Re: Should we skip HTML?

Subject: Re: Should we skip HTML?
From: Marilynne Smith <marilyns -at- QUALCOMM -dot- COM>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:56:23 -0800

I am starting to get Word6 documents from the web as well. I have Acrobat
Reader installed. My only problem with receiving PDF files is that
sometimes people don't tell me that's what they're sending. Before you
send a PDF file to me, please provide a summary, let me know how large it
is, and ask me if I want to see it. Much of the time I'm not really so
interested that I want to download the document.

A while back, STC was putting conference information as PDF files. There
the "what is the common denominator" question applies. If you want that
information available to everyone, you had better make it readable on the
web - in HTML.

Marilynne

At 7:28 PM +0100 3/10/98, Max Wyss wrote:
>Andrew,
>
>Maybe we have to agree to disagree, but I can't resist to add a few points
>to these comments, which do sometimes look as if they are based on hearsay.
>
>It depends quite a bit on the market, whether "nearly everybody has a web
>browser on their computer". But for the Wintel 95 world, you are right
>(that's why we have that antitrust suit going on). The market penetration
>of Acrobat might be underestimated.
>
>Installing Acrobat Reader is "time and frustration"??? Fact is that the
>process is really simple and rather straightforward. Besides that, Acrobat
>reader does not mess up with the system, as the "favourite web browser"
>does.
>
>It is true that the PDF format does lead to bigger file sizes. The reason
>for this is that one single file contains all bits and pieces of the
>document. Most of the elements of the document can be compressed in the PDF
>format. Having one single file is the only way to ensure the integrity of
>the document. The HTML format on the other hand relies on referenced bits
>and pieces. In order to distribute a HTML documentation, a (more or less)
>big directory must be handled. To ensure the document integrity becomes
>more difficult with every added file.
>
>Particularly with big harddisks, small files take much more space than teir
>actual size. So, the file size argument is very weak. Also, maintaining a
>bigger number of files on the installation will add more causes for
>troubles.
>
>I do stress the document integrity point, as documentation is legally
>binding. This does also concern the editability of the document on the
>client's computer. It is very easy for anyone to fiddle around with the
>components of the HTML based documentation. I am not aware of any tampering
>protection in the HTML world, but if there are, I will stand corrected. The
>PDF format has some inherent security which can be enhanced. Besides that,
>it needs more than a word processor or GIF editor to successfully modify a
>PDF based document.
>
>Creation of the documents is another point. It is IMHO way easier to create
>PDF based documentation than HTML based documentation. It does also depend
>a lot on the tools used to create the documents. I must admit that I do not
>have sufficient knowledge of Microsoft Frontpage to comment on its
>usability for creating documentation. However, from some results I have
>seen, I do have my doubts.
>
>One has noted that I have so far not brought up the integrity of appearance
>issue. This can again be an issue with the legal aspect of the document,
>which does not only concern its contents, but also its form. I am open to
>any suggestion on how to achieve that with HTML.
>
>For the integrity and maintenance reasons, it may be dangerous to push the
>client to the HTML path.
>
>
>Max Wyss
>PRODOK Engineering AG
>Technical documentation and translations, Electronic Publishing
>CH-8906 Bonstetten, Switzerland
>
>Fax: +41 1 700 20 37
>e-mail: mailto:prodok -at- prodok -dot- ch or 100012 -dot- 44 -at- compuserve -dot- com
>
>
>
>Bridging the Knowledge Gap
>
>
>
>_____________
>
>
>>Nearly everybody has a web browser on their computer. That is a fact.
>>
>>Few people have Acrobat readers or the browser plug-ins. The market
>>penetration for Acrobat readers is quite small. Most users do not take the
>>time and frustration to load their Acrobat reader drivers. This is a fact.
>>
>>That is why HTML help is better. Not to mention the fact that PDF files are
>>enormous when they contain a lot of graphics, while HTML files can be much
>>smaller and more modular. This is an opinion.
>>
>>Acrobat technology has been perpetuated by Adobe-lovers for years. It is a
>>pretty neat technology, but the fact is that most people do not have the
>>Acrobat readers (or have the wrong versions). In the days before HTML and
>>web sites were popular, Acrobat was a good idea. Unfortunately, HTML is
>>winning the share of eyeballs.
>>
>>Therefore, if you do PDF format only -- be prepared to loose eyeballs to
>>people who do not care to deal with the Acrobat reader stuff. When I
>>consult with clients I advise them to let go of the PDF dependence and go to
>>HTML on-line documentation. With the new HTML tools like FrontPage,
>>developing on-line HTML documentation is very easy.
>>
>>Good luck
>>Andrew Plato
>>Owner / Principal Consultant
>>Anitian Technology Services
>>www.anitian.com
>>
>


~!~ ~!~ ~!~ ~!~ ~!~ ~!~ ~!~ ~!~ ~!~ ~!~ ~!~ ~!~ ~!~
Marilynne Smith marilyns -at- qualcomm -dot- com
Sr. Technical Writer (619) 651-6664
QUALCOMM AE-203B
"We're building the wireless world"




Previous by Author: Re: A Per Diem story, does this sound right?
Next by Author: Re: Binding arb clause in new contract--unfair?!
Previous by Thread: Re: Should we skip HTML?
Next by Thread: Re[4]: Should we skip HTML?


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads