Enough with the PDF table of contents already!

[Jdvn1]

Are you kidding me? I've made jpg's just that size that are significantly less than 1 MB by using that same process, and still readable.

EDIT: Here, look at this. 200 KB without even trying. Lower the quality a little, and the size drops and it's still readable.

EDIT 2: 150 KB, after spending roughly 15 seconds. And, still readable. Should I keep going?

EDIT 3: Took me about 3 minutes, since I was trying to to 100 KB as close as I could. Still readable.

 

[Capellan]

If WotC do their layout in something like Quark, then exporting to PDF and putting that file out there is a lot easier than copy/pasting the text into HTML, and reformatting everything so that it looks OK.

 

[Jdvn1]

Are you kidding me? I've made jpg's just that size that are significantly less than 1 MB by using that same process, and still readable.

EDIT: Here, look at this. 200 KB without even trying. Lower the quality a little, and the size drops and it's still readable.

EDIT 2: 150 KB, after spending roughly 15 seconds. And, still readable. Should I keep going?

EDIT 3: Took me about 3 minutes, since I was trying to to 100 KB as close as I could. Still readable.

Moreover, the WotC pdf? 250 KB. C'mon!

 

[mhacdebhandia]

Yeah, making the PDF is probably easy, but then they ZIP the bloody thing too!

 

[Asmor]

Are you kidding me? I've made jpg's just that size that are significantly less than 1 MB by using that same process, and still readable.

EDIT: Here, look at this. 200 KB without even trying. Lower the quality a little, and the size drops and it's still readable.

EDIT 2: 150 KB, after spending roughly 15 seconds. And, still readable. Should I keep going?

EDIT 3: Took me about 3 minutes, since I was trying to to 100 KB as close as I could. Still readable.

For what you're doing, I think that gif or png would be a better format choice than jpg. JPG is great for photographs and similarly complex images, but for simple things where pixels really matter it's a poor choice.

You can use a bowling ball to hammer a nail in a pinch. There's a better tool for the job, though, and it's called a hammer. Preserving and accurately portraying the layout of a printed page is what Adobe Reader is designed for, and it's the best widely-available tool for the job. Love it or hate it, it's a de facto web standard and anyone who doesn't have a good means of viewing pdfs has only themself to blame. There are free stand alone readers available for every OS and free plugins for all browsers I'm familiar with.

Now, whether or not it's necessary for them to preserve the whole page or not? That's a different question. In my opinion, I think it's a decidedly good thing. It's much more attractive and aesthetically pleasing. I'd prefer the PDF ToCs to HTML ones.

 

[charlesatan]

Are you kidding me? I've made jpg's just that size that are significantly less than 1 MB by using that same process, and still readable.

There's a difference between a 9 x 11 inch (my estimates) book and a 1200 pixel screen.

The former will take up more space than what you just did. Of course having said that, it's by my estimate you can keep the file under 1 MB if the resolution is around 100 dpi. But my issue is that you still need a huge jpg in terms of readable size, and that entails scrolling down and right from a web browser.

Not that what they're currently offering is any better, but...

 

[Angel Tarragon]

I like it the way it is currently handled.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

If WotC do their layout in something like Quark, then exporting to PDF and putting that file out there is a lot easier than copy/pasting the text into HTML, and reformatting everything so that it looks OK.

They manage to do it for every other preview they do, except for the table of contents.

This some individual's pet quirk.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Now, whether or not it's necessary for them to preserve the whole page or not? That's a different question. In my opinion, I think it's a decidedly good thing. It's much more attractive and aesthetically pleasing. I'd prefer the PDF ToCs to HTML ones.

Would you prefer every preview to be 100 percent zipped PDF?

 

[blargney the second]

I think PDF is fine, it's becoming increasingly standard on the internet. It's the Zip that puts me off.
-blarg