PDF vs. HTML

Change This has set off an interesting debate about the pros and cons of publishing in PDF vs HTML.

Seth Godin, mastermind behind Change This, set off this debate with this post.

I must admit that my preference is for HTML. It's searchable, it contains links, it's fast, you don't need a plug-in. HTML is the least common denominator that everyone can agree on.

But PDFs have a few things going for them that seeems to be missing from this debate. I don't think its really about PDF vs. HTML. It's when is HTML best and when is PDF best?

In late 1992, I met a guy named Isaak Karaev who was planning to change the way Wall Street Research was distributed. He showed me Adobe Acrobat and laid out his plan to get the Wall Street banks to publish their research in PDF and distribute it electronically via a system Isaak was building. I was blown away. The idea seemed so powerful and the technology seemed so revolutionary. I invested in Isaak's idea which became Multex which became a publicly traded company in 1999 and was sold last year to Reuters for $250 million.

Isaak did change the way research was distributed and in the process he built the first commercial application of PDFs. What's most interesting about this is that Wall Street Research is still published in PDFs. HTML-based research is not that common. And why is that given that we all seem to think that HTML is better than PDF?

Well, for one PDF gives the banks and their analysts much better control over the look and feel of their research. They want to report to look on the screen the way it looks on paper. Another reason is that PDF does a much better job of rendering the complex excel models and tables that these reports contain. A third reason is that its easier to save and email a PDF to your colleague than it is a HTML page.

My point? PDF has a role in online publishing. It's not the format of choice form most content, but for certain kinds of content, its is a better solution. Wall Street research is one good example.

For Change This manifestos? I think they should publish them both ways and see what people prefer. How's that for a suggestion?

Comments

[Jackson]

I like PDF. HTML has an extra letter in it, it doesn't roll off the tongue as well.

[Rauno]

Don't like PDFs unless there's no better alternative to accomplish what you're trying to do. Seth's "...OF COURSE it matters what it looks like..." doesn't convince me.

But, I am a little intrigued by the idea that ChangeThis is experimenting with a way to distinguish itself from being "just another website" or "just another blog." An interesting experiment because they're asking to be embraced by bloggers while at the same time saying "we're not part of you."

Your suggestion to offer both PDF and HTML would definitely be a more diplomatic way of embracing and holding themselves apart. And, if they did it that way I might even help spread some of their ideas instead of just sitting back to see if I ever hear about ChangeThis again.

[Chevsky]

PDFs are useful, but not for publishing online. It's clumsy and proprietary. Also, with the future incarnation of HTML (think XHTML 2) and technologies like XSLT and SVG, the *need* for pdfs will dwindle. Simply put, pdfs require too much overhead. However, they'll probably linger like the damn fax machine....

[brian]

" It's searchable, it contains links, it's fast, you don't need a plug-in. HTML is the least common denominator that everyone can agree on."

Here on my trusty MacOS X desktop, I routinely use the Preview app to view PDFs. It's very fast, and documents are searchable; if there are links, they're clickable. Works great. Even better than pesky plugins which were always problematic. And way nicer than Acrobat, believe it or not. Simple, fast, elegant, does the job.

[Beef Jezos]

If you make your living by writing, PDF is a godsend.

[Jonathan Rochelle]

I think there's a new wave hitting wall street research... Interactive Quantitative Models. You could say Excel has offered that for years - but not really. there's not one analyst I know that doesn't use proprietary analytics (function libraries) or that wants his/her intellectual property sent out in .xls form to the buy side (which could mean it goes to the sell side competition). BUT - the traditional alternative is IT development... 3 months for an interactive model on the web is just unacceptable - particularly when the analyst has a backlog of 10 models he/she wants to share... SO... How does the analyst take their super-brilliant Excel Model and get it to the web, safely, in interactive form, with usage tracking, wysiwyg formatting, and usage of internal analytics and data behind the firewall? XL2Web is the answer. It's incredible and almost an unbelievable "holy grail" (as one buy-side client recently told us). It's easy to check out on the website (www.xl2web.com).

[Sid Steward]

I also believe it is best to let readers choose between PDF or HTML. Authoring systems are sophisticated enough for this 'third option,' also.

For example, LJBook is an online system that turns LiveJournal blogs into print-quality PDFs:

http://ljbook.com/

For folks who want to convert online PDF into online HTML, try my PDF conversion feature at LookLeap:

http://lookleap.com/site/publisher

[pdf to html]

to convert pdf to html you can use PDF Export Kit