why PDF

[Janina Sajka]

This is essentially correct. Just a few items:

1.)	 MIT (or anyone) can more affordably create PDF only by scanning. 
I suspect most people on this list are not going to be very impressed by 
that. At it's best this kind of PDF is no smarter than an ascii text file. 
At worst it's a nightmare, as for example the pdf's at fcc.gov where the 
time stamp and all other arcana are interspersed making gobblydegook out 
of the speech synthesis. The essential point is that it's far easier for 
the eye to edit out the extraneous because the eye retains context. The 
ear does not readily obtain context;

2.)	It is true that publishers wishing to lock in a particular "look 
and feel" believe PDF is the way to achieve this. Unfortunately, the 
desire to lock in look and feel must ul.timately yield to user needs. It 
so happens that the two need not be in conflict, though this fact is not 
as well understood;

Of course, the real PDF advantage is smaller file size and the ability to 
print reliably to almost any printer anywhere.

But, none of these make PDF a very good choice where accessibility is a 
priority. And accessibility is a legally mandated priority under 508.

 On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Kirk Wood wrote:

> Rich recently speculated on why some things become standards. It boils
> down to formating. The reason PDF has become popular is that it is the
> only means which a publisher can eb sure their layout remains intact. A
> PDF doc will look the same regardless of the computer and/or printer
> used. There could be a breakdown in print resolution, but a 8.5 by 11 page
> will have the line breaks the same regardless of the medium.
> 
> The argument is of course that the information is more important then the
> formatting. But when someone spends a butt load of time and effort on
> formatting to help convey information they aren't keen on throwing it
> out. Further, it is much harder to make formatting that adjusts well to
> all resolutions. If you don't understand this, leave it to "one of the
> stupid sited things."
> 
> Then of course there is conversion factors. MIT can convert much of its
> course work to PDF much cheaper then HTML. Figure much is probably already
> in Word format. Add in a program and you can convert this to PDF in
> minutes. To do a good job of HTML will take much longer if there is any
> advanced formatting. Manpower is more expensive then licensing in many
> cases. Especially when they can negotiate the later. Adobe will give a
> huge break in fees to MIT if all courses are published in their
> format. This way they can stick it to others at a better (for them) price
> later. This is also why m$ charges a university less then half of retail
> for their products.
> 
> =======
> Kirk Wood
> Cpt.Kirk at 1tree.net
> 
> Nowlan's Theory:
>         He who hesitates is not only lost, but several miles from
>         the next freeway exit.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Speakup mailing list
> Speakup at braille.uwo.ca
> http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup
> 

-- 
	
				Janina Sajka, Director
				Technology Research and Development
				Governmental Relations Group
				American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)

Email: janina at afb.net		Phone: (202) 408-8175

Chair, Accessibility SIG
Open Electronic Book Forum (OEBF)
http://www.openebook.org