In favor of the HTML full text (am I the only one?)

Dec 20 2011 Published by under publishing, scholarly communication

Chatting with a society publisher last week they told me that it's hardly worthwhile doing anything with the html page because maybe only 10% of readers use it!  I guess I'm in that 10%.

Over the years I've had so many problems with pdfs. They crash. They crash Adobe, they crash the browser, they crash the computer... and they can (and sometimes do) have malware embedded so pose a security risk. MPOW, like many other security-minded organizations, has it set up so all pdfs must fully download and be scanned before displaying. So this creates lots of temporary files to clog up the computer and it also makes irrelevant all those stupid frames publishers put around their pdfs.

Granted, when I need to print, I want the pdf. I use the pdf for my own reading that I want to suck into Mendeley.  My customers typically want pdfs.

But when I'm reading out of vague curiosity or browsing to pick out a fact (that is, if they don't pull out the tables and graphs separately), or checking to see if the article is any good... it's all html. If I'm going to read the whole thing, I'll frequently use the Readability plugin (I'm getting old).

So don't do away with the html, please, for me? And Sage?  Please add html full text (thank you in advance)!

One response so far

  • drugmonkey says:

    I like having the HTML option, sometimes it is a sufficient (and quicker) route to what I need from the article.