HTML vs. Adobe Acrobat

Subject: HTML vs. Adobe Acrobat
From: David Blyth <dblyth -at- QUALCOMM -dot- COM>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 1996 17:38:57 -0700

>Can anyone tell me what functionality we would get from
>converting our FrameMaker documents to HTML that we will
>not get from the Adobe suite of products?

1) HTML browsers connect directly to the Internet

o You can connect to related documents via links
o You can invoke other applications (Word, Excel, Adobe..)
o You can send/receive email/news without invoking another product
o You can upload/download without invoking another product

Adobe does _not_ connect to the Internet except via a browser.
This means you increase system load (2 applications are running,
not one). Conversely, you can access Adobe Amber from a
browser _without_ increasing overhead.

2) Browsers provide a means (HTML forms) by which customers can
request information from the company. For example, you
can cycle customers through an HTML list of Frequently
Asked Customer Questions then to a form for their specific
question.

3) HTML browsers display information much more quickly than
Adobe. This allows you to (among other things) update
system critical information quickly for your customers.

Given #3 above, some documents (Release Notes, Tutorials, Product
Announcements) should almost certainly be in HTML because it
maximizes the speed and control with which information is released.

By coincidence, my own company has recently decided to convert a
large number of internal Word documents to HTML. The major argument
for HTML was simply that corporate engineers needed to access this
information as quickly as possible.

David (It's really me) Blyth
Technical Writer/Web Site Designer
QUALCOMM

Standard disclaimers apply.


Previous by Author: Re: HTML vs. Adobe Acrobat
Next by Author: HTML vs. Adobe Acrobat
Previous by Thread: Re[2]: HTML vs. Adobe Acrobat
Next by Thread: HTML vs. Adobe Acrobat


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads