As an attorney I often have to "design" a brief with text, drawings, and confidential, signed documents that are hard to alter when security is set. I'm just finding out how good Adobe Acrobat 5 can be! Suzanne MacTaggart, Attorney
Submitted by Siouxzanne on Sat, 01/18/2003 - 09:00.
I have used the PDF for years as a designer. I love the feel of showing my work to clients or art directors in an electronic format. This allows them to view it, even make notes within the document itself and send it back, all over the internet while still protecting my product. But this is just the basic function of Acrobat.
In times past, a document that would be viewed exclusively on screen would be in a "text only" format. Now, it is possible to create this type of document in the same way that a print document would be created, with all the style and color and preserve it in a PDF format. Then add the interactivity that does not come with the printed page and you have a truly futuristic document.
The PDF is also the only format that allows a prepress technician or printer (if they are set up for it) to simply view the document and hit "print", without having to own and run the same design products and versions as me.
I'm a Mac OSX user and I just purchased the full version of Acrobat v5 for the first time. I've never been so dissappointed in a software purchase that cost so much!! I have YET to find out what it brings to the table that Mac OSX doesn't provide built in! I wanted to convert MS Word X documents into PDF with a click...no-can-do!
I use Acrobat at my work on a PC (Win2k) machine and there are still some limitations that Adobe hasn't figured out yet...like simple one-click batch processing. Given 25 Word documents how do you convert them all to PDF with minimal effort. I had to open each and convert individually..what a pain!
Adobe needs to simply the operation of basic conversions...Give equal capability to Mac OSX users...don't charge for something already in the OS or rarely used.
Acrobat would be used by more designers if Adobe could fix the disjointed, inconsistent and often unintuitive interface. Also, some more attention to the Mac platform would be appreciated, since not all designers use PCs. Acrobat under Mac OS X is a real half-hearted affair: literally, only half of it works.
For the past 14 years I have been doing Mac design work for several major corporations (about 75) all of which are on PCs. In the beginning Acrobat was a Godsend until it started being abused and further misunderstood by CLIENTS. They demand everything in PDF which requires one more set of renditions to track and maintain on my hard drives and if they are security protected they claim you saved them wrong. They really just want the designer to do the "hard part" (requiring only a small fee) and then take it from there on their own manipulating the files until they usually look terrible. Then they try to send them to some budget-printer and I end up on the phone for hours trying to get things to print (as an expected favor). I have also been flooded with client emails requesting PDF revisions to where I can't get any creative work done. They also think that once a file is in PDF the work is done and for me it is just the beginning. Bottom line is what should have been a time-saver is now a time-taker. Five years ago I never had to submit 20 versions of a file before it went to print. PDF has empowered the client with the ability to request 5 or 6 variations a day via email where before it was 1 or 2 total per job. The problem stems not so much from PDF as it does the thrill the clients get from sending an email and having a new picture pop up on their screen to order maybe an hour later. The bigger problem is at invoicing time they view the work by project not by the number of revisions they make. It also gives them the ability to resend every design step to 15 other collegues for their input which can never agree. Bottom line is virtually every project I undertake today takes 3-5 times more effort on my part than 5 years ago and the final result is a horrible composite of what everyone in the world thought it should be and they want the total charges to remain the same. This has also become a great way for corporate employees to look busy all day to justify their existence, but what their superiors don't realize is all that interaction is causing the design bill to skyrocket and they usually get inferior results. In other words PDF had turned me from a Designer into a Re-designer and File-fixer.
I won't even get in to the problems regarding color issues. They simply cannot understand why PDF colors for their in-house PC presentations don't match the printed files and they now INSIST on making final approval from PDFs versus Matchprints. PDFs and Email have in their minds allowed them to wait until the last minute as opposed to the last day to make critical changes that just cannot be properly implemented in the time allowed - they just don't get it!
