Forum Moderators: phranque
Besides: I do have an answer from those folks who care enough either way to send feedback. As I said, every word I've heard regarding our PDFs from our customers has been positive.
Personally, I save PDFs, close the brwoser window, call up taskmanager, kill the adobe process that is stillrunning hidden and wasting my computer's time.
It's just a really bad program. The format's great for it's purpose, but I'm not prepared to give up major resources and time simply to LOOK at a document. The need to make that more efficient and faster.
SN
But:
Well, I guess it's their own problem then... hehehe.
I agree JN is talking about the obvious. But it's a source i can quote arguing with clients who want to stick their site with lots of PDFs of big size, w/o giving relevant information in HTML ...
And, not everything is suited for a webpage. I'll go back to the product manuals I mentioned. I like to have manuals for my products in PDF format sitting in a nice folder on my hard drive so I don't have to rely on an internet connection to view them. Downloading some mini-website would be entirely "obnoxious" and less convenient. I find it a sign of poor customer service if all the usual printed documentation is not available in PDF format so I may have all the original content.
Why do I find over and over that people's so called issues with formats and web concepts have more to do with their unwillingness to learn the medium and use it properly.
[edited by: TheRealTerry at 7:37 pm (utc) on July 21, 2003]
Which users give feedback to you, and what might they tell to other people?
Thesis:
If they're bored about a site's services most users won't give feedback to the site boring them.
They leave it.
But they might tell others: forget about this site.
At the other hand:
Users who like what you serve them are more likely to give positive feedback. Not very often.
But those who do are more than those bored and giving feedback nonetheless.
OT - but might be interesting to discuss ...
I agree JN is talking about the obvious. But it's a source i can quote arguing with clients who want to stick their site with lots of PDFs of big size, w/o giving relevant information in HTML
Why do I find over and over that people's so called issues with formats and web concepts have more to do with their unwillingness to learn the medium and use it properly.
As I said in the first place: If PDF is used properly, offering technical information or product manuals for download in our case, it can be a very useful file format. If it's NOT used properly, it can be a very bulky and obnoxious file format.
Well, I guess it's their own problem then... hehehe.
seemed to be a little harsh (not to say: short minded...
Fact is people rarely send any kind of user feedback to any site... but I have received feedback from quite a few users over the years -- both positive comments and negative ones -- and NONE of the negative comments concerned our PDF downloads at all.
Why would I change something on the site I actually receive nothing but positive feedback about? That would be much more short sighted, IMO: Changing a reportedly much-appreciated site feature because a self-proclaimed expert says so, regardless of my own real-world evidence to the contrary.
I forced my system to use acrobat reader v4 which loads in a heartbeat
compared to the 10 seconds sometimes for v5 or v6 (all those damn plugins)
There was no negative feedback before that change.
After serving abstracts in HTML, downloads of related PDFs tripled.
BTW: compressed, optimized PDFs state of the art, what else ;)
[edit - typo again:)]
Abstracts in HTML, downloads of complete documents clearly marked as PDF. - People like to know what they start to download (or open ...) before doing that.
Our product manual/specification downloads don't really require abstracts though: Either you want technical info on that specific product, or you don't. ;) But on our informational material, the download page is set up with a one paragraph summary of each document with the download link.
Pdf's fail when the user expectation is an html page. Pdf's work well for documents when a match to the 'desktop publishing print version' is required.
The Acrobat plug-in for Mozilla/Netscape is a little flaky, and crashes often for me. Still, it causes me fewer headaches than client-side Java applets.
And it depends on your audience of course, but in my experience RTF is no substitute-- the everyday user doesn't know what it is. We used to offer a manuscript style guide for an academic foreign policy journal in HTML and RTF, but got numerous complaints that the authors couldn't open the downloaded RTF file. Since we replaced the RTF with a PDF, no complaints and at least one thank you for adopting a format which met the user's view of "standard."
...but got numerous complaints that the authors couldn't open the downloaded RTF file
I don't want to go to the school w/out text editors!
No it's not, it's the essential part, although not the "size" bit. Actually you were straight on the point with that sentence.
