|
Posted by dorayme on 11/19/67 11:59
In article
<1159343836.622106.56940@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
usenet+2004@john.dunlop.name wrote:
> dorayme:
>
> > [usenet+2004@john.dunlop.name]:
> >
....
> PDFs are perfectly
> accessible with a web browser.
If this were true I would not have had the problem and response I
made.
> Mentioning that the documents are PDFs, and linking to a page about
> PDFs, is sufficient in my book.
>
As I said, this is arguably an irritant to many people who are
used to chasing rabbits and getting lost... a few words now and
then is not such a bad thing, saves them the trouble. As long as
the instructions are brief, and helpful to many people and not
confusing to others. I am not claiming my few efforts in this
regard on about 3 or 4 pages out of a great many are perfect!
> I think people who don't know about PDFs and are interested in finding
> out can learn more from a page *about* PDFs than from a sidenote on a
> page about something else entirely, and those who do know, or think
> they know, about PDFs can ignore the link. By linking, all the text on
> the page remains relevant to everyone.
>
Believe me, few of the people likely to use the pages concerned
are "interested" in PDFs!
Anyway, thank you for your remarks. It will likely have the
effect of making mine briefer, perhaps even more accurate. But I
really don't fancy leaving my the poor users to their own
devices, to links for further research - I have seen them scream
too often about PDFs.
I will reduce the level of the sin to what I think might just let
me through the Gates of St Peter's
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|