PDF is not an eBook format

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

The problem is that PDF is not an easily understood or read format for anyone with a portable device. The small screens on portable devices make reflowable documents a must, and PDF does not reflow well if at all.

You should amend that to say "when non-Adobe PDF readers are used." I believe every Adobe-branded PDF reader will reflow on the device it's designed for, just as the Adobe reader SW reflows fine on my iPaq. It's primarily the non-Adobe PDF readers that don't reflow.

[ProfJulie]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

The problem is that PDF is not an easily understood or read format for anyone with a portable device. The small screens on portable devices make reflowable documents a must, and PDF does not reflow well if at all.

Old articles and other documents that are really nothing more than scanned images that are in PDF format don't reflow at all and are not suitable for a pocket pc. Technical books that include a lot of pictures, diagrams and tables don't translate well to a small screen, but I imagine that would be the case no matter what format it might be in unless there was some custom code in the background to handle such things (I created a PDF and Mobipocket book that included quite a few pictures and used custom coding in both formats to handle the pictures).

But every book I've read so far on my Pocket PC reflows to fit the screen just fine and I've had a very positive experience reading PDF books on my Pocket PC.

[ProfJulie]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

You should amend that to say "when non-Adobe PDF readers are used." I believe every Adobe-branded PDF reader will reflow on the device it's designed for, just as the Adobe reader SW reflows fine on my iPaq. It's primarily the non-Adobe PDF readers that don't reflow.

True, so true! I see people extol the virtues of alternative PDF readers on Pocket PCs all the time and criticize the Adobe Reader for Pocket PC version as being bloated. In the end though, the Adobe Reader for Pocket PC is the only one that handles tagged documents and reflows them beautifully to fit the small screen. (I've looked at most all the Pocket PC PDF readers out there at one time or another).

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

The problem is that PDF is not an easily understood or read format for anyone with a portable device. The small screens on portable devices make reflowable documents a must, and PDF does not reflow well if at all.

I recall in the early days that Adobe marketed PDFs as "digital paper". And, rightly enough, that's exactly what PDFs are.

They are an output format that is as excellent or as terrible as the document creator made it, and is not easily changeable after (excepting ways that are the digital equivalent of scribbling in pencil or pen on a printed sheet).

Clearly the vast majority of publishers do not know or do not consider users of eBook reading devices to be a significant target audience. Whatever the reason, this cannot last as such devices become more popular. And as they do, the quality of PDF documents will no doubt increase greatly.

Typesetting a book is a task that even today remains too complex for a machine to do, without some human/manual help. Even LaTeX requires a human eye and human judgment on how to resolve imperfections in the best typesetting it could come up with given its internal restrictions for a given paper size and font size.

Consequently it is pretty much guaranteed that the best quality HTML or other resizeable/free-flowing realtime-typeset formats simply cannot exceed in quality the best quality PDF that a half-way competent typesetter can produce.

If eBook reading devices are ever to fully replace dead-tree books (or, at least, newly published ones), I think it could only happen via PDF or a PDF-like format for eBooks. After all, while automated impromptu-typesetting and reflowing of a typographically mundane novel may be difficult to distinguish from a properly prepared book or PDF for the untrained eye; anything typographically complex (e.g.: textbooks or newspapers) cannot simply be left to reflow as per the whims of the display device, because the quality will simply plummet. Oh, and resizeability could be addressed either the way it is with dead-tree books (i.e.: Do you buy the regular or the large-print edition?) or by means of PDFs that contain pre-defined typesetting/layouts for the same text at 2-3 specific font-sizes.

I realize that my opinions on this subject are rather on the opposite end of the spectrum from many others on this board. The gist of my view is basically that I didn't pay $300+ for an eBook reader device to start reading books that look like they were typeset in Microsoft Office. And upon (admittedly short, but more than just cursory) inspection, I do not see any of the non-PDF formats being capable of truly professional typographic presentation today or (for reasons stated and bolded above) ever.

In other words, while I recognize that an unnecessarily poor quality PDF is damn near unfixable in comparison to a necessarily limited quality Mobipocket or ePub. My preference would be for professional quality eBooks in the only format that can support them, not better handling of formats that by their very nature can never be made to produce truly professional output for all or even most content.

