←back to thread

Paged Out #6 [pdf]

(pagedout.institute)
306 points pcfwik | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.464s | source
Show context
laacz ◴[] No.43522240[source]
I really like this. Reminds me of ezines and webzines. However, I'm tempted to ask - how to comfortably read this on a computer if you don't have a reasonably good vision? Either you have to scroll up and down to follow the content, or you see whole page at once, but need to squint to read contents.
replies(3): >>43522399 #>>43522430 #>>43528531 #
gynvael ◴[] No.43522430[source]
(PO! lead here) You are right, that's one of the unfortunate limitations of the format – having to constantly scroll the PDF. And this is on me, since ultimately I've made some decisions when establishing it which basically boxed us into this format.

I.e. thanks to using a PDF we can give authors full flexibility on how to lay out their article, which allows folks to be really really creative (as you can see in this issue). The obvious problem with that (apart from countless hours foxtrot_charlie - our DTP/PDF programmer - has to spent on fighting with PDF weirdness) is that reading an A4 PDF isn't great for phones, computers screens, or tables. It's even worse if you're using a screen reader, since getting PDFs in the way we get them and making them screen reader compatible is... complicated, to say the least (that's why it's not yet there). On the flip side, everyone has a PDF reader nowadays, articles look everywhere the same (this wouldn't be true for other formats), and it's also printable almost out of the box.

So, pros and cons. At the end of the day I don't think there's an easy out for us without breaking any of the things which make Paged Out! what folks like about it. The things I want to improve is getting printed versions more accessible, and some day finally getting solid screen reader support. But other than that I do believe the scrolling problem with remain with the zine.

ETA: Actually I also want "readings" of articles to become a thing. From the get go we put the in the author's license (note: not all articles use it, but most do) the ability for folks to agree to have their articles be recorded in an audio form. I think that would be cool for folks who like consuming things like audiobooks or podcasts. And it would save us from scrolling (for the cost of having illustrations described instead of seeing them).

replies(5): >>43522500 #>>43522972 #>>43525206 #>>43525703 #>>43533156 #
Kwpolska ◴[] No.43522972[source]
It would be good to figure out how many people actually care about printability. Perhaps what you could do is:

1. HTML is the primary format for articles. Authors can do whatever tricks they like in CSS, but are encouraged to make their layouts reasonably responsive. JS should be limited to things that actually benefit the article (such as LaTeX rendering or simple live examples).

2. The article must fit on one page when printed to PDF using a mainstream Web browser.

3. The author should provide a PDF file. It could just be the output of printing the HTML to PDF from a browser, or it could be something fancier, as long as it fits on a page and has the same text as the HTML version.

Looking at the most recent issue, most articles could be faithfully reproduced with a typical modern Markdown implementation (one that supports tables and code highlighting, and maybe LaTeX math) and some simple CSS.

replies(1): >>43523140 #
1. gynvael ◴[] No.43523140[source]
> It would be good to figure out how many people actually care about printability.

The final goal is to do mass prints of Paged Out! to give out at events. We've already done that once, and we're chatting with sponsors and events about doing more of this. And actually "how can I get a printed issue" is THE most common question we get from readers. So there's interest in a printed version from both sides (readers + our team).

With regards to the HTML idea – it was something I considered as well (and an idea I come back to from time to time). The issues that made me decide against it are:

- Not everyone knows HTML/CSS on a level that would allow them to express what they want. This would downgrade the "creativeness" of layouts. While some typical text processors or WYSIWYG editors can output decent HTML, that's not true across the board.

- Asking authors to do more work (especially to fight with making sure HTML behaves correctly when printing to PDF), would have a negative effect – I a significant chunk of authors would pull out.

- It does solve readability issues for typical text layouts. It doesn't solve them for more creative layouts, especially on mobile phones.

- For better or worse almost every newsletter, blog, news website, etc on the internet uses HTML format. I think I prefer PO! to stay in the magazine category.

Anyway, I'm going to be revisiting this idea from time to time, especially if PO! happens to get more funding for whatever reason.

replies(1): >>43524018 #
2. Kwpolska ◴[] No.43524018[source]
For articles with more complicated layout needs, the HTML version could be simplified, uglier, designed with wider accessibility in mind. But the PDF version would be the one where the pretty, print-friendly layout could shine.