Re: Reality? Was: HTML vs PDF

Subject: Re: Reality? Was: HTML vs PDF
From: Scott Gray <scotty -at- CM -dot- MATH -dot- UIUC -dot- EDU>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 18:24:17 -0600

Well, the point I've been making has been about INTERACTIVITY.

One can hardly expect to have interactive printouts now can we?

BTW, I must apologize for my horrible spelling though out these posts.;o(
I think I have Mathematicans disease.


Scott Mills Gray
scotty -at- cm -dot- math -dot- uiuc -dot- edu

"I hear and I forget, I see and I forget, I do and I forget" -- confused.

On Fri, 13 Mar 1998, Katav wrote:

> for 2 cents - plain
> Which is why tutorials should be available BOTH
> on-line AND downloadable, /preferably/ is a
> compressed (self-extracting?) format -- I don't
> want to wait (pay) while a uncompressed 4M course
> downloads across my 28.8 modem when that same course
> could be compressed to half its size (or better).
> katav ( katav -at- yahoo -dot- com )
> ---Linda Castellani <linda -at- GRIC -dot- COM> wrote:
> Maybe it's just me, but when I find a tutorial, I download it, ...
> Then ... connect charges become a
> non-issue.
> At 12:16 PM 3/13/98 +0000, Sarah Carroll wrote:
> ... until methods for accessing the net change from using telephone
> lines to a less expensive method ... to complete a tutorial ... most
> ... want the paper copy.
> _________________________________________________________
> Get your free address at

Previous by Author: Re: Reality? Was: HTML vs PDF
Next by Author: Re: electronic portfolios, anyone?
Previous by Thread: Re: Reality? Was: HTML vs PDF
Next by Thread: WRONG INFO: RE: Survey

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

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads