|
|
Posted by dorayme on 05/13/07 07:40
In article <42bfe$4645c339$40cba7a3$24089@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centralva.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.
> >
>
> I have to right-click and download. And I get quite irritated when folks
> use PDF in place of HTML and I click on a link with not PDF warning,
> and I don't notice the url in the status bar until after puzzle over why
> I been watching a blank page and a throbber spinning for the last 5
> minutes!
>
Jonathan, I share most of your irritations on this one. But they
are less than you might believe on a Mac with a certain tiny
plugin reader. Single click, quick show.
I have to say words that modify all criticisms of pdf's "on"
websites to justify my allowing some of my clients, (even
introducing them to the notion!), to do this. The alternative
would be work that they could not justify to pay for and, really,
simply would not. I would rather a client happy than frustrated,
me being the Christ in all of this. You see, I fancy the role. I
know, it is a sign of madness. I still like it.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|