10 ms·

This is wrong because PDF.js is Firefox's default way of presenting PDFs. If it's a young unoptimized code base, then maybe Firefox shouldn't make it the defaul

by keehun 12y ago

This is wrong because PDF.js is Firefox's default way of presenting PDFs. If it's a young unoptimized code base, then maybe Firefox shouldn't make it the default. It is Apples to Apples comparison here because it's the default and how young it may be is irrelevant to the user experience.

acqq 12y ago
It's a very dangerous attitude "I don't read PDF's and I don't care but the customers who read them should tolerate our young poor implementation that needs more than two minutes for just 15 pages." (The documents like this http://www.automationdirect.com/static/specs/dl0506select.pdf http://www.automationdirect.com/static/specs/dl0506select.pd... ) They won't. As soon as you prevent them doing their job (and it's so if they used their PDF's normally before you changed the defaults) they will have to search for the solution. The solution is either switch the handler (still a little better for browser writers) or the browser. By making the opening and looking at the 15-page PDF which was before instantaneous taking two minutes, you prevent them doing their job (the slowdown from subjectively 0 seconds to minutes is also subjectively infinitely worse experience!) and they must respond. They can't open just the first page. They actually care. They need all the pages.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  Why do you keep acting like a document cannot be interacted with until every single page is fully rendered? Especially when it goes out of order to get the onscreen pages ready first.
  - acqq 12y ago
    When you need some information from the 15-pages document you don't think "I know I need the 9th page. You look at one page after another. You need a 0 seconds for that with a native renderer (you can't observe that you wait) and you need more minutes with pdf.js -- infinitely longer, enough to not use it.
    - Dylan16807 12y ago
      >infinitely It takes time to get to the PDF. It takes time to transfer the file if it's of any size. It takes time to look at the pages. Also you can skim pages that don't have 100% of the drawings on them yet.
Dylan16807 12y ago
PDF.js vs. Adobe Reader is a reasonable comparison to make right now. PDF.js as representative of html+js viewers vs. 'native' is completely unfair unless you compare to a similarly unoptimized native viewer.

by keehun 12y ago

acqq 12y ago

It's a very dangerous attitude "I don't read PDF's and I don't care but the customers who read them should tolerate our young poor implementation that needs more than two minutes for just 15 pages." (The documents like this http://www.automationdirect.com/static/specs/dl0506select.pdf http://www.automationdirect.com/static/specs/dl0506select.pd... ) They won't. As soon as you prevent them doing their job (and it's so if they used their PDF's normally before you changed the defaults) they will have to search for the solution. The solution is either switch the handler (still a little better for browser writers) or the browser. By making the opening and looking at the 15-page PDF which was before instantaneous taking two minutes, you prevent them doing their job (the slowdown from subjectively 0 seconds to minutes is also subjectively infinitely worse experience!) and they must respond. They can't open just the first page. They actually care. They need all the pages.

Dylan16807 12y ago
Why do you keep acting like a document cannot be interacted with until every single page is fully rendered? Especially when it goes out of order to get the onscreen pages ready first.
- acqq 12y ago
  When you need some information from the 15-pages document you don't think "I know I need the 9th page. You look at one page after another. You need a 0 seconds for that with a native renderer (you can't observe that you wait) and you need more minutes with pdf.js -- infinitely longer, enough to not use it.
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    >infinitely It takes time to get to the PDF. It takes time to transfer the file if it's of any size. It takes time to look at the pages. Also you can skim pages that don't have 100% of the drawings on them yet.

Dylan16807 12y ago

PDF.js vs. Adobe Reader is a reasonable comparison to make right now. PDF.js as representative of html+js viewers vs. 'native' is completely unfair unless you compare to a similarly unoptimized native viewer.