5 ms·

That may be the author's point, but what he says is that PDF is unfit for human consumption. Which is absurd. As a scientist, PDF journal articles are almost

That may be the author's point, but what he says is that PDF is unfit for human consumption. Which is absurd. As a scientist, PDF journal articles are almost always easier to read than the HTML version -- the graphics are of much higher quality, two column printing is more common, scientific equations and fonts are rendered better, etc. etc. If the article title were "PDF -- unfit for web presentation" the author might have a stronger case.

SilasX 6y ago
> That may be the author's point, but what he says is that PDF is unfit for human consumption. Which is absurd. As a scientist, PDF journal articles are almost always easier to read than the HTML version I don’t think the author was disagreeing with that either! They were saying, rather, that this effect is due to a collective failure to use HTML properly. If all you want to do is reproduce the physical pages of an article onto a digital device, and gain no more functionality (like text search, hyperlinking, reformatting), the author agrees PDF is great for that. But if you want to exploit all the features digital devices and the web offer, PDF constantly gets in your way.
- elcritch 6y ago
  I still tend to agree with fastaguy88, PDF's are still my preferred format for reading science data, even on my digital devices. HTML data just doesn't have the font quality, layout rendering, and ability to ensure all the appropriate data is saved without requiring some remote server (and login!). My preferred digital device is a 12" iPad Pro as it shows the pdf in native 8 1/2 by 11 size. That makes me happy! Change the device form to match PDF.
  - DrAwdeOccarim 6y ago
    Yes, completely agree. Scientific articles on a phone are terrible--open the PDF and zoom/scroll around? You know exactly what to do and how it works.
- rumanator 6y ago
  > But if you want to exploit all the features digital devices and the web offer, PDF constantly gets in your way. I agree, PDFs are indeed poor and ill-suited for online reading. They are not reflowable, and PDF authors force a pagination format that more often than not are only readable in a device by chance or if readers use a large format device such as a large tablet. Hell, some PDFs are even unreadable and impractical to read in 13' laptop screens with 1980*1200 resolution.
rumanator 6y ago
> That may be the author's point, but what he says is that PDF is unfit for human consumption. Which is absurd. You're quoting the click-baity title, but failing to actually read past the article summary's first sentence. The summary's very first sentence states "Research spanning 20 years proves PDFs are problematic for online reading." This sentence alone frames the problem, and explains the whole point of it.
- barbs 6y ago
  Sounds like we can all agree that this page should have a better, more accurate title.
  - rumanator 6y ago
    No, it sounds like people shouldn't criticize a text when they clearly haven't read it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
dnhz 6y ago
You should give HTML journal reading another chance. The journals that let you see citations without losing your place in the article are great.
GoblinSlayer 6y ago
> As a scientist, PDF journal articles are almost always easier to read than the HTML version -- the graphics are of much higher quality You mean they look better on paper than on screen? And what magic improves quality of graphics?
- bonoboTP 6y ago
  The auto-reflow of HTML often puts things to weird places. I'm sure it can be done properly as well, but auto-converting a PDF or LaTeX document to HTML results in crappy layout. I always download the PDF when given the option, because the the actual authors spent a lot of time to make sure everything is at the right position and everything looks as intended. Sure if the culture changed and scientists now learned web dev instead of LaTeX and put in the same effort into producing production quality, polished HTML instead of PDF, it may work as well. But scientists need to send LaTeX and PDF to journals and conferences, so you can't expect them to put in double effort. Also, making sure that things look good in all browsers is just a way bigger job than making sure a single PDF looks as it should.

SilasX 6y ago

> That may be the author's point, but what he says is that PDF is unfit for human consumption. Which is absurd. As a scientist, PDF journal articles are almost always easier to read than the HTML version I don’t think the author was disagreeing with that either! They were saying, rather, that this effect is due to a collective failure to use HTML properly. If all you want to do is reproduce the physical pages of an article onto a digital device, and gain no more functionality (like text search, hyperlinking, reformatting), the author agrees PDF is great for that. But if you want to exploit all the features digital devices and the web offer, PDF constantly gets in your way.

elcritch 6y ago
I still tend to agree with fastaguy88, PDF's are still my preferred format for reading science data, even on my digital devices. HTML data just doesn't have the font quality, layout rendering, and ability to ensure all the appropriate data is saved without requiring some remote server (and login!). My preferred digital device is a 12" iPad Pro as it shows the pdf in native 8 1/2 by 11 size. That makes me happy! Change the device form to match PDF.
- DrAwdeOccarim 6y ago
  Yes, completely agree. Scientific articles on a phone are terrible--open the PDF and zoom/scroll around? You know exactly what to do and how it works.
rumanator 6y ago
> But if you want to exploit all the features digital devices and the web offer, PDF constantly gets in your way. I agree, PDFs are indeed poor and ill-suited for online reading. They are not reflowable, and PDF authors force a pagination format that more often than not are only readable in a device by chance or if readers use a large format device such as a large tablet. Hell, some PDFs are even unreadable and impractical to read in 13' laptop screens with 1980*1200 resolution.

rumanator 6y ago

> That may be the author's point, but what he says is that PDF is unfit for human consumption. Which is absurd. You're quoting the click-baity title, but failing to actually read past the article summary's first sentence. The summary's very first sentence states "Research spanning 20 years proves PDFs are problematic for online reading." This sentence alone frames the problem, and explains the whole point of it.

barbs 6y ago
Sounds like we can all agree that this page should have a better, more accurate title.
- rumanator 6y ago
  No, it sounds like people shouldn't criticize a text when they clearly haven't read it.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

dnhz 6y ago

You should give HTML journal reading another chance. The journals that let you see citations without losing your place in the article are great.

GoblinSlayer 6y ago

> As a scientist, PDF journal articles are almost always easier to read than the HTML version -- the graphics are of much higher quality You mean they look better on paper than on screen? And what magic improves quality of graphics?

bonoboTP 6y ago
The auto-reflow of HTML often puts things to weird places. I'm sure it can be done properly as well, but auto-converting a PDF or LaTeX document to HTML results in crappy layout. I always download the PDF when given the option, because the the actual authors spent a lot of time to make sure everything is at the right position and everything looks as intended. Sure if the culture changed and scientists now learned web dev instead of LaTeX and put in the same effort into producing production quality, polished HTML instead of PDF, it may work as well. But scientists need to send LaTeX and PDF to journals and conferences, so you can't expect them to put in double effort. Also, making sure that things look good in all browsers is just a way bigger job than making sure a single PDF looks as it should.