You're missing something re: .txt and .html files:
I drew the comparison with .txt and .html to show what the intent behind .pdf is, so let me try again:
Prior to PDF, if you as a designer wanted let a client see a project without visiting them in person, you had few options: fax hard copy; send a .qxp file, hoping the person on the other end had XPress and all the right fonts, etc.; or sending the file in format which which could be read by a majority of applications (at the time in the '90s, it was .txt. .doc. or .html). All of these had drawbacks, and the latter formats meant that you lost your design. The recipient could _read_ it, but the design integrity was lost.
The idea behind PDF was to allow as many people as possible to see a file with all its formatting intact. And in truth, that's what PDF has done. You can distill almost any file into PDF and have your fonts and images intact. If you're a QXP user and you send a file to someone who has InDesign installed, PDF is still the most failthful way to communicate your design intent (as the conversion between QXP and ID isn't very good).
Hey, I'm not criticizing you or any designers for not liking it. I understand there is more to be done.
But it is very true that the original idea behind it was to help the design community, not alienate it, as it apparently has done. I'm merely pointing that out.
Quote:
I suggest a slight shift of messaging. Instead of focusing on the process, focus on the technology.
Quote:
So why isn't that message drummed into designers' heads?
Because this is just the opposite of good design principles. Technology is a tool.
Your own examples don't support your article .txt files are created by typists and .html files (.htm) are created for web purposes.
For professional printing purposes, .pdf files are the poor cousins of .qxd, .eps, .tif, .psd, etc. The difference is that anyone can have access to .pdf files and can change things they don't understand.
.pdf is a cheap replacement for the time, money and experience it takes to work with design software. As such, it is clearly here to stay.
I hate it because it is a completely unnecessary step that lowers the standards for everyone.
As far as Adobe being known for postscript. I agree. Postscript was a good thing, though. It brought computer production up to professional resolution levels and raised the bar on quality.
.pdf is a "good enough" kind of technology. It is used mostly as a cost-cutting tool. Trying to sell it as anything else is just wrong.
PDF files and Designing
As an attorney I often have to "design" a brief with text, drawings, and confidential, signed documents that are hard to alter when security is set. I'm just finding out how good Adobe Acrobat 5 can be! Suzanne MacTaggart, Attorney
PDF technology goes deep...
I have used the PDF for years as a designer. I love the feel of showing my work to clients or art directors in an electronic format. This allows them to view it, even make notes within the document itself and send it back, all over the internet while still protecting my product. But this is just the basic function of Acrobat.
In times past, a document that would be viewed exclusively on screen would be in a "text only" format. Now, it is possible to create this type of document in the same way that a print document would be created, with all the style and color and preserve it in a PDF format. Then add the interactivity that does not come with the printed page and you have a truly futuristic document.
The PDF is also the only format that allows a prepress technician or printer (if they are set up for it) to simply view the document and hit "print", without having to own and run the same design products and versions as me.
Beefs with Acrobat
I'm a Mac OSX user and I just purchased the full version of Acrobat v5 for the first time. I've never been so dissappointed in a software purchase that cost so much!! I have YET to find out what it brings to the table that Mac OSX doesn't provide built in! I wanted to convert MS Word X documents into PDF with a click...no-can-do!
I use Acrobat at my work on a PC (Win2k) machine and there are still some limitations that Adobe hasn't figured out yet...like simple one-click batch processing. Given 25 Word documents how do you convert them all to PDF with minimal effort. I had to open each and convert individually..what a pain!
Adobe needs to simply the operation of basic conversions...Give equal capability to Mac OSX users...don't charge for something already in the OS or rarely used.
Acrobat also needs an interface-lift
Acrobat would be used by more designers if Adobe could fix the disjointed, inconsistent and often unintuitive interface. Also, some more attention to the Mac platform would be appreciated, since not all designers use PCs. Acrobat under Mac OS X is a real half-hearted affair: literally, only half of it works.
