Re: Reality? Was: HTML vs PDF

Subject: Re: Reality? Was: HTML vs PDF
From: Sarah Carroll <sarahc -at- INDIGO -dot- IE>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 12:16:58 +0000

Some interesting concepts, lots of passion! But I vote
for Tim. One thing you might want to take into account,
however, is that outside of the U.S. most of us pay for
all local calls (to ISPs for access to the net). So until
methods for accessing the net change from using
telephone lines to a less expensive method of staying
on-line to complete a tutorial to program the VCR, most
of us Europeans still want the paper copy. Preferably
not badly machine translated from Japanese though, <g>.
sarahc -at- indigo -dot- ie

At 13:44 12/03/98 -0600, Scott Gray wrote:
>The PDF vs HTML topic quickly became a debate over the effectiveness
>and place that interactive tutorials have in documentation writing.
>Both in terms of cost effectiveness and learning effectiveness.

Previous by Author: Re: Foreign tech writers
Next by Author: Re: FrameMaker vs. Interleaf
Previous by Thread: Re: Reality? Was: HTML vs PDF
Next by Thread: Re: Reality? Was: HTML vs PDF

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

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads