Enough with the PDF table of contents already!

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

PDF files are a pain. They require a different plug-in (which has to be updated and which isn't equally supported across all platforms and browsers) and are only worth doing when it's critical to show what a page REALLY looks like.

WotC, a table of contents does not merit a ZIPped PDF file. Just copy and paste the contents onto a simple HTML page (i.e. your regular content management system).

You've been doing this for a few months, and I keep waiting for you to go "wait a second, why are we wasting everyone's time like this?"

Complete Champion turns out to be a product that looks pretty good to me as a DM, given how important religion turned out to be in my campaign. But making me jump through hoops to get at it is creating unnecessary barriers on the way to (theoretically) encouraging someone to buy a product they might have been ambivalent about.

Stop it already! Please!

 

[Aus_Snow]

Agreed.

It's unnecessary, and not a little daft.

 

[Nellisir]

I was thinking the same thing a day ago.

 

[Blue Sky]

I don't know much about publishing, but maybe they produce in a format that's similar to (or is) Adobe? If that's the case, pdf is quicker, just export the page and post.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

Maybe they want to show everyone how pretty the ToC is in the actual format it will appear in the book. (Note: I don't know enough about HTML to know if this is possible to do without using a PDF format.)

Olaf the Stout

 

[charlesatan]

Maybe they want to show everyone how pretty the ToC is in the actual format it will appear in the book. (Note: I don't know enough about HTML to know if this is possible to do without using a PDF format.)

Olaf the Stout

Yes, that's true. The only other way to show the table of contents (complete with layout) is to convert the pdf file into a JPG, although for the text to be readable, this would need to be a huge jpg (in terms of occupying space in your monitor).

 

[Olaf the Stout]

I don't know much about publishing, but maybe they produce in a format that's similar to (or is) Adobe? If that's the case, pdf is quicker, just export the page and post.

That might be your answer. It's just easier for them to post it on the website as a PDF.

Olaf the Stout

 

[Angerland]

never mind, I had my .jpg's and pdf's confused....carry on

 

[Jdvn1]

I'd still prefer:

Pull up pdf on the screen -> Press "Print Screen" button -> Paste into Microsoft Paint -> Save/upload as jpg.

Jdvn1's 4-step program to the easiest way to avoid pdf's.

 

[jmucchiello]

Pull up pdf on the screen -> Press "Print Screen" button -> Paste into Microsoft Paint -> Save/upload as jpg.

Those JPGs would be 3-5 Megabytes in order to be readable. The PDFs should not be more than 100k. Bandwidth matters both as the service provider and those poor folk on dial-up.

Of course just listing the contents in HTML (without the fancy borders and 2-column layout) is 5-6k....