Somewhere in-between the 5K and the 5M is a border line that is not totally clear. This page, ie. weighs about 20-30K without graphics, still, i consider it to be a pageview. It is on my screen reasonably fast, and i can navigate the page without having to wait for "something" to load or download. A Flash site is also a download. You enter the site, then you wait for some time looking at progress bars or whatever - after that you have downloaded a collection of pages that you can navigate.
The "collection of pages" concept is the largest difference. When you browse, you request one page at a time, not a whole set of pages. It's not the "file size". It's not in any way related to the skills of the person making the PDF document. It's primarily the fact that you initiate a process of another nature than the process required to view a web page. First you start up a helper application and you have to wait for it, then comes the download (*).
Here's a very big html-page (252Kb) [research.compaq.com]. This file size is big enough to make some fancy Flash-stuff with, or a nice PDF. But it's html, not flash or PDF. It renders as it is being downloaded. It's an entirely different experience. This is page viewing, not downloading (**). You can even click the "stop"-button in your browser and view the parts that you had patience enough to wait for.
I think pdf is a perfectly fine tool as long as i do get the choice of downloading or not downloading. The same with Flash. And Java. They're all perfectly fine tools for some purpose or other. But they are not web browsing.
/claus
<edit> excuse me for being a bit unclear about if the filesize matters or not - imho with html it matters less than with non-native content. And yes, i do remember those loooong scrolls from way back when, those were the days ;)</edit>
<edit2>no, of course i do not recommend so huge file sizes, it was only an attempt at showing some humor, coupled with a little bit of nostalgia - pdf is actually okay for the type of html-file that i linked to, but html is also, as long as you clearly know what is what</edit2>
'Highly offensive' is perhaps too strong - "Very annoying or objectionable" is what Dictionary.com gives, and is closer to my sense of the word. Incidentally, I also find RealOne and Norton to display 'objectionable' behaviour. (RealPlayer's 'opted in' network options spring to mind as just one example of the major anti-user shortcomings in this software.).
You picked up on the undertone of my comment which was this:
By introducing a 'browser plugin' aspect of their Acrobat Reader, I think Adobe had the intention of forcing PDFs onto the mainstream browsing public's desktop. They did this in a way that goes in the face of usability, in order to push their brand into everyday browsing, in the same way that M$ tried to make 'Office' documents part of the web.
I don't find myself using programs like Opera or Mozilla and inwardly cursing the manufacturer.
However, Adobe know that I am in a minority, and that joe browser will have to put up with whatever they give them, whether it annoys them or not. Many of the posts in this thread illustrate the irritations that the PDF format can generate.
>>and NONE of the negative comments concerned our PDF downloads at all
Perhaps I am a bad webmaster, but I run a site where visitors are encouraged to download documents in PDF format (because the documents have to be printed, it's part of their function). I receive emails on a fairly regular basis from people encountering problems. AOL users in particular seem to experience malfunctions in the browser plugin which prevent them from opening the PDFs correctly. (In some cases, people are paying for the PDFs, and so it is not necessarily friendly feedback they are giving ;))
I have no problem with the PDF format (or I wouldn't be using it ;)), but I hope Nielson's article will serve the purpose of encouraging Adobe to re-evaluate how they have introduced this format to the browsing public.
but I hope Nielson's article will serve the purpose of encouraging Adobe to re-evaluate how they have introduced this format to the browsing public.
Not that you're wrong. But you're wrong, anyway. - ;)
Major rule: Serve your users what they want.
And if they have to download PDFs - for example to send you back some fax - tell them why. And tell them how big it is. - Much better: think of alternatives.
Don't wait for Adobe or someone else changing stuff. It's your turn to comfort users.
By introducing a 'browser plugin' aspect of their Acrobat Reader, I think Adobe had the intention of forcing PDFs onto the mainstream browsing public's desktop. They did this in a way that goes in the face of usability, in order to push their brand into everyday browsing, in the same way that M$ tried to make 'Office' documents part of the web.
