Re: HTML v. Acrobat (was Electronic File Transfer)

Subject: Re: HTML v. Acrobat (was Electronic File Transfer)
From: Tracy Boyington <trlyboyi -at- GENESIS -dot- ODVTE -dot- STATE -dot- OK -dot- US>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 15:38:40 +0000

> Acrobat is great for putting a carbon copy of an 8.5" by 11" page on a
> computer screen, but who wants to read _that_? I'm not saying you couldn't
> design a document for online distribution first, and then "compile" it with
> Acrobat. I'm sure you can. From experience though, people don't.

They don't *have* to read it off the screen. I'm using Acrobat (or
will be using it as soon as our web page is up) to let people
download FREE samples of our products. All they have to do is
download and print the sucker. Who's gonna complain that their free
sample (which they won't use on-line anyway) doesn't look good on the
screen? I'm not an Adobe employee or groupie, but come on -- it does
what I need it to do. Don't call it useless because it doesn't do what
it's not supposed to.


==========================================================
Tracy Boyington
Technical Communication Specialist
Oklahoma Department of Vocational & Technical Education
Stillwater, Oklahoma

I never express opinions, but if one slips out, it belongs
to me and not ODVTE.

"I think I did pretty well, considering I started out
with nothing but a bunch of blank paper."
-- Steve Martin
==========================================================


Previous by Author: FWD>Frame User Gds
Next by Author: Re: HTML Editors
Previous by Thread: Re[2]: HTML v. Acrobat (was Electronic File Transfer)
Next by Thread: Re: HTML v. Acrobat (was Electronic File Transfer)


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads