5 ms·

These all seem like technical quibbles that miss the point.

wlesieutre 5y ago
Unless I'm on a paper-sized tablet I would definitely rather have an offline HTML file than a PDF. Nobody likes to pan back and forth on lines of text to read something.
- Robotbeat 5y ago
  I had the exact opposite reaction. I’m reading this on an iPhone SE2020, and I MUCH appreciate reading this in pdf form. I didn’t have to pan back and forth or even put the phone in landscape orientation. This is one of the smallest smartphones you can still buy, and the experience of PDF is WAY better than the user-hostile auto-flow text forced down mobile users’ throats. I was skeptical at first, but I think the author made the point fantastically well.
  - nemetroid 5y ago
    I’m using a 2016 iPhone SE, and it’s largely unreadable without being very up close.
  - cunthorpe 5y ago
    What. Your browser has a zoom functionality that lets you make the text smaller, essentially replicating the PDF site above. Only the opposite of what you say is correct: I can’t read that PDF’s text without turning my phone into landscape and picking up my glasses.
  - wlesieutre 5y ago
    To get equally small text on my desktop I have to turn the font size all the way down to 7. God forbid you have readers with less than stellar eyesight. I get what they're going for but the PDF is not exactly an accessible reading experience.
  - apotheon 5y ago
    EPUB would beat the shit out of PDF for that. (EPUB is basically a subset of HTML with client-oriented context.)
- pseingatl 5y ago
  PDF is size-agnostic. There's nothing to stop you from creating documents the size of a phone screen.
  - wlesieutre 5y ago
    I’m commenting here as a user reading a PDF. The fact that someone else could have laid it out differently doesn’t change the fixed layout of the PDF that I’m trying to read. There’s a reason responsive design has been a big deal for the last 10+ years and I don’t think the benefits of PDF are worth throwing it out.
    - JohnFen 5y ago
      As someone who really detests responsive design, the lack of it in a PDF strikes me as a feature, not a bug.
monkeynotes 5y ago
The guy outlines his whole case based on those exact points which are, as you have observed, technical quibbles and not a basis for abandoning HTML. Under the hood it seems apparent to me that the real premise is an emotional one, not a technical one. The internet is plastic not because of HTML, but because of money and people. When you have teens driving content it's going to feel plastic. When Walmart uses the internet to sell you crap it's gonna be plastic. Gossip / social platforms are trash, no matter the medium. It could be argued that TV is an incredible learning platform ruined by HD. Back in the standard definition days we had proper news, documentaries that were substantial, and no reality TV. We need to go back to black and white standard definition. Sorry, but the PDF web is not a solution to societal rot.
- adolph 5y ago
  Is the medium the message? Does style have substance? Is form also a function?
  - leetcrew 5y ago
    I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make here, but I don't think two different formats for encoding formatted text with images constitute different "mediums".
    - megameter 5y ago
      Of course they are, and we run into it constantly in computing. You can encode text with images as a bitmap, as vector graphics, as symbolic content that references bitmaps or vectors, as an algorithm that procedurally generates any of the above... While you can produce identical outputs from the different methods, it's not hair-splitting to say that the authoring process and hence the nature of the medium to shape expression is affected by choosing one. When you opt towards maximizing generality your production cycle can grow without bound because everything is possible by layering different media, even if all of it is unnecessary. That's how you end up with creative projects that take multiple years to decades to accomplish.
- 5y ago
jedimastert 5y ago
This statement could be for both the comment you're replying to and the original article.
quietbritishjim 5y ago
> These all seem like technical quibbles that miss the point. If these all "miss the point", what is the point? It seems to me that the article's point is that PDF as a format has attributes that satisfy the author's goal, whereas HTML does not. The parent comment says that HTML does have those attributes after all (if you choose to use HTML that way). That is very directly addressing the article's point, as I understand it.
- JohnFen 5y ago
  Perhaps I misunderstood, but I believe the author's point was to highlight what a steaming mess the modern web is. The PDF aspect strikes me as illustrating a point, not a seriously proposed solution.