And, for those that think I am talking nonsense, PDF documents professionally created with LaTeX can produce proper justification via hyphenation (which regularly requires supplementation of the existing hyphenation rules), inter-letter and inter-word spacing (with paragraphs being treated as a unit, and variations being tried as to where line-breaks are inserted), and even minute and visually almost impossible to detect widening or thinning of individual characters (called microtypography in LaTeX terms). Using all these tricks, on a regular basis there still is no typographically correct way for the computer to automatically typeset the occasional paragraph to aesthetically pleasing justification... until the typesetter makes the judgment call and decides what to let the software slack off on in order to make said paragraph as close to perfect as possible. This sort of work-flow from text to typeset content is simply impossible on a device that cannot consult a human being when it "runs out of ideas". And with all of the above we are not even talking about widows, orphans, near-widows/near-orphans, pagination, ligatures, hanging bullets, and other even more subtle aesthetics that good typesetting ought to take into consideration.

Call me a crazy lunatic of a dreamer... but I think the golden age of eBook readers will start the day PDFs are recognized as the ideal eBook format by the publishers. (As opposed to simply the easiest one to shove out the door, with little concern as to whether or not anyone will be able to read it properly.)

[rogue_ronin]

PDFs might work, as in ahi's dream above, when ebook reader screen-sizes and abilities become standardized and accepted by publishers.

ie: 5", 6", 8", 10.7", Letter, A4, A5. But they're not settled yet, nor the type of screen, LCD vs eInk, vs the new color LCDs coming out soon. It's gonna take a while to settle into defacto standards. Once the standards evolve, even new technology will likely take them into account wherever possible.

Then you'll just pick the one you want, and read. Of course, the publishers will try to make you buy it again if you move to a new device.

I still prefer figuring out how to make cleverer reflowable documents, myself. PDFs suck for extracting and quoting content, and moving from device to device.

I think ahi is talking about the experience of reading, though, and he's right about PDF's presentational superiorities.

m a r

[thibaulthalpern]

I do think the PDF is an eBook format. :-)

Why necessarily confine the definition of eBook format to one that allows changes in layout etc. etc. I personally don't want to have control over font typeface when reading. I want the publisher to think of the digital format as a rhetorical device which means it is a tool that communicates and persuades. I'm not using PDFs as a word processor. I don't want to fiddle around with margins, layout, paragraphs, glyphs and so forth.

My entire digital book library is in PDF format. I don't like any of the other file formats.

[thibaulthalpern]

[rien]

[JSWolf]

We don't need PDF. What we need is a well done ePub display. If we had kerning, & hyphenation, we'd be fine. That is all we need to be able to tell PDF to go take a flying leap.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by thibaulthalpern

I do think the PDF is an eBook format. :-)

Why necessarily confine the definition of eBook format to one that allows changes in layout etc. etc. I personally don't want to have control over font typeface when reading. I want the publisher to think of the digital format as a rhetorical device which means it is a tool that communicates and persuades. I'm not using PDFs as a word processor. I don't want to fiddle around with margins, layout, paragraphs, glyphs and so forth.

My entire digital book library is in PDF format. I don't like any of the other file formats.

Originally Posted by ahi

... The gist of my view is basically that I didn't pay $300+ for an eBook reader device to start reading books that look like they were typeset in Microsoft Office. ... I think the golden age of eBook readers will start the day PDFs are recognized as the ideal eBook format by the publishers. (As opposed to simply the easiest one to shove out the door, with little concern as to whether or not anyone will be able to read it properly.)

And I wholeheartedly agree with both.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Sonist

And I wholeheartedly agree with both.

It's not enough for PDF to be recognized by the publishers, but also by the readers. Right now a large proportion of the e-book buying public refuse to buy PDFs. As long as this holds true it does not matter if the publishers love PDF.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

... Right now a large proportion of the e-book buying public refuse to buy PDFs. As long as this holds true it does not matter if the publishers love PDF.

Heh, PC geeks kicked and screamed against GUI at first, and extolled the virtues of DOS. This is where e-books and e-readers are today.

I purchase mobi/azw, too, instead of PDFs. For now. Even though mobi looks like I am reading someone's manuscript, or a Word document, rather than a book.

I purchase mobi, not because I like it, but because PDF support on my Kindle 2 is non-existent. And because I can use the dictionary and search functions with it.

But, the first large-screen device with good PDF support will get my money. I like reading hardcovers, and I like to read well-designed publications.

