Why PDF??

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

I don't know where else to ask this but i value opinions here-

<br>Why are PDF's so popular? Everywhere i look these days they are

being used for parts manuals,instruction manuals,etc

<BR>Have i missed something/They seem to be one of the most clunky

useless programs i've ever seen!They don't show pics in

colour,resolution (eg parts diagrams) is pretty sad.<br>Is is because

they really ARE as easy to print as i hear?(and goodness

knows,anything that helps one with the life or death struggle called

'initiating printing' may just be worthwhile....

<br>Or are they everywhere just because they won the standards war

,somehow with a dud product....just like microsoft..?

[andreatau]

Ron, have you ever happened to open a Word (.doc) file previously saved and realise that a figure or its caption, originally located in the lower part of a page, has now moved to the following page? Or to see a formula, a table or a graph (imported from Excel, for instance) being mysteriously changed after moving the file from one PC to another? I do happen this all the time. Never with PDFs, though. In addtion, when you want to circulate a document among non-computer-expert people, you can be sure that a PDF won't be modified unintentionally, that no parts will be removed and "recycled" unproperly... that it will be easily printable by anyone... but probably other issues exist as well..

[l._nelson]

Why PDFs:

 

1. They render correctly on every platform.

 

2. They include fonts used in the document

 

3. They allow "distribution" of said fonts without violating the

font license agreement

 

4. Print documents can easily be re-purposed for the web, just by

exporting to PDF from the print design program.

 

5. They are fantasic for emailing documents from company to company,

because the are hard to modify in their default state, and

impossible to modify if the creator wishes.

 

6. On the Mac platform, every print dialog box includes the option

to "create a PDF". So making a PDF on the Mac is trivial.

 

7. PDF is directly analogous to Postscript, and thus was easy for the

software manufacturers to implement, since Postscript is

everywhere.

 

The lack of resolution and color that you have noticed is a by product

of careless production of the PDF. They can be beautiful. There are settings to control file size that affect resolution.

 

I disagree with you that it's dud. IMHO it's one of the best things to happen to electronic publishing. Although I would prefer it if it were a totally "free" format, Adobe has published the complete file specification, and is relaxed about licensing of the format.

[semiotician]

I work for a company that publishes 800 page documents entirely in PDF. THe reason is that we have maximum control on how the published document is viewed. If used correctly images, figures and text all look exactly as we intend. Whereas HTML can throw data wherever it wants and word doc's, well enough said.

 

If you are having problems with images and figures I suggest that the documents have been created incorrectly. Human error rather than equipment failure I say!

 

Most use of PDF's barely touch on the features offered and often PDF's could be produced to a much better standard. That said my experience of them leaves them streets ahead of anything else for the purpose they are designed for.

 

Glyn

[paul_kerfoot]

Hi Ron.

The main problem that PDF solves is file format incompatability, but its a biggie. Without PDF, anyone you send a file to would need the same program (possibly even the same revision)as you used to create the data in order to read the information. File format incompatability derives from software vendors creating programs with unique/proprietary file formats. I.E. every single program, sometimes even different revisions of the same program, have different file formats. Adobe seems to be much more enlightened than most in this respect.

[conrad_hoffman]

All the above, and it's hard to add anything. But... When I make a CAD drawing for a shop to make a part, I have to guarantee that they see exactly what I want them to see. Even if they have the same CAD program, they may have it set up differently than I do. When I send a PDF, there's no question. If they get it on the screen or print it, I can be assured that they see *exactly* what I intended them to see. Anything else could cause very expensive mistakes. Properly made PDF files are everything one could want in terms of resolution and accuracy.

[luke_pederson]

I am a drafter and many times I make pdf files out of my drawings to show people for several reasons.

1. Someone viewing it does not have to have a $5,000 CAD software package to see my drawing.

2. The person viewing it can not change it.

3. Many of my drawings have multiple reference files attached to them. Using a PDF I do not have to make sure they have all these files and that they will be attached correctly.

4. The person viewing does not have to have all my fonts, plot styles, etc to view and print the document correctly.

 

The reasons go on. Basically it is a great viewer that everybody can get for free.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Of course a PDF can show color.

[john_riedel]

A PDF reader is supplied for every platform I've ever used, not just PC and Mac, or Linux, but AIX, SUN, HPUX, VMS, etc...

[markci]

I don't have a clue what you're talking about. PDF's are brilliant. Just because somebody put together a crap PDF doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the format.

[gordonr]

Dr. Jakob Nielsen of <a href="http://www.useit.com/">http://www.useit.com/</a> has some strong things to say about <a href="http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030714.html">PDF: Unfit for Human Consumption</a>. I think there is a difference between web based navigation, and downloading a single (large) document.

