Portrait v Landscape?

[Teramis]

So, I've noticed for ages that all pdfs publish with a portrait layout for printing (naturally). But, I haven't yet seen an rpg product that has a landscape display layout option for eas(ier) on-screen viewing for the computer-based reader. (May be out there, I just haven't come across it yet, personally.) Yet d20zine and some other online pubs do the landscape display right out of the box specifically because it's easier for the screen-only/(or mainly) reader to peruse, and they (in contrast to game publishers) expect their product will be viewed/used mainly or only on the screen.

My question is: do you think readers would be happier campers (re "value added") to have the landscape display option in their dl'd pdf? Or perhaps not 'option' but even as primary layout display?

Bonus question: If "yes" to the above, why aren't pdf publishers doing this routinely? Would that be just because it's a PITA to do all the various different layouts? - portrait/onscreen/color, portrait/printable/b&w, and then landscape/ onscreen/color on top of all that?? Is that's wassup with that?

(It may be this has been hashed to death in these forums in the past, in which case I apologize; my searches have not uncovered those threads, hence the questions...)

curiously,
-Teramis

www.storybones.net

 

[Flyspeck23]

There are landscape PDFs out there. And a few products feature two versions.

While everybody (more or less) would be happy if a product included a print and an on-screen version, most publisher consider the additional effort not worth it - it doesn't seem to affect sales that much.

So if some day the customers went looking for such dual-versions...
... but that will likely take some time. The ePublishing market is pretty young, after all. Plenty of room for improvement

 

[Warden]

We went with landscape-only for Mazes as we felt that it was a GM-heavy tool and might not require as much detail on the table but we would definitely offer a portrait/print version if the demand was there. Our first Adventure Settings book, Labyrinth of Oversoul, is planned for both version as it could be necessary to have a print version accessible at the table -- mini-campaign settings have a lot of information for a GM to look up on the fly.

I've heard quite a few comments that it is too bothersome to print out many PDFs and this could be one of the reasons in which consumers do not turn to our products first, if at all. Those who use a laptop or have the computer in the gaming room are more inclined to use a PDF sourcebook or adventure because it actually saves them space on the table -- they can use two or three PDFs at the same time and only use the space that the computer takes up.

If demand specifically came up for one format or another or both, all e-publishers would jump to have those demands filled. As Flyspeck said, this is a very young market and is still in the larvae phase (if I may use that term). The more input that we hear from our customers, particularly those who do not buy PDFs, the more we can offer to change their minds.

 

[Vanuslux]

I am an avid fan of the e-book, but I personally will not purchase a PDF that does not offer portrait layout. I despise landscape since I print any PDF that I actually plan to get any use out of.

 

[philreed]

Bonus question: If "yes" to the above, why aren't pdf publishers doing this routinely? Would that be just because it's a PITA to do all the various different layouts? - portrait/onscreen/color, portrait/printable/b&w, and then landscape/ onscreen/color on top of all that?? Is that's wassup with that?

Look at any PDF in the "101" series.

 

[jmucchiello]

Would that be just because it's a PITA to do all the various different layouts? - portrait/onscreen/color, portrait/printable/b&w, and then landscape/ onscreen/color on top of all that?? Is that's wassup with that?

That's my reason and wassup is it takes time to layout a book. It takes twice as long to layout a book twice. The portrait and landscape version of the same text can be very different.

Also once you start have combinations of styles there is always someone else who wants more combinations:

Portrait, print-res graphics
Portrait, screen-res graphics
Portrait, no graphics, minimum page length
Landscape, print-res graphics
Landscape, screen-res graphics
Landscape, no graphics, minimum page length

Minimum page length means you don't just blank out graphics, you reflow the text without them.

Quite frankly, if you really feel that flow up and down a two-column portrait page is a serious inconvenience, you are a picky person.

And finally, yes there are several landscape PDFs. I don't think sales of those PDFs is significantly different that sales of PDFs without a landscape option.

 

[ichabod]

If I get around to putting out a pdf, I'd look at doing it landscape two page. That way you could print it out and fold it in half for a small booklet. You would still need two versions, but all that would be involved in making the print version is switching pages around. I'd have to try it out to see how practical it would be, though.

 

[jmucchiello]

If I get around to putting out a pdf, I'd look at doing it landscape two page. That way you could print it out and fold it in half for a small booklet. You would still need two versions, but all that would be involved in making the print version is switching pages around. I'd have to try it out to see how practical it would be, though.

In acrobat, not very. To print a folded booklet you need to print the pages out of order if you want to be able to staple the center folds. I do this in Word because on its print dialog it has a line to list what pages to print. So you can say: 32, 1, 30, 3, 28, 5, ... and then flip the pages and say: 2, 31, 4, 29, 6, 27, ... and the result is 16 pages you can fold into a booklet. Acrobat only offers the whole document, the current page and a page range in its print dialog.

Of course, you might do the layout is half pages and then print it to acrobat in the printable order. But I guarentee you will get many confused customers who find it hard to read the book in that order.

 

[DaveStebbins]

I do this in Word because on its print dialog it has a line to list what pages to print. So you can say: 32, 1, 30, 3, 28, 5, ... and then flip the pages and say: 2, 31, 4, 29, 6, 27, ... and the result is 16 pages you can fold into a booklet.

Apologies in advance for the hijack and rant, but for all of Microsoft's wonderful programming, no two of their programs seem to print the same way. Word works wonderfully, as above, Excel does only page ranges and Outlook doesn't offer any options except print all.

That's the real source of this mini-rant. At work I often find e-mail threads that get involved and go on forever, but I can't print just the first couple of pages. If the thread also indents for each reply (which is apparently dependent upon settings of the originator, or maybe the first to reply), after five or six replies, it's using only the right-hand quarter or less of the page which further inflates page length. It's just annoying that they do this basic function so well in one program and so crappily in another.

For the record, I like having a landscape view on a PDF, but the lack of one won't prevent me from purchasing something I want. I also tend to print two-up duplex to get four (portrait) pages per (landscape) sheet of paper. I don't mind reading booklets this way at all and I feel better for conserving paper.

Sorry again for the mini-rant.
-Dave

 

[annadobritt]

I've done two products in landscape format, The Town of Umberham and the 3.5 Monsters SRD pdf. The rest of my products are in portrait format (which is usually the way I like to have a pdf, since I print them out and place them in a binder.)

It is a pain to do both formats for a product, but I might look into doing both formats for future products.