Re: PDFs for user-guide, accessibility-guide and system-admin-guide

[Shaun McCance <shaunm gnome org>]

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