[qtluong]

There is just no other document standard that reproduces well text

and layout in a cross-platform compatible way. Unlike the proprietary Microsoft products, the PDF specs are open.

[l._nelson]

Nielsen is full of it. His page on PDFs condemns them as a replacement for web pages (agree) and then goes on to cite fallacious arguments against them by ill-informed users. Pretty much every

'con' argument he has is incorrect, and he doesn't cite a single pro, which is the true measure of a blowhard.

 

I regularly download 100 to 400 page data sheets from chip manufacturers, and putting those in HTML would just be a joke. You can't effectively download a complex HTML document, it's too difficult to get all the images. With a PDF I download one file to my hard drive and have it forever.

[jimstrutz]

Some of the reasons that authors like PDFs are the same reasons users often don't. Specifically, they are not easy to get into. It's hard to extract images and text from them for use in other documents. Not all documents need this type of protection, and some shouldn't have it.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Many Engineering drawings we receive to print are in PDF format. Some are well done; others are complete bastards to print. The bastard ones have each drawing's PDF done by an idiot; who used freak pixels/inch values. Typically these are government NASA drawings; and the government sector crowds doing. <BR><BR>In one recent job; our customer wanted their bid package of drawings printed to correct scale; for estimating purposes. Of the 58 PDF drawings; 41 had different freak ratioing; ppi values required to open and print the images. Each one of these had to be opened at weird pixel/inch values; such a 351.67; 577.89; 215.39; etc etc. Since a read me file is beyond the ability of the PDF's creators brain power/ability; each of the 58 drawings has to be printed; and physically measured/scaled; and then reprinted to force the scale to be correct.. (what our customer requires).<BR><BR>Several of the PDF drawings were 36x48 inches images; floating in a 50x72" image. The sad thing is the goofy idiots used a dinky font from hell; with artsy fartsy lettering touching each other. These required a opening at larger than the industry standard 400 dpi/ppi engineering scanner resolution; to be able to read the text. <BR><BR>In the "get to the moon" glory years of the 1960's; there was an old guy who enforced drawing standards. It is abit retarded to use sub 1/32 inch type on a huge drawing; with the letters touching together. Today drawings on PDF follow no standards; some are to scale; some are grey scale; some are freak scale; some have micro type; some have several feet of white space on each side.....Try opening a mess of 50x72" images at 500 to 600 ppi in greyscale ; and then cropping the actual image (36x48"); and then printing; and then adjusting the scale again; to force a correct scale....<BR><BR>PDF drawings often are done correctly; but the bastard jobs creat a time sink hole; and create a huge amount of scrap; filling the trash barrels. Here is your tax dollars at work.....Then many times your customer wants the job cheaper than normal; since the PDF is a "digital job". <BR><BR>Digital printing often creats a huge amount of scrap; due to poor understanding of actual printing; by the PDF creator. In the recent job above; each actual sheet was a different size; when the drawings were adjusted to be of correct scale. This makes a sloppy looking set of drawings; and is a mess to bind and print..<BR><BR>The one NASA CD we received had accessory images; to be used by the bidder. The actual images on the NASA disk were of a kids class vist to NASA; instead of the equipment.<BR><BR><BR><BR>In small PDF stuff; (8.5x11 inch) people do alot better jobs in creating PDF's. The bastard ones are huge manuals; that have color charts; pie charts; bar charts; mixed with the idiot creators color logo on each page. The extra color logo on each page makes the job expensive as hell to print; if each of the pages is printed in color...A grey scale printout of the manual/report is cheap to do; but makes the report's graphics non-usable sometimes. All the legends may appear the same grey tones; and make the pie charts un-usable. A different hatching of each bar would make the report usable in greyscale; but is rarely done; do to lazyness of the PDF's creator. They have a secure check; and are not concerned on the cost of printing the PDF...A complete color set of a 500 page report is expensive; since each page has a color logo of idiots company. What is typically done is to print a grey scale printout of the entire report. Then selectively the graphs that require color are then reprinted; and substituted. This is a pain in the rear to do. Never is their an index in a PDF stating which pages require full color; in order for the document's graphs to be readable. Then; your customer will want a discount; since "a PDF is digital; and there is non scrap or waste"

[lex_jenkins]

Ron, I asked exactly the same question several years ago. At the time I had a slowpoke first generation Pentius Dinosaurus and a pokier dialup through which large PDFs downloaded so slowly my eyeballs would pop.

 

Once I got past that issue, with a faster PC and dialup connection (or saw more PDFs being used on CD), I was able to appreciate the differences between really well designed PDFs and those that were truly crappy.

 

What it really boils down to is pretty much what Kelly said, if I may paraphrase: Having an excellent tool for desktop publishing does not a desktop publisher make. PDF docs are only as good as the skills of the people who make them.

