?

Log in

No account? Create an account

attention administrators of the world // work ranting - Lograh — LiveJournal

Friday, 26.Aug.2005

10:07 - attention administrators of the world // work ranting

Previous Entry Share Flag Next Entry

you do not need a PDF for a FUCKING PICTURE! Web browsers need to load a plugin to display a PDF, wheras they can display a picture natively. Not everyone will have this plugin installed, and even if they do it could very well introduce a considerable delay, even on moderatly fast systems. If the entire PDF you are using is just one lone picture, don't use a PDF just link to the picture. If it is just one picture with a little bit of text underneath it, don't use a PDF just link to a webpage with the picture and some text. Just post the picture in a normal everyday webpage. That way the page displays faster, it downloads faster, and people can get the information faster. Further, *everyone* will be assured to have access to the information, since they are using a web browser to view your webpage in the first place. And note, PDFs are not entirely accessable. Screen readers may not be able to describe the PDF, but if you use a web page for the picture you can have a properly encoded alt tag for the screen readers to be able to accurately describe the picture.

PDF does not equal WWW!!!

GAH!

Oh, and as a side-note, if you *ever* like to anything other than a web page (like a PDF, for example) warn people what you are linking to. It's quite bothersome to click on a link and find my computer suddenly pause while it loads up some special plugin to handle what you linked to.

Tags: ,

Comments:

[User Picture]
From:macklinr
Date:17:31 26.Aug.2005 (UTC)
(Link)
PDF does not equal WWW!!!

*ahem* Technically, neither does a picture. You of all people should be aware of this. This was something you prided yourself on not too long ago.

And PDF is a very, very safe assumption nowadays. Now, while perhaps this PDF is excessive, there's some use for a PDF (including documents meant to be printed or otherwise unwieldly for a web page), and PDFs readers are easily accessible and common enough to where government agencies use them for documents and eBook sites can make money selling them.

Which, with this very common use, I'll say that PDF = WWW, as with Flash, Java, etc.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:lograh
Date:17:48 26.Aug.2005 (UTC)
(Link)
oh, I'm fully aware that a picture does not equal www, but at least in HTML there is the IMG tag which is handled natively on all browsers (even in lynx, which will simply leave a placeholder for it).

and here's a web browser for you that doesn't have PDF support, and is used commonly and would reasonably be used for this specific resource: my cellphone. This resource is supposed to be a map to somewhere that I would reasonably be expected to get to, and a map is something that's handy to have when you're out and about, so a moblie device can be reasonably expected to need to get to the information. PDF on mobiles is very rare, pictures on mobiles is quite common.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:macklinr
Date:18:06 26.Aug.2005 (UTC)
(Link)
Granted, but it's also accepted that you can't view everything on a mobile phone than you can on a computer.

I can't use LiveJournal on my phone because of the coding they use. And that's just HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, which "= WWW". And the resolution sucks, so a map image won't help me much at all on my phone.

Also, you cannot necessarily upgrade your phone like you can a computer. Show me people who do their serious web browsing on a mobile device (as opposed to occasional check-up or for entertainment away from a computer), and I'll show you someone who doesn't have a clue about the progression of the technology. Web browsers on phones currently vary worse than what you find in the PC world.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:lograh
Date:18:41 26.Aug.2005 (UTC)
(Link)
you can't view LJ on your phone? I do on mine regularly.. heck, it's why I've created the moblograh account, to have a custom friends page that doesn't display pictures (bandwidth on the phone is limited).
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:macklinr
Date:18:52 26.Aug.2005 (UTC)
(Link)
Unfortunately, yeah. I can't to webmail on it either, but then that's why I got the SSH client on there. Not all mobile phone browsers were created equal :)

Didn't you know you could create your own filtering groups with your normal LJ account that could achieve the same thing? I know some people who use filtering groups for "work-safe" friends and communities, etc.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:lograh
Date:19:01 26.Aug.2005 (UTC)
(Link)
filtering groups, yes, but that doesn't accomplish the same thing.. moblograh has the "use image placeholders" setting turned on, so anytime someone posts a picture to their LJ, the 'friends' view for moblograh does not show the picture. Filtering groups would only allow me to exclude those people that allways, or often, post pictures. those that do at random would still hit me and screw with the html formatting for the tiny screen.

now, if I'm musunderstanding the filtering groups options, please enlighten me. but last I checked that setting was a journal-wide setting, not per-group setting.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:macklinr
Date:19:06 26.Aug.2005 (UTC)
(Link)
Ah, I misunderstood. Though, that would be a good per-filter setting.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)