23 Jul 2003 | hurley #1 said...

Nielsen's demonization of PDFs is like Edward Tufte's demonization of PowerPoint. There's truth to some of their assertions, but it all seems a bit overblown. I get the feeling that both Nielsenand Tufte are trying to using their influence as gurus to spin a personal dislike for a product into a general dictum: "Thou Shalt Not Use (fill in the blank)."

I read plenty of PDF files online and it has never bothered me (except for really big files that take forever to download). I agree that PDF files online should be mainly used for documents that the user intends to print, or for forms that can be completed and submitted electronically, and in my experience that is in fact what most people use PDFs for.

Robert McDaniels's counter-arguments aren't all that convincing to me, though. Most people will not take the time to learn how to use the advanced features in Acrobat, and most users probably don't bother to learn how to change print size or other features in Acrobat Reader.

The reality is that most people just use Acrobat Distiller to create a simple PDF of a Quark file or a Word document, and throw it on the Web. They click a button and that's it; they don't want to have to tweak any settings, learn how to build clickable buttons for better navigation, or anything else.

I also don't think the accessibility features in Acrobat are as effective as McDaniels implies....at least the accessibility experts I work with have told me told that Acrobat files cannot be made truly 508-compliant, which is important to me because I work with government clients.

23 Jul 2003 | Darrel said...

PDFs are great for:

- print

- documents meant to be printed, but disseminated online

- documents that you want to get out as fast as you can, but don't want to take the time to convert to a different format (like HTML)

And, well, that's about it.

I know adobe has forever been pushing PDF as a be-all/end-all format for everything from prepress to interactive video. But it just isn't so.

I also attended a class recently on accessibility taught by a blind user who showed us plenty of example of bad PDFs. A simple spread sheet converted to PDF is impossible to digest if you are using a screen reader. Yea, I'm sure there are a few more steps that you could take that would make it a bit more accessible, but, at that point, why not just serve up the spread sheet file in the first place?

I've heard proPDFers say the same thing as McDaniels. They are OK arguments, but they aren't very powerful arguments and can usually be overridden. Most of the arguments seem to center around 'if you don't have time/skills/or ambition to actually convert your documents into a better, more online friendly format, than PDF is the acceptable solution.' Fair enough.

The document security argument is laughable, however. It's been shown time and time again that the built in security of the PDF format is fairly weak.

23 Jul 2003 | Mark Bell said...

I'm beginning to get a little annoyed with Dr Nielsen. I think he may be slowly running out of issues to complain about (and thus charge clients for 'fixing').

Like any tool, the PDF format can be misused, much the same as Flash has been in the past. It's not a tool for building web pages, so why compare it with them? Admittedly PDF's aren't very accessible at the moment, but neither is HTML the way most people write it.

Dr Nielsen's argument is one sided; he only presents us with the negative comments from his study. I'm sure I could prove that HTML websites are unusable if I only showed the negative feedback I get from user testing.

It's only by educating content authors that we will ever make things better. As Mr McDaniels points out; rather than just saying 'PDF is bad', why not point out ways to make it better?

23 Jul 2003 | Rob said...

Well, I can't say that McDaniels's comments were too convincing. My thinking is quite simply that one should use the right tool for the job -- and all Nielsen really seems to be saying is that pdf isn't the best tool for viewing things on screen. What irked me about McDaniels's arguments was that the subtext (form my point of view) was something like this: "pdf is the right tool for every job."

McDaniels notes that pdf is great for distributing third party and supplementary materials/handouts/presentations, yet goes on to say that "The content and flow of a PDF is the responsibility of the author not the PDF file format. I can employ the same web writing guidelines you recommend into a PDF file." He says this after touting pdf as an excellent format for distributing such supplementary materials not written or designed for the web because then the materials don't need to be re-written for the web. He even says that "Fonts, images, scripts, and now even media are all embedded in a PDF file" before going on to explain that large file sizes are the fault of the author, not the format. While that is true to an extent, one cannot embed fonts, images, scripts, and other media without creating a pretty big file.

In the end, Acrobat is a powerful piece of software and pdf is an excellent and flexible format, but once its use moves beyond preparation and distribution of documents for print, it becomes complex, cumbersome, and counter-intuitive for viewing and browsing information. The bottom line is that this is an argument about usability, meaning the user shouldn't have to think to make it work. All the great features and benefits supported by Acrobat and pdf aren't worth a thing if the average Joe has to examine it all in great detail to use them.

23 Jul 2003 | tlack said...

For once I agree with one of Joyless Jakob Nielsen's rants. The PDF plugin almost always causes weirdness on my work machine, from inexplicable lockups (because the slow yet modal Acrobat launch screen has somehow been placed behind the Explorer window), to text that is hard to read (requiring a zoom and pan), to general confusion.