I'll agree with you there... PDF is NOT a good file format for browser viewing. Adobe would be better off, IMO, if they offered a more full-featured download/viewing interface, rather then a view-in-browser plug-in. Personally, the only thing I do when a PDF pops up in my browser is save it to my desktop, and open it with my 'proper' version of Acrobat...
Not that you're wrong. But you're wrong, anyway. -Major rule: Serve your users what they want.
And if they have to download PDFs - for example to send you back some fax - tell them why. And tell them how big it is. - Much better: think of alternatives.
Don't wait for Adobe or someone else changing stuff. It's your turn to comfort users.
I don't disagree with what you've say, however, I'm not sure why you pointed these comments at me.
My experience of PDFs is as follows. If I have to serve users PDF files because they need to print something out, this is exactly what I do. I put save as instructions for multiple browsers, I name file sizes, I offer zipped versions, 'make sure you read this before even clicking this link!' messages, FAQs and email support.
And despite my best efforts, a small but significant proportion still have problems even viewing the files correctly. For most of these users, the browser plugin is what causes the most hassles. I tell them how to save the pdf to their harddrive and there are no further problems.
After I have exhausted my best efforts to make PDFs 'universally' usable, and encountered usability problems myself, I conclude that a part of the responsibility must lie elsewhere ;)
FlashPaper seems to have many qualities that a PDF has, but without the seperate window or browser integration. Seems to only be supported on Windows 2000 & XP at the moment, but certainly something to keep an eye on?
I gave a PDF a try in Windows on a friends machine, and good lord! It's very intrusive and time consuming, and I see now why you have such trouble. Though, the fault is still not with Adobe, but it appears with the way Microsoft has configured their OS to deal with PDFs by default. I don't know how you guys deal with Windows on a day to day basis :)
On a side note, though I've never seen or used it, isn't there a way to make a "streaming" PDF that downloads pages and elements one page at a time as you peruse a document? I know I have read this somewhere, though it may be a feature in development.
...but it appears with the way Microsoft has configured their OS to deal with PDFs by default.
I'm unsure how it could appear that way to anyone, but no MS oS is configured to deal with PDF - it's a proprietary format promoted by Adobe and dealt with via their plugins/apps.
edit: typo
[edited by: Pete_Dizzle at 5:56 pm (utc) on July 22, 2003]
Or am I missing out on another way to publish the "originals"? Anyone have any suggestions?
JPEG HTML combo
Besides, as I mentioned, Adobe does no such thing on Mac (and neither does MS for some reason), why the double standard? The preference for how the MIME type is displayed is determined by the browser defaults itself.
Has anyone got an elegant solution for that?
Barry Welford
Ah, but doesn't the PDF plugin usually come preinstalled in Explorer on your operating system?
Nope.
And, doesn't that Explorer app have a preference already preset under MIME types on how to handle PDF files (ie: open in browser)?
Nope.
If you bought a computer in the last couple of years I think the answer would have to be invariably yes.
You'd be wrong.
You can't tell me that MS has no say as to what plug-ins come bundled in their browser embedded into their OS.
Probably true - as it would be for any software manufacturer - but it is not relevant in this case.
Isn't this all about those really annoying attempts to make software, browsers, internet aso more 'user friendly'? Instead of trying to cover conventions like left and right mouse click?
I'm absolutely through tempting to test any possible configuration of software and user behaviour to intercept problems users may experience.
Mail to Mr. Gates and Adobe and I-don't-know :¦
The problem is not the PDF format as it is. And if we use PDF in cases it makes sense, we're doing right.
But how to handle those 'easy-using' aggravations?
BTW: how to tell your client that he should pay for some coding to help users out ot traps?
What makes him the master of all web usage?
He is after all just one man, how many people use PDF files and find they have no trouble with them and are perfectly happy?
It seems to me that he just picks a popular subject and slates it.
To be honest its like me say webmasterworld is useless(Its not), sure itll get headlines (and me thrown off here) but to what point? will people stop using this site? No. ill then write a book on why I think its crap. Lo and behold... Loads of sales.... in other words whats his percentage?
Like I say he gets under my skin. But im just one man and no one will listen. Which is just as well
