|
Almost all of the complaints in the linked document boil down to "PDFs are not websites," which is ironic, considering that is the main benefit to PDFs. A bunch of them are just dumb assumptions, like vague complaints about accessibility, ignoring the fact that PDFs have supported screen readers, alt text, etc for longer than the web has. I laughed out loud at the assertion that PDFs are "stuffed with fluff" and the web is a model of focused, concise writing. "Jarring user experience" and "Cause disorientation" are the same complaint rewritten to highlight different aspects of one problem. Web sites and PDFs are different tools serving different needs. The complaint that PDF content is "static" is, confoundingly, both untrue and entirely the point. PDFs have support Javascript, media embeds, advanced navigation tools (hyperlinks, cross-refs), and more, for years and years... but most people don't encounter much beyond formfills and hyperlinks, because the rest of that stuff is not what people want out of a document format. In other words, all the consultants can write all the words about how PDF should be the web, but the market has spoken, and PDFs are the way they are because they meet real needs. Figuring out what those are might be a better use of time than shouting into the wind. Now that I think about it, why should I have to throw away thirty years of PDF-compatible software because nobody bothered to make a decent PDF reader for your phone? |