Tools Affect Content

via Anil Dash

It seems that the PDF format signifies something now, and it's something more than just user inconvenience. In addition to requiring the user to shift mental modes, ("I'm seeing something designed as a PDF now, this must be serious information...") the requirement that a document either be downloaded or viewed in a context that's radically different from standard web pages seems like a subtle assertion of authority by a document's creator. The decision to switch from standard HTML to PDF isn't arbitrary, but it isn't based on technical requirements either. It's based on the value that an author wants to assign to the work, and it benefits from the still-prevalent, though rapidly fading, consensus that print work is somehow more inherently valuable and authoritative than web pages and other online content.

This is evidenced in several ways. Documents which are offered up for a fee are frequently in PDF format, though for unprotected documents there's no reason the content can't be presented as HTML. And even password-protected PDF documents rarely make use of any of the advanced features which theoretically distinguish PDF from HTML. If the goal is to preserve formatting fidelity for the user while providing a good user experience, Macromedia's FlashPaper offers a much more pleasant in-browser experience that doesn't require the document viewer to take over the entire window and chrome from the standard browser toolbar. So the PDF decision is entirely about communicating intent.