On Fri, 2006-03-10 at 07:47 +0200, Sean Wheller wrote: > On Thursday 09 March 2006 20:02, Shaun McCance wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-03-09 at 07:33 +0200, Sean Wheller wrote: > > > On Wednesday 08 March 2006 11:32, Emmanuel Pacaud wrote: > > > > I don't think PDF is well suited for on screen reading. Font rendering > > > > and glyph spacing make document harder to read than when it's in html. > > > > > > PDF is every bit as readable as any other format. There is nothing to > > > support this claim, except what may be each of our personal preferences. > > > > Perhaps it's just me, but I have bought several e-books and they have come in > PDF format. Yes, I can print them, but I generally just read what I need on > screen. > > I use both KPDF and Acrobat Reader and they are both very easy to use with no > font problems > > > 1) Paragraphs don't flow dynamically in PDF, so the page > > can't automatically adjust to your font and window size. > > They were not intended to. Actually, in a big book, with reasonably long > sections, this is good because I know exactly where on the page I saw stuff > last, especially when reading code examples etc. > > As for sizing to window. Well, you can zoom in and out.
If the PDF was made with a small type face, I may have to zoom it significantly to be able to read the text comfortably. Monitors are only so big, so I might end up having to scroll horizontally to read the text with a suitable font size. That means scrolling the page for every single line you read. > > 2) PDF can't follow the color scheme of my theme. > > When you are looking for help or information on how something works, what is > more important, your color scheme or the information? > > > > > 3) PDF can't follow my desktop font settings. > > See above, what is more important. Unless your vision is less than perfect. Proper accessibility means more than talking to the AT bridge. > I don't think we anyone has said that PDF should be a replacement for XML > rendered as HTML under Yelp, it is just a suggestion that many users do want > PDF formats and the choice of which they use is left with them. "Is there a chance we could pehaps make yelp display this instead of the html-based versions?" That's from the email that started this whole thread. That's what people were arguing against when you jumped in supporting PDF. > > 4) PDF is explicitly paginated, which is just added noise > > for a non-paged medium like the screen. > > repeat, "Actually, in a big book, with reasonably long sections, this is good > because I know exactly where on the page I saw stuff last, especially when > reading code examples etc." Well now, this can lead is into wonderful talks about information retrieval. There's absolutely no doubt that this plays a major role in how we track things on dead trees, but I'd be surprised if it carries over to a psuedo-paginated screen. On-screen, the pages are little more than lines, with no consistent spatial representation. Heck, I could put lines into Yelp every few paragraphs. I'd be interested to see if anybody's done studies along those lines. > > All of these can be summed up like so: PDF is designed for > > fixed-size media, which the screen is not. > > PDF is designed for viewing just as much as HTML is, just because the one > provides more information such as page layout and pagination does not make it > any less fit for display on screen. You have different viewing modes, > bookmarks, indexes, hyperlinks, search, etc. and the benefit of print. > > I thought it was about choice, people obviously want GNOME Documents in PDF, > why not let them have it. Anyone who does not want to read PDF on screen can > choose not to do so. People can have PDFs. That's why Brent made them. What I'm not going to do is make Yelp an Evince shell. -- Shaun _______________________________________________ gnome-doc-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-doc-list