23 Jul 2003 | Darrel said...

Like any tool, the PDF format can be misused, much the same as Flash has been in the past. It's not a tool for building web pages, so why compare it with them?

I think that's Nielson's point. People assume it is a tool for building web pages.

What irked me about McDaniels's arguments was that the subtext (form my point of view) was something like this: "pdf is the right tool for every job."

Yes, that's been Adobe's stance for some time now. ;o)

23 Jul 2003 | Crayon said...

I think that's Nielson's point. People assume it is a tool for building web pages.

Please. People don't assume that PDFs are tools for building web pages. I haven't seen a single site on the web that replaces all HTML with PDFs.

23 Jul 2003 | Mike said...

After documenting every single poor design choice in modern technology, Dr. Nielsen hasn't anything else to complain about.

Since about a year and half ago when usability and accessibility became at least a thought in designers' minds, Jakob Nielsen hasn't had a large impact on the usability industry in general.

Now that everyone has all of his books, and tries to implement usability best practices, Dr. Nielsen has fallen by the wayside and hasn't come out with a "stunning usability revelation" that people care about in a long time (in internet years).

I think that this is just another way of having people remember who he is, even though NN/G isn't the only firm conducting usability tests anymore.

23 Jul 2003 | pb said...

I think PDF is definitely ripe for criticism. While PDFs are fine for numerous uses, the user experience has been getting worse. The experience on WinIE isn't horrible but it's certainly jarring. Selecting and copying text is awkward. I'm not sure why it defaults to dragging instead of selecting. The toolbar is redundant and non-standard in places. Ctrl-F doesn't work for search. Zooming is awkward.

But it's on MacSafari where PDF is disconcerting. I' haven't figured out how to view PDFs in the browser yet. The PDF Reader that fires up takes forever, puts up a splash page with some 30 patents listed, takes over the whole screen and puts up a similiarly brain-dead tool-bar. For a pure document reader, I'm not sure why such a large tool-bar is necessary.

In general, I find Jakob's material reasonable and this is no different. Sometimes authors need to go extreme to get the point across. I think Adobe could definitely use a lot of help in making PDF a better experience.

23 Jul 2003 | suppafly said...

pdf's are great for print, but they are really annoying to read and adobe's acrobat client is worse than many of the free ones I've seen on different OS's.

sure one can argue that most of the problems with pdf's are from the authors not knowing how to construct them properly leaving some important functions disabled, but I'd take an html file or even a doc file over a pdf file.

23 Jul 2003 | Darrel said...

Please. People don't assume that PDFs are tools for building web pages.

I work at a company now, and have worked with other companies in the past, that firmly believe that MS Word is a replacement for web pages.

I haven't seen a single site on the web that replaces all HTML with PDFs.

No, but many people figure that PDFs are readily available, so why take time to put this documentation I've written into HTML? I can just stick it up there as a PDF!

23 Jul 2003 | ~bc said...

I agree with Jakob on this one. I hate to see PDF used on the web. It's riduculous, but above all else lazy, as demonstrated in the rebuttal:

--Inclusion of 3rd person materials or non-HTML formats: If a web author has supporting materials like .DOC and .PPT files, it is easy to covert these to PDF rather than attempt to re-author the content for HTML.

This is pure friggen laziness. If you put info on the web, you put it in web format. If i see PDFs in place of HTML, where HTML is best for me, I actively avoid PDF. A particularly heinous practice is linking to a PDF without telling the user they're about to get a 129 page book in PDF. This has happened to me, on a dial-up line, and I sent the website a note to express my disgust.

This isn't to say I dislike PDF. In fact I use it everyday (thanks to Mac OS X integration). I print receipts from the web on them to avoid paper use, and then achive them in a safe place. I use them to transfer documents I need to print exactly to other people (as well as cross platform). But it has only one use on the web: a print form that must be exact (maybe include long manuals intended for print). I don't care what goes in to your workflow behind your site. I want text I can use, not that's locked away.

The rebuttal also touches upon a point that PDF is underused, as far as its features, with which I agree. Live web links, copyable text, all very cool, but require the expensive Pro encoder and the knowledge to reproduce the same results attainable for years using free web tech.

Jakob often gets nutty, but this time he pretty much has it on the head.

23 Jul 2003 | Mike said...

pb,

I use this for my "in-browser" PDF viewing:

PDF Browser Plugin

It works pretty well and is optimized for Quartz!

