|
|
Posted by dorayme on 05/13/07 07:27
In article <5al8taF2ot6bnU1@mid.individual.net>,
"J.O. Aho" <user@example.net> wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <5al55pF2pibqgU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > JD <jd@example.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> That pdf could be under 200kb, would that make life better?
> >> Not for people who think PDF viewers are utterly tedious, such as me.
> >
> > The idea is that it would make life better for those whose
> > connections are slow and limited. How do you look at pdfs that
> > are presented on websites? It is tedious to open a reader, but
> > not _so_ tedious to see the PDF in the browser window itself.
>
> PDF gets larger than the HTML+Images -> longer load times
> PDF reader has to be started by the browser -> longer time before displayed
> PDF reader has it's own toolbars -> Smaller display area
>
> PDF is great if you want to print something, but IMHO poor substitute to a
> HTML page.
All good points that are really besides the particular point that
a 200k pdf is better for a dial up user than a 1000k pdf.
Might as well here mention a qualification to your "poor
substitute" point. From the perspective of the person who has no
html/css skills and careful with dough, it is an excellent
substitute for many things (like newsletters). And I don't know
if you use something like Adobe Reader to kick in via a plugin
into the browser or what but on a Mac there is a rather
lightening fast alternative without the bloat.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|