RE: report: iOS9 adds "print to PDF"

They should have done save to EPUB3 as it is packaged. As you point out,
PDF is not the best format for mobile. Also IBook author can import EPUB3.
From an accessibility perspective it is more than just tagged PDF that is
important. It is also access to digital math to allow for alternative
renderings for blind, low vision, attention deficit, situational
impairments, and dyslexic users.

Print fidelity is nice but, today, it is about supporting a broader range
of users and also due to the uptake of mobile devices in education
inclusive access is much more important.


Rich Schwerdtfeger



From: Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>
To: Peter Krautzberger <peter.krautzberger@mathjax.org>, Larry
            Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>, W3C Digital Publishing IG
            <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: 07/01/2015 12:13 PM
Subject: RE: report: iOS9 adds "print to PDF"



Two comments:

Yes, it's the structure that's the main issue—and the structure expressed
in a standard way (i.e., HTML5). That's also fundamentally important for
accessibility. So "Save as HTML + CSS" is way better than an alternative
"save as X" imo, unless the "X" is EPUB 3, which would be optimal.

The other point is that unless I'm not up-to-date on this (and I may not
be), I would be cautious about Apple's iBooks Author format because at
least wrt the use of Author itself, I believe there are restrictions on how
those files can be distributed and sold (e.g., limited to iBooks). I would
love to be informed that that's no longer the case.

--Bill K

From: Peter Krautzberger [mailto:peter.krautzberger@mathjax.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 2:59 AM
To: Larry Masinter; W3C Digital Publishing IG
Cc: Ivan Herman
Subject: Re: report: iOS9 adds "print to PDF"

> Serious question: if it was “Save as HTML + CSS” or “save as X” for
> any other X, would you be less sad, and why?

Top of my list would be epub3,  but Apple's iBooks Author format would make
sense.

Given the quality of the website-to-epub generators I've encountered, that
seems like a much harder problem. But even a non-optimal solution might
provide a better experience than a page-sized PDF on small screen. In
combination with something like readability/pocket/etc or "save selection",
the content could even shine.

> What data would you have in other formats that you don’t have for PDF?

I suppose that comes down to the quality of the files, i.e., whether they
are "plain old" PDFs (glyphs on a canvas) or pdf/a or even using
Flash/JS/etc to represent more complex content. Assuming it's just glyphs
with positions, then it seems to me almost all markup is lost whereas
HTML/CSS-based formats like epub and iBA can retain parts of the original
structure.

Don't get me wrong, I understand why one would ship a PDF generator (i.e.,
for all the usual reasons); but it doesn't stop me from wondering if
whoever decided that this is a good feature for mobile devices also
thought: "but really, we need a better way".

Peter.



On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
wrote:
Serious question: if it was “Save as HTML + CSS” or “save as X” for
any other X, would you be less sad, and why?

What data would you have in other formats that you don’t have for PDF?

Seriously. It’s really hard to get down to requirements.


On 6/27/15, 8:48 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

Me too...

Ivan

---
Ivan Herman
Tel:+31 641044153
http://www.ivan-herman.net


(Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...)



On 27 Jun 2015, at 16:15, Peter Krautzberger <
peter.krautzberger@mathjax.org> wrote:
      Just something I came across,
      https://twitter.com/fakebaldur/status/614794685559742464


      Quote: "It’s particularly useful for webpages, since it keeps all the
      text, and makes it searchable and copyable unlike, say, taking a
      screenshot."

      I admit this makes me somewhat sad :-(
      Peter.