23 Jul 2003 | pb said...

Mike, very nice! The experience is great for viewing. Two things I'd like are text selecting (absence makes the plug-in a non-starter for me) and cmd-f for search.

23 Jul 2003 | Darrel said...

Can anyone explain the appeal of viewing PDFs (or word docs, for that matter) inside a web browser? (yea, I'm being a bit cynical, but would also appreciate hearing opinions from those that prefer it).

23 Jul 2003 | michael said...

I would recommend having a read of Why PDF Sucks at http://yarinareth.net/caveatlector/archive/week_2002_10_20.html#e001024 for a different point of view.

My view is that PDF is suited for distribution of proprietary material to third parties with the security features turned on i.e. distribution of a company presentation to external parties.

Other than that it is overused. My biggest problem is the storage ideas in this proprietary binary format. As Tim Bray said “Information outlives technology”. Whether intended or not, once information is converted to PDF it tends to stay in that format.

/michael.

23 Jul 2003 | hurley #1 said...

Can anyone explain the appeal of viewing PDFs (or word docs, for that matter) inside a web browser? (yea, I'm being a bit cynical, but would also appreciate hearing opinions from those that prefer it).

Convenience. In IE-Win at least, if I'm curious about what's in a document I can just click on it and open it in my browser. Usually if I skim through a few pages or find some info I'm looking for, I then save the file to my computer for offline reading or printing.

To me, this is preferable to blindly right-clicking on a file and saving it to my hard disk, then opening it up only to find out it doesn't have what I wanted.

Essentially I view the browser plug-in as a preview function, although I do sometimes read PDF and Word documents through the browser plugins if I'm not planning to save the file to my computer.

23 Jul 2003 | pb said...

Darrell, do you mena vs. reading PDFs not in a browser or do you mean not reading PDFs at all? Reading PDFs in a browser simply seems a far better experience. The PDF Reader client is jarring and awkward. As far as PDFs in general, they seem to work for certain types of content.

I suspect Microsoft may get it right with whatever they have in mind to go against PDF. Except if they make it Windows only, it could be problematic even if only 5% or however many users aren't on Windows.

23 Jul 2003 | Darrel said...

PB/Hurley:

Thanks. I guess it's just a matter of personal preference. I use my web browser to view web pages. I use Acrobat Reader (or Preview) to see PDFs, and Word or OpenOffice to read word docs. I like having specific apps for specific types of documents.

I find browsing the web and all of the sudden having a PDF or Word Doc take over your browser strange and confusing. But, again, to each their own.

23 Jul 2003 | pb said...

I can maybe see for editable docs like Word, but for PDFs, I find viewing inline way less jarring, especially because the Adobe clients are so awkward.

24 Jul 2003 | Mark Bell said...

My thinking is quite simply that one should use the right tool for the job

I agree completely. The thing which annoys me is that someone can make money out of pointing this out.

I'm not saying PDF is perfect, nor am I advocating it's use to replace entire web sites.

What I am saying is that it has its uses, and is very good at distributing documents; indeed Dr Nielsen himself sells PDF documents on the NN/g web site.

In my opinion, support for printing from web pages is currently abysmal. I've lost count of the times someone has come to me having tried to print a page of information and only got the navigation, or a single logo. Admittedly this is often down to poor coding, and with web standards things are only going to get better; however, I still like the convenient package of a PDF when it comes to information I want to keep.

If Adobe could make a more lightweight reader plugin, and maybe allow it to be embedded into a page rather than taking over the whole browser, we could have something.

24 Jul 2003 | Steve said...

I finally got around to reading these articles, and there's plenty to agree with and plenty to disagree with in both.

First, for people who try to use PDF as a replacement for web pages, yes, it is a major pain in the ass, and rather ineffective. But, McDaniels and others have pointed out, that's never what the format was intended for.

I don't have the huge hatred of the format that many here seem to. I find the format valuable in many specific cases. I love being able to download and print out my tax forms, for instance, something that wouldn't work well with other formats, including Word or other word processing or document editing software. For duplications of things like owner's manuals, it makes perfect sense both from a document creation as well as a user experience perspective.

I'll agree with McDaniels that most of the things people dislike about PDF are either user or creator "error." Text too small? Zoom it. Things like indexing are possible and can be used quite effectively in PDF. The fact that few authors take advantage is not the format's fault. I've never had problems copying and pasting text from PDFs (a handy indicator or warning that a document is copy-protected would be good, however).

Yes, there are flaws in the Reader interface. It strikes me as being too bulky and slow-loading for its purpose. It does hang up on startup sometimes, mainly due to the autodownloading thing Adobe has now insisted on including in all its apps (I have the same problem with Photoshop 7.0).

