[degenerate]

The PDF is worse, so there is no simple answer to this: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2312.12907v1.pdf

At least the HTML version pairs each author with their affiliations, instead of the PDF which has all the names on page 1, and all the affiliations on page 2. That's completely unreadable.

[cozzyd]

The PDF is better because I'm trained to scroll past the author list. That takes forever on the html version .

[mattigames]

You can click the "Introduction" anchor on the left side and it scrolls for you past the author list

[cozzyd]

well it skips the abstract too, but yes, you can scroll back up to see it.

[mattigames]

Yeah, its a bit weird that the abstract doesn't have a link on the left

[cozzyd]

Probably because \abstract{ } is treated differently than \section{ }, I guess...

[IlliOnato]

For me the PDF is much better. It's compact and clean, if I really need to see an affiliation for a particular author, it's really easy to do so in the PDF, not so in the HTML.

It's highly unlikely anybody will read an entire author list this long; typically you would read the first two or three names, or check if some particular name is on the list. So the compactness of the list and being able to quickly get to the article contents is important.