IMO, it is the current hardware limitations, and lack of decent PDF implementation, which stalls PDF purchases.

The moment these are removed, this may well change. PDF is a well recognized format by most consumers, and as far as I can tell, it is more robust than any of the competition. Plus, when color comes in, PDF will still allow you to read magazines, the way they are intended to be read.

So, give me a larger screen, and Search and Dictionary ability, and PDF is the only format I would buy, provided I can strip the DRM. And the new mobile SDK does do reflow, for those who like to read microeditions.

[thibaulthalpern]

Originally Posted by ahi

I recall in the early days that Adobe marketed PDFs as "digital paper". And, rightly enough, that's exactly what PDFs are. [...]

Typesetting a book is a task that even today remains too complex for a machine to do, without some human/manual help. Even LaTeX requires a human eye and human judgment on how to resolve imperfections in the best typesetting it could come up with given its internal restrictions for a given paper size and font size. [...]

I agree with you 100%.

[...] I realize that my opinions on this subject are rather on the opposite end of the spectrum from many others on this board. The gist of my view is basically that I didn't pay $300+ for an eBook reader device to start reading books that look like they were typeset in Microsoft Office. And upon (admittedly short, but more than just cursory) inspection, I do not see any of the non-PDF formats being capable of truly professional typographic presentation today or (for reasons stated and bolded above) ever.

In other words, while I recognize that an unnecessarily poor quality PDF is damn near unfixable in comparison to a necessarily limited quality Mobipocket or ePub. My preference would be for professional quality eBooks in the only format that can support them, not better handling of formats that by their very nature can never be made to produce truly professional output for all or even most content.

Again, I agree with you 100%! This is exactly why I prefer the PDF format (if they remain faithful to the the book design or the intended design). And this is why all of my digital books are in PDF formats which remain faithful, to the original printed book.

I agree with everything you've said thus far about why PDF or PDF-like format is ideal. All the other formats are totally unappealing to me including the ability for the end-user to substitute one font for the other. In another thread, I said that that ability is akin to saying a seven-year old who consider her or himself an expert in finger painting to be now an expert in making paintings like Van Gogh. Fact of the matter is that most end-users are not experts in typesetting and book design. In fact, even though I have done some book design, layout and a bit of typesetting, I will still claim to be fairly ignorant about the art even though many people who have seen what I have designed consider what I've done beautiful when I consider it fairly amateurish. And that's because they don't know much about design!

I also want to compliment you on your very well-spoken post. It's much better written and argued than what I've written on the topic.

[thibaulthalpern]

Originally Posted by ahi

Call me a crazy lunatic of a dreamer... but I think the golden age of eBook readers will start the day PDFs are recognized as the ideal eBook format by the publishers. (As opposed to simply the easiest one to shove out the door, with little concern as to whether or not anyone will be able to read it properly.)

I mostly read academic books and journals. In my experience, academic publishers stick to PDF formats for their digital books. They may have other formats, but usually there is a PDF format or if there is only one format, it is in PDF.

I don't know what non-academic publishers do but I think the academic publishers like Routledge, University of California Press, Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press are heading in the right way. If you want digital format, go to PDF.

[thibaulthalpern]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

It's not enough for PDF to be recognized by the publishers, but also by the readers. Right now a large proportion of the e-book buying public refuse to buy PDFs. As long as this holds true it does not matter if the publishers love PDF.

That's if we stick to the realm of an economic model of consumers demand and therefore the producers produce. Ah, but decades of economic theory have come to bare that such a simplistic (neoliberal?) model doesn't work at all.

As far as I know and have experienced, the University of California Press offers their digital books in PDF format only. Other university and academic presses seem to do the same including Routledge and Cambridge University Press. All of these are major university presses.

[kovidgoyal]

This whole set of pro-PDF responses seem to be neglecting a very fundamental fact. Paper based information is meant for comsumption by humans. Digital information is meant (primarily) for consumption by computers. Sure humans read ebooks, but computers read them a lot more.

Given that, a format that maximizes ease of use for computers is the format of the future. Advanced typography (which is a way to make things more readable for humans, at the expense of readability for computers) will fall by the roadside.

Readability for computers means representing content independently of markup in a semantic fashion. PDF is absolutely (and understandably) miserable at that. So bye-bye PDF and bye-bye advanced typography.