3 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
by 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 agoI 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 agoYes, 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.