Guy's chill. The mag is pdf what format (portrait or landscape) will be decided later on. At the moment I'm just getting the hang of Scribus. And yes A4 as I live in the UK and I'm the guy doing the work on it so I'm doing to my setup it's easier for me. It can always have a letter format for those on the other side of the pond like Fullcicle does if some one wants to create that format. The merits of PDF or HTML are niether here not there I just like the idea of producing a mag for OpenOffice.
On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 16:40 +0200, Frank Peters wrote: > marbux wrote: > > On 9/25/07, Jean Hollis Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I read PDF magazines onscreen when I can (eg Linux Journal > >> Digital), and only print out a few pages to keep for reference. > >> Landscape orientation means a PDF works very well for both > >> purposes, but portrait works well only for printouts especially > >> if the design is 2-column (otherwise I have to scroll vertically > >> a lot, both up and down). > >> > >> +1 on the vertical scrolling problem with mutli-column PDFs. I have to > > read a lot of them (e.g., official government journals, scientific journals, > > etc.) and the constant scrolling is a PITA. Particularly when they are set > > in small type that forces you to enlarge the type size to read, which also > > forces you to scroll left and right to switch columns. Landscape mode with > > 20 point type and appropriate margins and column gutters keeps the entire > > page on one screen with text at an easily legible size. Readers can > > concentrate on content rather than navigation. > > > > The problem is that portrait mode is a poor match for the proportional > > dimensions of a computer monitor. Landscape mode with a normal paper size > > comes close enough that margins can be adjusted to compensate for the rest. > > > > On reasons for using PDF rather than HTML +, here are a few: > > > -- Variations in the ways that browsers render web pages are eliminated so > > the need for a whole bunch of testing in different browsers is eliminated; > > -- Allows use of complex formatting without testing in various browsers; > > -- Allows use of software designed for high-quality desktop publishing > > rather than for web publishing; > > I don't want to get into an argument about the pros and cons of > PDF publishing on the web but you're publishing to the web, not to the > desktop. The web is a more flexible publishing medium with many > possible user setups regarding orientation, screen size, color depth, > etc. Not to mention accessibility problems with PDFs (unless you're > using tagged PDF). > > > -- Fonts can be embedded so readers get the document designer's intended > > graphical effect; > > -- Web and dead-tree publishing can use the same document without > > reformatting; > > But they *need* reformatting because one format cannot satisfy all channels: > Web on computer screens, printouts, screen readers, small devices. > > You're (well not literally you :-) using landscape PDF to the advantage > of screen display but to the disadvantage of printout. You even fix > the paper size (A4 in Europe, letter in the US) that often causes > problems on printout. You're using a fixed width and layout that may > force people with small screen resolutions to scroll the document or scale it > down, but to the advantage of an aesthetic printout. > > A see the beauty of completely controlling all visual aspects of > a publication but the internet is just not the best medium for that as > long as there are browsers that don't adhere to standards. > > Frank > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