Problem is Client Perception
For the past 14 years I have been doing Mac design work for several major corporations (about 75) all of which are on PCs. In the beginning Acrobat was a Godsend until it started being abused and further misunderstood by CLIENTS. They demand everything in PDF which requires one more set of renditions to track and maintain on my hard drives and if they are security protected they claim you saved them wrong. They really just want the designer to do the "hard part" (requiring only a small fee) and then take it from there on their own manipulating the files until they usually look terrible. Then they try to send them to some budget-printer and I end up on the phone for hours trying to get things to print (as an expected favor). I have also been flooded with client emails requesting PDF revisions to where I can't get any creative work done. They also think that once a file is in PDF the work is done and for me it is just the beginning. Bottom line is what should have been a time-saver is now a time-taker. Five years ago I never had to submit 20 versions of a file before it went to print. PDF has empowered the client with the ability to request 5 or 6 variations a day via email where before it was 1 or 2 total per job. The problem stems not so much from PDF as it does the thrill the clients get from sending an email and having a new picture pop up on their screen to order maybe an hour later. The bigger problem is at invoicing time they view the work by project not by the number of revisions they make. It also gives them the ability to resend every design step to 15 other collegues for their input which can never agree. Bottom line is virtually every project I undertake today takes 3-5 times more effort on my part than 5 years ago and the final result is a horrible composite of what everyone in the world thought it should be and they want the total charges to remain the same. This has also become a great way for corporate employees to look busy all day to justify their existence, but what their superiors don't realize is all that interaction is causing the design bill to skyrocket and they usually get inferior results. In other words PDF had turned me from a Designer into a Re-designer and File-fixer.
I won't even get in to the problems regarding color issues. They simply cannot understand why PDF colors for their in-house PC presentations don't match the printed files and they now INSIST on making final approval from PDFs versus Matchprints. PDFs and Email have in their minds allowed them to wait until the last minute as opposed to the last day to make critical changes that just cannot be properly implemented in the time allowed - they just don't get it!
You're missing one aspect.
You're missing something re: .txt and .html files:
I drew the comparison with .txt and .html to show what the intent behind .pdf is, so let me try again:
Prior to PDF, if you as a designer wanted let a client see a project without visiting them in person, you had few options: fax hard copy; send a .qxp file, hoping the person on the other end had XPress and all the right fonts, etc.; or sending the file in format which which could be read by a majority of applications (at the time in the '90s, it was .txt. .doc. or .html). All of these had drawbacks, and the latter formats meant that you lost your design. The recipient could _read_ it, but the design integrity was lost.
The idea behind PDF was to allow as many people as possible to see a file with all its formatting intact. And in truth, that's what PDF has done. You can distill almost any file into PDF and have your fonts and images intact. If you're a QXP user and you send a file to someone who has InDesign installed, PDF is still the most failthful way to communicate your design intent (as the conversion between QXP and ID isn't very good).
Hey, I'm not criticizing you or any designers for not liking it. I understand there is more to be done.
But it is very true that the original idea behind it was to help the design community, not alienate it, as it apparently has done. I'm merely pointing that out.
-- Pamela Pfiffner
Strongly Disagree
Quote:
I suggest a slight shift of messaging. Instead of focusing on the process, focus on the technology.
Quote:
So why isn't that message drummed into designers' heads?
Because this is just the opposite of good design principles. Technology is a tool.
Your own examples don't support your article .txt files are created by typists and .html files (.htm) are created for web purposes.
For professional printing purposes, .pdf files are the poor cousins of .qxd, .eps, .tif, .psd, etc. The difference is that anyone can have access to .pdf files and can change things they don't understand.
.pdf is a cheap replacement for the time, money and experience it takes to work with design software. As such, it is clearly here to stay.
I hate it because it is a completely unnecessary step that lowers the standards for everyone.
As far as Adobe being known for postscript. I agree. Postscript was a good thing, though. It brought computer production up to professional resolution levels and raised the bar on quality.
.pdf is a "good enough" kind of technology. It is used mostly as a cost-cutting tool. Trying to sell it as anything else is just wrong.