From: Andy Dingley on
On 11 May, 17:58, dorayme <dora...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> Andy, do yourself a favour, get a Mac.

Bought a new laptop just a couple of months ago. Couldn't afford a
Mac. Fortunately Ubuntu's desktop is getting gradually better.
From: Phillip Jones on
Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article<hscf9k$jsv$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
> Scott Bryce<sbryce(a)scottbryce.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> If you want a complicated format system that is pretty universal
>>>>> from one computer to the next, there's always PDF.
>>>> PDF should only be used if the content is intended to be printed
>>>> rather than viewed on screen.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> The browser hands control to a PDF reader, which breaks the normal
>> navigation scheme for the web. It is a usability issue. Not a huge one,
>> since PDF is ubiquitous, but a usability issue none the less.
>
> There are PDF plugins for many browsers that can't handle PDFs natively.
>
On the mac side of the equation PDF Browser Plugin by Schubert works with:
SeaMonkey
FireFox
Camino
OmniWeb
Opera
iCab
and Safari

Some are Gecko based, some are webkit based.
--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net mailto:pjones1(a)kimbanet.com
From: dorayme on
In article <hscf64$klh$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
Scott Bryce <sbryce(a)scottbryce.com> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <hsaduc$1b3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Scott Bryce
> > <sbryce(a)scottbryce.com> wrote:
>
> >> PDF should only be used if the content is intended to be printed
> >> rather than viewed on screen.
> >
> > Maybe sort of... but not really true in the real world. If I had to
> > html *all* the material (like newsletters and temporary flyers,
> > notices of some types) I handle on webpages, it would cost the
> > clients much more than was justified. It is a matter of judgement and
> > "for print" is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition.
>
> Newsletters? Flyers? Notices? Aren't those intended to be printed?

Not always particularly in fact, no. There may well be no
particular intention to do this at all. and there may well be a
particular intention that people just look at it on screen (and
if this is the intention, at the very least, the website manager
should make it so all the pic are at screen res rather print res
and so be as light byte wise as possible.

I hope we are not going to go in circles: I say again, there can
be commercial reasons not to spend time making a proper HTML page
with the information of some PDFs now and then.

If you must know, I tend not to let clients know too much about
this possibility. Not out of greed to make more money but because
my experience is that the more savvy of them though not the very
savviest will misuse the power of this to save dough and it
really is a poor practice when used for anything but special
things now and then.

They often have staff, you see, that can throw PDFs together and
it is a breeze for me if not for them to reduce to screen
resolutions. But they rarely have staff that can put a webpage
together right. So it is a great temptation for some of them to
order a cutting of corners and just post the PDF.

--
dorayme
From: dorayme on
In article
<ce6b6531-7062-4040-874d-e8edf22577a8(a)g21g2000yqk.googlegroups.co
m>,
Andy Dingley <dingbat(a)codesmiths.com> wrote:

> On 11 May, 17:58, dorayme <dora...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Andy, do yourself a favour, get a Mac.
>
> Bought a new laptop just a couple of months ago. Couldn't afford a
> Mac. Fortunately Ubuntu's desktop is getting gradually better.

Yeah? You have a thriving business, you used to talk about
supervising staff. You are my business hero. There is another
factor at work! You Welsh?

I bought a laptop just before Xmas, hardly have had time to use
it but it runs Windows too. They are rather expensive. Oz govt
gave generous tax breaks for new qipment as part of stimulus in
the recent yank bank lending financial crisis. Good for taking
along to try to get new clients.

--
dorayme
From: Phillip Jones on
Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article<hscqif$63f$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
> Phillip Jones<pjones1(a)kimbanet.com> wrote:
>
>> On the mac side of the equation PDF Browser Plugin by Schubert works
>> with:
>
> I used Schubert until I got an intel iMac; I wouldn't run Safari under
> Rosetta, so the Schubert plugin didn't work. After they finally (3 years
> or so) made Schubert Intel native, I installed it again, and found that I
> preferred Safari's native PDF handling to Schubert's, so I uninstalled it.
>
The disadvantage though of the acrobat PDF viewer for Safari, is that it
only works with Safari.

Schubert's works with any browser webkit or gecko based.

I have SeaMonkey, FireFox, Camino, Opera, OmniWeb, iCab, and Safari and
it works on all.

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net mailto:pjones1(a)kimbanet.com