As someone here said, the key is recognizing when it's the right tool for the job. When I try to use a wrench to pound a nail, it doesn't mean that the wrench format sucks. It's just being used for the wrong purposes.

24 Jul 2003 | HP said...

I think that the exchange between Mssrs. Nielsen and McDaniels is not so much about PDF as it is about Acroabt and Acroabt plug-in. PDF is a file format and both powerful and flexible at that. So, Mr. Nielsen's comments are valid as remarks on deficiencies of Acroabt plug-in, Reader and Acroabt proper as are explanations of Mr. McDaniels on how those issues can be dealt with or prevented from happening in the first place.

This being said, I have already contacted Apple with a couple of suggestions on how to improve Safari's support for PDF. Those suggestions are:

- make it possible for PDF files to be opened in browser window
- once a PDF file is opened in browser window, Safari should recognize it and adjust itself to the file format in question by makings its tools act on the active PDF document in much the same way they would if an HTML page was loaded. For example, text increase and decrease buttosn would allow one to increase text size (or zoom on) in the PDF document. Print function would work the same as would save command. The search bar may be adjusted so that it searches the PDF document or, possibly, to offer an option to search Google or the current document. Auto Form Complete would work on Acrobat forms the same way they work on HTML forms and could also include ane electronic signature feature that could be a part of the user profile (perhaps even available via .Mac service). Tools/Features specific to Acrobat/PDF that do not have a match/counterpart in HTML world could be available inside a pulldown menu (or a separate toolbar) that would appear automatically when a PDF document is loaded.

To make something like this work, there would have to be a cooperation between Adobe as a maker of the plug-in and the company making/developing specific browser software. Sicne Apple already has probably the best browser and since they already have PDF reader software (Preview), it makes sense to assume that they would be able to make this work and make it better than anyone else and, probably, in far less time than it would take Microsoft and Adobe to come to an agreement on legal provisions of any possible cooperation arrangement. Obvously, Apple would still need to work with Adobe on functionality specific to Acrobat but this could, at least, be a start.

This is only my $.02 worth. Any suggestions, comments and critique are most welcome.

24 Jul 2003 | Darrel said...

make it possible for PDF files to be opened in browser window

Why is that the browser's responsibility? I think that's best left to 3rd-party folks. After all, Safari is a web browser for viewing web pages.

Safari should recognize it and adjust itself to the file format in question by makings its tools act on the active PDF document in much the same way they would if an HTML page was loaded.

But now we're back to using PDFs as a web site. This just encourages bad habits. ;o)

24 Jul 2003 | hurley #1 said...

Why is that the browser's responsibility? I think that's best left to 3rd-party folks. After all, Safari is a web browser for viewing web pages.

Darrel, you're a compartmenalist! I agree about "using the best tool for the job," but if you're just viewing an online document (HTML, Word, PDF, PowerPoint, etc.) why shouldn't you be able to do all that with just one tool (a Web browser) instead of having to fire up a different bloated program to look at each one?

I'd much rather use one tool--a Web browser--that's an all-purpose document viewer than to have to download those files and view them offline using their native programs.

24 Jul 2003 | HP said...

But now we're back to using PDFs as a web site. This just encourages bad habits. ;o)

I disagree. Suggestions I made are just meant to make viewing PDF documents easier rather than forcing one to download those files to the desktop and then view them with a dedicated software just to find out what the document is about. Also, Acrobat forms sometimes are tied in to whatever a user tries to accomplish on a Web site so being able to handle all of this within browser window would be helpful.

That ebing said, it certainly would not stop people from turning just about everything into PDF files as it is only one-clock away (on Windoze anyway) but that is not going to stop even if PDF files cannot be viewed/accessed with a browser.

On a related note, this is rather good discussion.

24 Jul 2003 | Steve said...

I'm with you Hurley. When it comes to strictly viewing things, I prefer to stick with the application I'm working in - and the browser is, oddly enough, a great application for looking at things.

One of the actual advantages of Microsoft's tying of browser and OS, and linking with other apps, is the ability to view Word, Excel and other documents directly in the browser instead of having to download them and open up the native application. Our company document store is, of course, browser-based, and it's loads easier and more convenient just to ahve the doc pop up in the browser window.

24 Jul 2003 | Darrel said...

I see what you are saying, Hurley. In some ways, your concept is akin to OSX's Preview App. The problem with that, though, is that you need an interface that accomodates a variety of formats that all behave differently.

For you and I, that's probably OK. But for grandma, switching between doc formats can be jarring and completely confusing.

