Enough with the PDF table of contents already!

[Jdvn1]

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.

Maybe, but that's beside the point. I'm just pointing out it could be done easily and with a small file size.

Either way, some users don't like zip files and pdf files. It's another program to use, it's a slow program to use that loads fairly slowly on a lot of computers, and it's a big file.

 

[Jdvn1]

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.

Apologies to Cubicle 7 Entertainment Ltd., if this isn't legal. I downloaded one of their free pdf's, fit a page on my screen, and did the same process as before. Maybe they'll just consider this advertisement for SLA Industries.

I was careful to include the top line of text and the bottom line of text--in short, all the relevant bits. Note that the ToC of most books don't include this much text by a long shot.

This is a 240 KB jpg of a full page of a pdf (I believe a sheet is technically 8.5" x 11"). Also note that if they cropped the image so it didn't have the non-page bits to either side, the file would be a lot smaller too.

I think it's readable.

Again, this was a very, very simple process. Even if you dont' like it, why aren't we at least given the option?

 

[Kae'Yoss]

It really is annoying. I completely agree

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.

Yes, it's probably easier for them. But aren't we forgetting something? Namely that the current thing is more complicated for us? Usually the business strategy involves doing more work yourself so the thousands of customers have less work, not being lazy and forcing them all to do that much more work.

To whoever puts those online: Just take those extra 3 minutes to copy that text and put it into HTML (ask the guy who does the other previews how he does it) so we can save the time to download, unpack, and open the file. Even if that saved 2 seconds for 100 people, we'd have a net gain. And it would surely save 30+ seconds for 1000+ people.

Personally, I would be okay with an unpacked pdf, so I can just click the link and the browser does the opening. But the way it is now, I have to click the download link, specify a download location, open a file manager, unpack the file, and then open it. That usually discourages me from looking at those tables.

HTML would still be the best solution. I'd say that few of us care how the TOC's layout is. We are interested in the C of the TOC.

 

[charlesatan]

I was careful to include the top line of text and the bottom line of text--in short, all the relevant bits. Note that the ToC of most books don't include this much text by a long shot.

This is a 240 KB jpg of a full page of a pdf (I believe a sheet is technically 8.5" x 11"). Also note that if they cropped the image so it didn't have the non-page bits to either side, the file would be a lot smaller too.

I think it's readable.

Again, this was a very, very simple process. Even if you dont' like it, why aren't we at least given the option?

1) The text is barely readable. In my computer screen, I can read it, yes, but with difficulty. A PDF lets me zoom in/out without degradation of quality (unlike jpegs which gets pixelized).

2) Content size (i.e. lots of text vs little text) is irrelevant when it comes to file sizes -- it's the dimensions of the thing and the color(s) that determine the file size. And again, I did say creating a jpeg under 1 MB is possible... it's just that taking into account quality and file size, a pdf would be better compared to a jpeg (ease of use is another matter).

3) As to why we aren't given in the choice, I don't know. But you can't really have everything by choice. I mean a magazine doesn't give us a choice of whether to read it in newsprint or glossy paper... they just go with what they decide. Of course having said that, feel free to email WotC how you feel.

4) For the record, between aesthetics or functionality, I'll choose functionality. Granted, converting it into html text takes time (around ten minutes?) and is less aesthetically pleasing as a pdf/jpeg of the TOC, I'd like my TOC in a conveniently readable format that doesn't force me download then unzip it. The .zip file, by the way, is probably there to ensure that when you download the file, everything is intact (of course it seems what WotC is pushing here is for you to download the file).

 

[WhatGravitas]

HTML would still be the best solution. I'd say that few of us care how the TOC's layout is. We are interested in the C of the TOC.

Agreeed. WotC has the source material - a HTML version should be easy... hey, the other previews do this as well.

I won't mind zipped PDFs as show-offs for more visual content, like sample monster pages... but c'mon, the ToC isn't that pretty that I have to see it in its full glory.

I mean, the only thing the PDF preserves (compared to HTML) are the borders!

 

[Jdvn1]

1) The text is barely readable. In my computer screen, I can read it, yes, but with difficulty. A PDF lets me zoom in/out without degradation of quality (unlike jpegs which gets pixelized).

2) Content size (i.e. lots of text vs little text) is irrelevant when it comes to file sizes -- it's the dimensions of the thing and the color(s) that determine the file size. And again, I did say creating a jpeg under 1 MB is possible... it's just that taking into account quality and file size, a pdf would be better compared to a jpeg (ease of use is another matter).

The point was amount of space the content takes. Since tables of content don't normally go from the very top of the page to the very bottom of the page, not the entire page has to be scanned--just the relevant bits. That would allow the page to be saved at a higher resolution so you could read it easier, and even zoom in a bit.

3) As to why we aren't given in the choice, I don't know. But you can't really have everything by choice. I mean a magazine doesn't give us a choice of whether to read it in newsprint or glossy paper... they just go with what they decide. Of course having said that, feel free to email WotC how you feel.

4) For the record, between aesthetics or functionality, I'll choose functionality. Granted, converting it into html text takes time (around ten minutes?) and is less aesthetically pleasing as a pdf/jpeg of the TOC, I'd like my TOC in a conveniently readable format that doesn't force me download then unzip it. The .zip file, by the way, is probably there to ensure that when you download the file, everything is intact (of course it seems what WotC is pushing here is for you to download the file).

I'm not sure why WotC wants us to take their bandwidth, but I'd be fine with HTML as well.

 

[Grimstaff]

Perhaps zipped, .pdf files are the future of Dungeon/Dragon. Better get used it...[sigh]

 

[Infernal Teddy]

pdf is okay. Zip file is not.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

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

This is how I feel. There is no reason to zip and gives me an extra step to do. There are times when zipping a file doesn't even save that much space.

 

[Piratecat]

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

That's the annoying thing. The .zip is a pain in the butt, and not needed.