Re: Single Source Print and HTML in Word 2000

[Steve Riley <SRILEY -at- BCT-SYSTEMS -dot- CO -dot- UK>]

> Currently the in-house consensus appears to be to be in
> favour of using the
> PDF format rather than HTML for viewing the documents
> on-line. I would be
> very interested in hearing any comments on the advantages of HTML or
> compiled HTML (which I had not previously heard of) over PDF in these
> circumstances.


Mark,

Straight HTML has the advantage that it needs
no plug-ins. Compiled HTML (CHM)is similar to
PDF in that it produces a self-contained file
needing a plugin to view. In this case at least
IE3 plus the HHUPD.EXE, a freely distributable
from MS, via the HTML Help Workshop site:
http://www.microsoft.com/workshop/author/htmlhelp/distrib.asp

CHM is what you see when you ask for Help in
Windows98 or any recent MS applications.

According to http://www.statmarket.com/page.cgi?browsers
Adobe Acrobat is one of the most popular plugins
but still less than 5% of users have it. You're going
to have to do it for them, whether you go PDF or
CHM.

We go with CHM because we're writing about software
(documentation and help files), "new style help"
is on client's shopping lists, and because we're
an MS shop. I'm sure you'll find lots of votes for
PDF from other listers. Once you've got your method
though, its more important what you write than how
you deliver it.

Best,

Stephen Riley, Windows Development
BCT Business Systems Ltd
p: +44 (0)1925 732325
f: +44 (0)1925 732323
e: sriley -at- bct-systems -dot- co -dot- uk
http://www.childrenforpeace.org

 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=