (from his layout program) to relatively small PDF with a print command, also seems more sensible to me than the myth of the "one-document" solution. Not everybody is a programmer and some things still work better on paper--otherwise why not simply forgo all this usability architecture and flow stuff and just build the site outright. Oops. did I just say that? "Why create 2 documents for the same content when you can create one document with 2 type of style sheet: one for computer, one for printing." But, I actually agree with the above comment with regard to the PowerPoint documents in Dan's Portfolio. Flash is attacked relentlessly and PowerPoint (talk about bloated documents) is hardly mentioned. Here, one flash presentation could have been used by Dan at his lectures and also been made to stream to user's online. This assumes of course that Flash is as easy to author in as PP, which it definitely is not. But I digress... Dimitry Posted by: Dimitry on August 21, 2002 10:40 AM
I think Dimitry is close to the answer to why PDF his everywhere: it's the cheapest way to put on-line content that already exist in printed medium. Anybody have the skill to export/save as a PDF file. And cheap always sound very good to customer. Posted by: Richard Lehoux on August 21, 2002 12:34 PM
I wouldn't use PDFs for anything I really wanted people to read, but I would use them for content visitors (a) were incentivized to obtain and (b) wanted a clean print of. The only exception to this rule is if I am creating a proprietary document that I don't want the average user to be able to alter in their word processor. The PDF file sort of locks in my formatting and words. Posted by: Lydia on August 21, 2002 12:56 PM
PDF is NOT cheap. I need to have a copy of Adobe Acrobat before I can export as PDF. How is that cheap? Posted by: MadMan on August 21, 2002 01:15 PM
I guess part of my point is that authors are users too and have a right to prefer (or dislike least) one method, tool, or mode of expression. Whether PDF is expensive or not matters less than that Dan (and any other PDF creator) feels it was worth the investment relative to other methods. I've rarely heard anyone put the stress the otherway--if HTML/CSS is so easy and so cheap to author in and is always the best way for anyone to create any kind of content--then why does anyone use anything else? As to whether or not it is easier to read a PDF online: I stress that now as a portfolio item the content in question is not intended to be "read/used" in its present form the same way it was when these documents were "live" and in actual use--we are not his old clients and don't care about the minutiae of these particular website architecture and flow diagrams--we mostly want to know that he has and, more importantly, can produce such diagrams for us in the future if we decide to interview and/or hire him for our projects. Posted by: Dimitry on August 21, 2002 01:59 PM
There are a number of inexpensive (and even free) programs that create PDF files. Has anyone bothered to try to create a PDF file designed to be displayed online (i.e. choosing appropriate fonts, margins, column-widths, etc.)? Posted by: Ron Zeno on August 21, 2002 02:38 PM
You also have to take into account audience. Who's going to be looking at this portfolio, most likely a creative director at a design firm looking for a print designer. It's been my experience that a CD at a print design firm has a better change of being familiar with acrobat then s/he does an internet browser. Posted by: Mick on August 21, 2002 03:24 PM
MadMan writes: "PDF is NOT cheap. I need to have a copy of Adobe Acrobat before I can export as PDF. How is that cheap?" Ron writes: "There are a number of inexpensive (and even free) programs that create PDF files." My response... Creating Acrobat PDF files without Acrobat and for free Creating PDF files on Windows without paying for Adobe Acrobat Creating PDFs in Windows — Without Acrobat ...however, please remember that "free" does not mean easy. Posted by: John S. Rhodes on August 21, 2002 03:32 PM
As long as we're on the subject of "free", Mac OSX natively (and easily) supports PDF output from the PRINT command in any app. It comes down which is easier: hitting the print command or the learning curve to becoming a proficient HTML/CSS programmer along with all the attendent browser compatibility issues. Until "publishing" accurate HTML/CSS is as easy as hitting print from your favorite app--there will always be a use for technologies like PDF. Posted by: Dimitry on August 21, 2002 03:48 PM
I only dislike PDFs when the content could/should have been presented in HTML. But in Dan Brown's case, I think he made a good decision. The images are posters, and the Acrobat Reader allows you to easily see close-up or whole-page views with a single button click. And Mick (above) is right: the target audience of Art Directors will have Flash and Acrobat already installed, or else they wouldn't be able to do their jobs. Posted by: Lincolnlog on August 21, 2002 05:27 PM
PDFs aren't evil. *I'm* evil. (Especially now that I work for the government.) Are the colors on my portfolio page evil? Are PDFs evil? Can anyone export to PDF? Is PowerPoint evil? What isn't evil? Also, Dimitry is not evil. Last question: Did I use the tools inappropriately? Please share your own portfolios! Presenting printed content online is not a challenge I face alone! -- Dan Posted by: Dan on August 21, 2002 05:45 PM
Dan's true nature was only revealed to me after re-reading the last post backwards. It's not the Powerpoint. Dan really is evil. Posted by: Dimitry on August 21, 2002 08:50 PM
Home | Moving WebWord | Cool Books | Hot Web Sites
URL: http://webword.com/weblog/ ©1998-2005 by WebWord.com. All rights reserved. |