 

I am now a total convert to the PDF system. I've even found a freebie program for creating smallish PDFs (supposedly it doesn't violate any of Adobe's rights).

 

For me, it beats heck outta trying to make HTML do the same thing. Ever try to save a web page using Windows? Depending on the version you'll either get only a partial save that's missing significant elements (graphics, etc.), or, with later versions like XP, a complete save but the elements are more or less logically distributed among separate files and folders.

 

With a PDF everything is in one file that can't be broken apart. (That I know of.) Besides being simpler for the end user, it can be used to protect the rights of the publisher. That's the theory anyway.

[hans_beckert]

I was recently told that I speak so highly of Acrobat that I sounded like I invented it. I wish I had. It is wonderfull...

[dave_mueller]

"They don't show pics in colour,resolution (eg parts diagrams) is pretty sad."

 

The PDF format isn't the greatest for scanned images. It really shines when Acrobat actually creates the document from your original. Then it can properly store fonts, compress graphics etc. Using Acrobat to store a 72 or 150dpi scanned image is pretty bad (as you've seen). However, a 600dpi full color catalog page generated directly as a PDF is beautiful, complete with index and searchable text. I'd rather see scanned copy as a TIFF.

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

Thanks very much guys,very enlightening!Especially Lex.

 

<p>I still think they have about 3000% more options than is sane(as do most computer programs!) but at least i do respect the good points now.

[jorge_oliveira2]

Lex

 

Which is this smallish PDF program?

 

Thanks,

 

Jorge

[scott_eaton]

<I>Or are they everywhere just because they won the standards war ,somehow with a dud product....just like microsoft..? </i><p>

 

 

 

PDF has become standardized because the format can accept a huge amount of graphical media in a single container that does not require the original application to reproduce it in screen or print. I work with and generate PDFs from AutoCAD, MS Word, Quark, and a few others. I also have multifunction printers that will scan a document, convert it to PDF, and E-mail it to a sender with a few botton pushes. 99.99% of the time all the reciever has to have is Acrobat reader and not much in terms of computer smarts. Considering the fast majority of business infrastructures I've worked in do well on MS software I'm not sure what your other remark is supposed to mean. Perhaps you liked buying a $5,000 PC/AT...who knows.<P>

 

The problems I see above is many of you are using PDF as an actual data format vs it's intended function as an *export only* data container. Nobody I know in the publication industry willingly tries to make big edits of PDF files, but instead will re-edit the original file in the native application, which 99.99% of the time isn't Adobe Acrobat, and then re-export them to PDF. Raw editing of PDF files is a lot like throwing a frisbee at a huge stack of cards. Hit the right spot and *boom* the house of cards falls down. <P>

 

I'm not a default fan of PDF, but it does the trick, and is certainly less of a train wreck than the nearest contender, which is probably .EPS. Other formats like MS Word docs require the fonts to be sent along, and even then you're better off to export to .RTF format to nuke all the garbage that gets so easily corrupted in a Word document. <P>At some point I'd expect PDF to get pushed aside by some universal XML format, but for now Adobe can have their glory. The real truth though is that nobody seemed to want to really fight Adobe for dominance, which I've always thought was weird.

[._._z]

<i> Which is this smallish PDF program? </i><p>

 

There are many, for different platforms. Here's one: <p>

 

http://www.quite.com/box/index.htm

[asimh]

websites that have pdf as significant portions of web content suck.

 

 

BUTTT

 

pdfs have made my life as a student INCREDIBLY easier. now i no longer have to run to the friggin library every time i need a reference. For example, the journal of neurophysiology has EVERY article in pdf format (going back to the 60's now i believe) and Science has every article going back to the late 1800's (if memory serves). I remember when i got my master's back in the mid 90's, how much time i wasted sitting at the copier. Now i waste it reading photo.net forums! (j/k).

 

they do crash my browsers (whether it be mozilla phoenix, netscape or IE). if they could get that part worked out, it'd be much better. and, i gotta say in acrobat, the menus (at least from me coming from a word processing environment) are kinda confusing. the more involved abilities seem to require more knowhow than simple experimenting - at least this has been the case for me. Plus, if they are created by people who don't know what they are doing (like some of the early NIH grant forms), it is an absolute pain to use (e.g., reformatting so you could get your project title to fit in the spacce allocated, etc).

 

the price of technology i guess.

[scott_eaton]

<I>they do crash my browsers </i><P>Download the PDF first and then open it. PDF's are not an optimum format for web viewing.

[._._z]

<i> they do crash my browsers (whether it be mozilla phoenix, netscape or IE). if they

could get that part worked out, it'd be much better. </i><p>

 

They don't crash on Macs. I've got a tab filled with a 1.4MB pdf file right now in Safari [

http://www.apple.com/safari/ ].