Unless I'm on a paper-sized tablet I would definitely rather have an offline HTML file than a PDF. Nobody likes to pan back and forth on lines of text to read something.

Robotbeat 5y ago
I had the exact opposite reaction. I’m reading this on an iPhone SE2020, and I MUCH appreciate reading this in pdf form. I didn’t have to pan back and forth or even put the phone in landscape orientation. This is one of the smallest smartphones you can still buy, and the experience of PDF is WAY better than the user-hostile auto-flow text forced down mobile users’ throats. I was skeptical at first, but I think the author made the point fantastically well.
- nemetroid 5y ago
  I’m using a 2016 iPhone SE, and it’s largely unreadable without being very up close.
- cunthorpe 5y ago
  What. Your browser has a zoom functionality that lets you make the text smaller, essentially replicating the PDF site above. Only the opposite of what you say is correct: I can’t read that PDF’s text without turning my phone into landscape and picking up my glasses.
- wlesieutre 5y ago
  To get equally small text on my desktop I have to turn the font size all the way down to 7. God forbid you have readers with less than stellar eyesight. I get what they're going for but the PDF is not exactly an accessible reading experience.
- apotheon 5y ago
  EPUB would beat the shit out of PDF for that. (EPUB is basically a subset of HTML with client-oriented context.)
pseingatl 5y ago
PDF is size-agnostic. There's nothing to stop you from creating documents the size of a phone screen.
- wlesieutre 5y ago
  I’m commenting here as a user reading a PDF. The fact that someone else could have laid it out differently doesn’t change the fixed layout of the PDF that I’m trying to read. There’s a reason responsive design has been a big deal for the last 10+ years and I don’t think the benefits of PDF are worth throwing it out.
  - JohnFen 5y ago
    As someone who really detests responsive design, the lack of it in a PDF strikes me as a feature, not a bug.

monkeynotes 5y ago

The guy outlines his whole case based on those exact points which are, as you have observed, technical quibbles and not a basis for abandoning HTML. Under the hood it seems apparent to me that the real premise is an emotional one, not a technical one. The internet is plastic not because of HTML, but because of money and people. When you have teens driving content it's going to feel plastic. When Walmart uses the internet to sell you crap it's gonna be plastic. Gossip / social platforms are trash, no matter the medium. It could be argued that TV is an incredible learning platform ruined by HD. Back in the standard definition days we had proper news, documentaries that were substantial, and no reality TV. We need to go back to black and white standard definition. Sorry, but the PDF web is not a solution to societal rot.

adolph 5y ago
Is the medium the message? Does style have substance? Is form also a function?
- leetcrew 5y ago
  I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make here, but I don't think two different formats for encoding formatted text with images constitute different "mediums".
  - megameter 5y ago
    Of course they are, and we run into it constantly in computing. You can encode text with images as a bitmap, as vector graphics, as symbolic content that references bitmaps or vectors, as an algorithm that procedurally generates any of the above... While you can produce identical outputs from the different methods, it's not hair-splitting to say that the authoring process and hence the nature of the medium to shape expression is affected by choosing one. When you opt towards maximizing generality your production cycle can grow without bound because everything is possible by layering different media, even if all of it is unnecessary. That's how you end up with creative projects that take multiple years to decades to accomplish.
5y ago

jedimastert 5y ago

This statement could be for both the comment you're replying to and the original article.

quietbritishjim 5y ago

> These all seem like technical quibbles that miss the point. If these all "miss the point", what is the point? It seems to me that the article's point is that PDF as a format has attributes that satisfy the author's goal, whereas HTML does not. The parent comment says that HTML does have those attributes after all (if you choose to use HTML that way). That is very directly addressing the article's point, as I understand it.

JohnFen 5y ago
Perhaps I misunderstood, but I believe the author's point was to highlight what a steaming mess the modern web is. The PDF aspect strikes me as illustrating a point, not a seriously proposed solution.