Perhaps grandma has her fonts set to LARGE. She clicks on a link that is a PDF and *poof*, now she has a PDF in her browser. She then can't get the fonts to resize. Or she can't resize the browser to have the text flow in a comfortable column, etc.

I do imagine that these issues could be overcome with some clevery UI. The tabs lend them selves to this. Perhaps a PDF opens in a PDF tab. Clearly labeled to show that it is a different type of content, and, as such, requires a different type of interaction.

Also, Acrobat forms sometimes are tied in to whatever a user tries to accomplish on a Web site so being able to handle all of this within browser window would be helpful.

*Don't* get me started on the absurdity of using PDF forms instead of basic HTML web forms. ;o)

(Actually, ONE thing Adobe did right was remove the requirement in Adobe reader 6 to require PDF forms that post data via the web to be contained within the web browser. Supposedly, you can now sumbit the data from reader, itself.)

As for all of this talk that viewing something like a word doc is so much better than downloading it and then having to open it in another application, I'm confused.

Whether I view my word doc in IE or in Word, I still have to download it. It also opens automatically in either IE or Word depending on my preferences, so it is essentially the same process...click -> view. (Granted, I don't think word docs should ever be put on the web due to a variety of compatibility, security and usability issues...but, yea, it's sometimes handy on the intranet).

24 Jul 2003 | Mike said...

Has anyone seen if Adobe Reader v6.0 (note the slight name change) is faster or has browser integration on Safari?

24 Jul 2003 | pb said...

Reader 6.0 does not integrate into Safari and it is slower and more bloated. It epitomizes what Jakob is talking about. I cringe when I see a PDF in Safari. The splash page hijacks the screen for several seconds displaying at least 20 patent numbers in your face. It's absurd.

As many have stated, I like *viewing* different doc types in the browser. The one mentioned that I do *not* like seeing in a browser is Excel where I frequently want to perform some operation on the data that isn't available in the browser interface. TXT is another one that I wished opened in an editor instead of the browser. IE seems to be the only one doing this anymore which is criminal.

But for viewing HTML, PPT, PDF, etc., it's a much more pleasant experience.

25 Jul 2003 | hurley#1 said...

One interesting thing I've noticed in OSX: when you take a screenshot, it saves the image as a PDF. But if you then insert that PDF into a mail message or an iChat message, the image appears within the message itself (i.e. not as an attached file which you would have to open with Adobe Reader), just as if it were a standard image file. A nice bit of seamless integration, although I don't know why they chose to make screenshots PDF files in the first place.

I was helping out a friend with some computer problems the other day, and I sent him a screenshot of one of my open windows via iChat. When I saw that the screenshot was a PDF file, I thought, great, he's going to have to click on this and wait for the Adobe splash screen and all, but the image appeared right in his chat message. There was no indication on his end that it was a PDF file. Nice.

25 Jul 2003 | Darrel said...

In some ways (I'm oversimplifying) the OSX GUI is PDF already(display postscript, actually) , so it really isnt' that big of a stretch to pop it out as a PDF. That said, none of the apps I normally paste screen shots into seem to be able to handle PDF very well...

Anyways, Macs don't really need Adobe Reader to view basic PDFs, since the OS can render it natively. You still need Reader for more advanced PDF rendering of things like forms, etc.

28 Jul 2003 | ssn said...

I think Nielsen is trying to get an "usability improvement" contract with Adobe, just like he did with Macromedia after his (in)famous "Flash 99% Bad" essay. :>

28 Jul 2003 | hurley #1 said...

Nielsen just posted a second installment on this subject, by the way.

31 Jul 2003 | Luke said...

New
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030728.html

01 Aug 2003 | Paul said...

PDFs are superb for any documents that need to be printed or emailed to other people (or even put onto CD). I have worked for a company that has both HTML files containing its product catalogue, and also individual PDFs containing similar information. The HTML is great for online viewing, but rubbish for printing because all the navigation is churned out, you can't easily create page breaks and sometimes the right margin cuts off part of the text.

PDF allows us to easily put our catalogue on CD and send it to customers, even if they don't have internet access or cannot download the files from the website for whatever reason. I'm not advocating the replacement of all websites with a bunch of PDF files, but for anything that requires downloading and the possibility of printing, PDFs are fantastic.

29 Aug 2003 | Michael said...

Take a look at the prize list for the Built For The Future useit.com redesign contest...

http://www.builtforthefuture.com/reuseit/prizes.php

06 Nov 2004 | mp3 said...

.

31 Jan 2005 | compatelius said...

bocigalingus must be something funny.

04 Feb 2005 | Penis Enlargement Pills said...

Enhance Penis Size Increase Penis Size Erection Pill Male Enhancement Pill Review