Can Designers Learn to Love PDF?

Adobe Acrobat and the PDF file format were created to benefit designers. But today many creative professionals view PDF as a necessary evil rather than the godsend it was intended to be. Can this relationship be saved?
Written by Pamela Pfiffner on January 9, 2003

Related Reading

Most designers have a love-hate relationship with Adobe Acrobat and PDF. They know they have to use it but often they see it as a threat to their livelihoods. That's certainly the feedback Eric J. Adams's column, "Profit from PDF?" drew a few months back.

The general perception is that PDF cuts designers out of the process. If an untrained administrative assistant can create a document in Microsoft Word and then save it as a PDF, what role does a designer have in this workflow? As one respondent to Adams's column wrote: "Acrobat Reader users don't need any special skills and that is what is so appealing about .pdf files. Unfortunately this type of consumer-based software lowers the bar on design and production, quality and professionalism."

But the irony is that Acrobat was created to give designers more control over their documents. The main idea behind Acrobat was to preserve context -- the visual presentation of documents -- as well as content. The alternatives at the time -- .txt or .html files -- strip the page layout of non-generic fonts and images in order to ensure compatibility with the receiving application. PDF files, on the other hand, retained the designer's intended formatting.

In other words, in a world that increasingly emphasized distribution over design, PDF was to be the designer's friend. And over the years Adobe continued to add features that addressed designers' concerns, such as Pantone spot-color support. Clearly its creators saw Acrobat as a necessary part of the designer's toolbox.

So how did this animosity come to be? And more importantly, what can be done about it?

Corporate Mission
For years Acrobat was a product in search of an audience. When it was introduced 10 years ago, no one but Adobe co-founder John Warnock really recognized its potential. In the early '90s, designers were still getting used to the idea that you could accomplish with Photoshop on a personal computer what was formerly only possible with $50,000 workstations and proprietary software. At the dawn of the Internet age few designers cared about virtual publishing via the bit-stream. So Adobe began pushing Acrobat as a corporate tool, a magic portal into the mythical land of the paperless office. That approach gradually struck home, and Acrobat has been comfortably ensconced in corporate America ever since.

As a result designers were skeptical about the impact of PDF on their livelihoods -- after all it was just a shell that contained basic corporate communications. But as new publishing features were added, and as Acrobat Reader became a de facto standard for reading now-ubiquitous PDF files, designers wised up. PDF wasn't going away and indeed clients requested it as a deliverable.

Today designers realize they need to have rudimentary Acrobat skills -- at a minimum, distilling a file for review and output -- but I don't know that many who tap into its full potential as a necessary piece of the design arsenal. "Designers think of Acrobat as nothing more than StuffIt Deluxe for their files," concurs David Zwang, a publishing-industry consultant who specializes in PDF-based workflows. "Adobe hasn't done a great job of educating designers about what PDF can do for them."

Niche Market
In its push to market PDF as the solution for document creation and distribution in the enterprise, Adobe has tended to overlook the design community as a customer of its Acrobat products. These days, believe it or not, design and publishing is a niche market -- a very large and lucrative one, but a niche nonetheless. Sales of software to designers slow as the creative-professional market matures. Today it's not Photoshop that drives Adobe's bottom line, but Acrobat. More specifically, it's Acrobat running under Windows in large corporations and government agencies. Mac-loving, upgrade-buying creative professionals do not represent a significant slice of Adobe's revenue pie chart.

But creative professionals are an important part of Adobe's customer base. If Acrobat and PDF represent Adobe's future, then the company needs to do more to bring creative professionals along. Today's Illustrator user is tomorrow's Acrobat customer, after all. PDF needs to be viewed not as the enemy of creative work but a facilitator. Creative professionals praise Adobe at length for its integrated product strategy -- the cohesive look and feel, software interoperability, and so on -- but PDF is the lynchpin that holds the products together. Adobe needs to better communicate this to a design community that often feels at odds with Acrobat's corporate imperative.

It's pretty straightforward: Whether you produce pages in InDesign, sketch drawings in Illustrator, edit images in Photoshop, or design Web pages in GoLive, you can save your work as a PDF. Better yet, you can add hyperlinks, collaborate on documents with colleagues, add security features that prevent others from stealing your work, and much more. Maybe you can't design a page in Acrobat, but you can make sure the page you do design isn't messed with. That, to me, is really cool and very important. So why isn't that message drummed into designers' heads?

Make It Clear
I think Adobe needs to tweak its marketing strategy so that designers better understand the role PDF plays. For the past few years "network publishing" has been Adobe's mantra. The idea of a publishing utopia in which richly formatted documents are communicated anytime and anywhere is compelling, but it hasn't caught fire. And in today's economic climate, designing video for cell phones doesn't seem as urgent a task as simply keeping your head above water. Even though PDF is at the heart of network publishing, it gets lost in the mix.

I suggest a slight shift of messaging. Instead of focusing on the process, focus on the technology. The Adobe brand needs to be synonymous with PDF. Simply put: Adobe is the PDF company.

There is a precedent for this kind of messaging. In its early years, Adobe's mission was clearly defined: sell PostScript. Everything the company did -- from printers to fonts to applications -- was in the service of PostScript. That one technology provided a unifying principle for Adobe, even as it began to embrace new markets like digital imaging and desktop video (where PostScript played a minimal role, but somehow it all made sense). Such single-mindedness allowed Adobe to sell PostScript controllers to Hewlett-Packard and thus gain entry to corporate America, as well as to develop RIPs for Linotype who sold imagesetters to the print shops that served creative professionals. PostScript spanned a broad customer base. The message was that the technology is big enough to support many types of users.

That's true of Acrobat, too. In fact, PDF is derived from PostScript, so it makes perfect sense to draw on that rich heritage to sell the future. The message is ultimately the same: Whether you create corporate forms or design four-color magazines, Adobe Acrobat and PDF help you do your job better. Now that's something creative professionals can relate to.

Read more by Pamela Pfiffner.

1

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

2

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.

3

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.

4

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.

5

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!

6

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

7

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.

Post a Comment

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p> <div> <br> <center> <img> <h2>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Use <!--pagebreak--> to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Copy the characters (respecting upper/lower case) from the image.