Enough with the PDF table of contents already!

Jdvn1 said:
Fine, let's add the scenario to this:
Will making no ToC at all make any users frustrated enough to not buy the book?
Probably not.
At least, there is no indication that it would.
More than one person on this thread said they no longer read the table of contents previews. One said he had thought all the previews were PDF/ZIP and wasn't reading them at all.

Given that the point of the exercise is to get people excited for the products and buy them, it seems like it's not working the right way.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
EVERY OTHER PAGE OF THE PREVIEW DEVIATES FROM THAT!

That's probably because they'd show too much information (more than they would like, anyway) if they just ripped a PDF from their book file and put it up online. With the ToC, they don't have to worry about that.
 

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
I'm sorry, Mr. Kettle, I couldn't hear that. Could you repeat that?

Woah, dude... it's a PDF file... I can understand slight annoyance at this, but, seriously, I think you're taking it a little personal, aren't you?

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
More than one person on this thread said they no longer read the table of contents previews. One said he had thought all the previews were PDF/ZIP and wasn't reading them at all.

Given that the point of the exercise is to get people excited for the products and buy them, it seems like it's not working the right way.

I don't think 2 readers count as a comprehensive testing pool from which to make decisions. I'm pretty sure that's a fallacy of some sort (omitted evidence, maybe?)...
 

Kesh said:
In a sense, yes. See, Safari by default is set to open files for you when they download. So, you download the file, it sees it's a ZIP, decompresses it, and now you've got the file ready to view.

Actually, I checked it out: When you choose open, it will open the archive in winrar, and you can then click on the file within winrar to open it in adobe.

Still, that now involves three different programmes instead of one (if they just go their normal way and put it up as HTML) or two (if they ignore zip. And I mean: who doesn't ignore zip?)

Prophet2b said:
PDF's are considered more "professional"

As others have said: They seem to be fire with HTML for practically everything else, it's just so weird why they deviate from their usual methods for the TOC.

Jim Hague said:
Alternately, they could simply offer...nothing.

So? As long as things could be worse, no one should bother improving them?

The previews show that they actually care about giving the customer a sneak peek.

Which they, of course, don't do because they're philanthropists, but because it will make some people buy their products. And the fewer the hoops they have to jump through to get your incentive to buy their products, the more likely it is for the customers to buy them.

but not buying because of that is, frankly, petty.

You imply that people won't buy out of spite. That might indeed be the case in some cases (after their murdering Dragon and Dungeon, I guess it's more than just a few cases, but that's nothing to do with the current topic), but you don't see the big picture: As I said, those excerpts are there to make people buy books. You're supposed to look at the teasers, get giddy like a schoolgirl, and go get your copy of the book. But if you do something like, say, offer the preview as a .pdf document hidden in a .zip archive, instead of presenting it in good old HTML right on the web page, there will be people who won't bother with Wizards' take on the Russian Doll, so they never get excited about the book, and their money goes elsewhere.

Let's assume that it will take some Wizards employee 5 more minutes to put it up as HTML instead of the current scheme, and let's assume that only one guy will now look at the TOC, get excited, and buy the book (while he would not have done this had it been in a zipped pdf). And let's assume that Wizards gets 5 tacken per book. That guy just earned 5 tacken in 5 minutes. That's 60 per hour. Not that bad.

I'd think that it would push over half a dozen people, and that Wizards gets more than 5 big ones per book, and that it probably doesn't even take 5 extra minutes.
 

Prophet2b said:
That's probably because they'd show too much information (more than they would like, anyway) if they just ripped a PDF from their book file and put it up online. With the ToC, they don't have to worry about that.
That still doesn't explain why it's necessary to use a PDF at all, when they didn't previously, and then ZIP it on top of that.

Prophet2b said:
Woah, dude... it's a PDF file... I can understand slight annoyance at this, but, seriously, I think you're taking it a little personal, aren't you?
I don't find pot/kettle stuff to be fighting words. I'm not taking it personally at all.

Prophet2b said:
I don't think 2 readers count as a comprehensive testing pool from which to make decisions. I'm pretty sure that's a fallacy of some sort (omitted evidence, maybe?)...
Not when it's a response to "no one cares about X."
 

Prophet2b said:
Woah, dude... it's a PDF file... I can understand slight annoyance at this, but, seriously, I think you're taking it a little personal, aren't you?
...Aaaaand, here we devolve into Recursive Internet Argument #6, the "Well, why do you care enough to post about it?" feedback loop. Please don't go down that road, guys.

Kae'Yoss said:
As others have said: They seem to be fire with HTML for practically everything else, it's just so weird why they deviate from their usual methods for the TOC.
His point was that PDFs are more professional than JPEGs, not HTML. I don't think he was using "professionalism" to defend the PDF practice, but to shut down the admittedly weird and unprofessional idea of posting the table of contents as an image.
 

GreatLemur said:
...Aaaaand, here we devolve into Recursive Internet Argument #6, the "Well, why do you care enough to post about it?" feedback loop. Please don't go down that road, guys.

Sorry, didn't mean to. :-/ Leaving thread now...
 

GreatLemur said:
His point was that PDFs are more professional than JPEGs, not HTML. I don't think he was using "professionalism" to defend the PDF practice, but to shut down the admittedly weird and unprofessional idea of posting the table of contents as an image.
Even 11 years into the mass popularity of the World Wide Web, I still run across sites that use giant images for text instead of HTML. There's one or two D20 PDF publishers that do it, in fact.

I shake my head in disbelief every time. In the era of CSS, there's no reason that even the most detail-oriented art director can't render a precisely rendered page in a faster format that plays nice with Lynx, search engine spiders and so on.
 

I have a strong preference for the PDF option, personally.

I don't really care one way or the other about the .zip thing. Probably some IT policy somewhere that says you need to zip up any files you offer on the website, whether or not they actually benefit from compression.
 

GreatLemur said:
His point was that PDFs are more professional than JPEGs, not HTML. I don't think he was using "professionalism" to defend the PDF practice, but to shut down the admittedly weird and unprofessional idea of posting the table of contents as an image.

You're probably right.

And it is weird to use image files for everything but pictures. It does have its uses, but a screenshot of the TOC is not among the sensible ones.
 

Remove ads

Top