| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Landscape or Portrait for PDFS? |
| 1. Landscape for both versions. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| 1. Landscape for both versions. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| 1. Landscape for both versions. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| 1. Landscape for both versions. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| 2. Portrait (standard) for both versions. |
|
16% |
[ 18 ] |
| 2. Portrait (standard) for both versions. |
|
16% |
[ 18 ] |
| 2. Portrait (standard) for both versions. |
|
16% |
[ 18 ] |
| 2. Portrait (standard) for both versions. |
|
16% |
[ 18 ] |
| 3. Landscape for full-color version. Portrait for printer-friendly. |
|
4% |
[ 5 ] |
| 3. Landscape for full-color version. Portrait for printer-friendly. |
|
4% |
[ 5 ] |
| 3. Landscape for full-color version. Portrait for printer-friendly. |
|
4% |
[ 5 ] |
| 3. Landscape for full-color version. Portrait for printer-friendly. |
|
4% |
[ 5 ] |
| 4. Opposite of above. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| 4. Opposite of above. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| 4. Opposite of above. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| 4. Opposite of above. |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| 5. Whatever the publisher thinks is best. |
|
4% |
[ 5 ] |
| 5. Whatever the publisher thinks is best. |
|
4% |
[ 5 ] |
| 5. Whatever the publisher thinks is best. |
|
4% |
[ 5 ] |
| 5. Whatever the publisher thinks is best. |
|
4% |
[ 5 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 112 |
|
| Author |
Message |
razorwise
Legendary
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 2956
Location: Hither and Yon
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 4:03 pm Post subject: Pros and Cons of Landscape versus Portrait layouts for PDFs |
 |
|
Question for you all.
This discussion came up in a meeting today.
If you're getting your printer friendly version of a product in a portrait layout (8.5" x 11") would you prefer to get your full color spectacular version in portrait as well or landscape (11" x 8.5")?
Not making any promises about anything, just want your thoughts.
Please vote and lemme know your pros and cons, will ya?!
Thanks,
Sean
_________________
Reality Blurs
Reality Blurs Tweets!
The Razorwise Report
The Blur is Now on G+ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Truckee Games
Seasoned
Joined: 14 May 2003
Posts: 457
Location: Truckee, CA - Sierra Nevada
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good question!
If a .pdf is only ever meant to be used on screen, then landscape is best in my opinion because you can see the whole page: No scrolling up and down.
If a .pdf is going to be printed, then the standard portrait works best, for purely practical reasons (binding, et al).
I know from my own layout experience, however, this is twice the work for every product on your part, which may not be practical.
Whatever format you choose....I'm still buying. 
_________________
-Brent Wolke
Truckee Games |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SavagedRobby
Seasoned
Joined: 12 Jan 2005
Posts: 423
Location: Austin, TX
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm for portrait for both. For one - assuming its going to be done portrait for printing purposes - it means less time to produce, and therefore will cost less (or the publisher will make a little more - either is good).
More selfishly, when I view a game related PDF, I have the search window and bookmark windows open while I read, usually on the sides. This works perfectly for portrait formatted PDFs. For landscape ones, I'd have to change that ... and I hate change.
_________________
Considering the alternative, life is just fine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jblittlefield
Legendary
Joined: 13 May 2003
Posts: 7472
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 5:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I prefer both a high and low-res (read as print and printer-friendly) version in portrait. So long as I get these, I'm happy.
However, I would think that a printer-friendly version in landscape (for those using the product on their lap top during sessions). Of course, this requires extra time and effort (and in some cases money), so should only be done if the fans demand or is feasible.
I think it would also be a good thing to include an RTF version (with nothing but basic formatting) for those that like to cut-and-paste. This is easily generated from the final draft of the manuscript. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ben Jackson
Seasoned
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 410
Location: In Boise! Horror!
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Portrait! If someone is referencing and using the .pdf on their computer during play, they're more than likely going to at least have a search window open like SavagedRobby. Personally, I like everything in hardcopy, so portrait is also better for that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
palehorse
Heroic
Joined: 21 Jun 2003
Posts: 1962
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SavageBrent wrote: | I know from my own layout experience, however, this is twice the work for every product on your part, which may not be practical.
|
Anyone who's similarly concerned about cost to the publisher, don't be. For the time being at least, I work cheap.
And, if anyone's interested, I prefer landscape for the screen-reading version. Obviously the printable version will be portrait; that's sort of a given, I'd think.
_________________
Butch Curry
Zombie Nirvana Games |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jblittlefield
Legendary
Joined: 13 May 2003
Posts: 7472
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| palehorse wrote: | | And, if anyone's interested, I prefer landscape for the screen-reading version. Obviously the printable version will be portrait; that's sort of a given, I'd think. |
I think the only time landscape is better than portrait for on-screen viewing is when the publisher is too lazy to make a "screen-friendly" portrait version (i.e., single column). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
palehorse
Heroic
Joined: 21 Jun 2003
Posts: 1962
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jblittlefield wrote: | | palehorse wrote: | | And, if anyone's interested, I prefer landscape for the screen-reading version. Obviously the printable version will be portrait; that's sort of a given, I'd think. |
I think the only time landscape is better than portrait for on-screen viewing is when the publisher is too lazy to make a "screen-friendly" portrait version (i.e., single column). |
With an 8.5 x 11 page, 2 columns are easier to read than 1, unless it's a fairly narrow column. Which is why RPG's are laid out the way they are in the first place.
If you're doing a digest-sized book (5.5 x 8.5) a single column is better.
_________________
Butch Curry
Zombie Nirvana Games |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jblittlefield
Legendary
Joined: 13 May 2003
Posts: 7472
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| palehorse wrote: | | jblittlefield wrote: | | palehorse wrote: | | And, if anyone's interested, I prefer landscape for the screen-reading version. Obviously the printable version will be portrait; that's sort of a given, I'd think. |
I think the only time landscape is better than portrait for on-screen viewing is when the publisher is too lazy to make a "screen-friendly" portrait version (i.e., single column). |
With an 8.5 x 11 page, 2 columns are easier to read than 1, unless it's a fairly narrow column. Which is why RPG's are laid out the way they are in the first place.
|
Yes, but not on a computer screen -- unless you resize the page to fit the screen (or have a 19" or larger monitor), the page usually requires you to read a column and then scroll back up to the top of the next column.
For reading offline and printing, 2-column is the way to go; however, rather than making a landscape online version, it's easier to simply do a 1-column portrait version (easily created from your final draft in most cases). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill
Legendary
Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 3155
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would probably go for:
1) whatever is less expensive
2) portrate printer-friendly version
3) portrate printer versions
4) landscape computer viewable version as long as it doesn't add cost
5) win a big lottery so I can have everything I want printed in full color and bound with a 24" monitor to 'view' when I'm too lazy to pick up and search through the book 
_________________
The More I Learn, The Less I Know |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
palehorse
Heroic
Joined: 21 Jun 2003
Posts: 1962
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jblittlefield wrote: |
Yes, but not on a computer screen -- unless you resize the page to fit the screen (or have a 19" or larger monitor), the page usually requires you to read a column and then scroll back up to the top of the next column. |
That's the point of making a 2 column landscape: you can read it on-screen without having to scroll any given page.
| Quote: | | For reading offline and printing, 2-column is the way to go; however, rather than making a landscape online version, it's easier to simply do a 1-column portrait version (easily created from your final draft in most cases). |
The question here isn't "Is it easier for someone to make a 2 column landscape?", because (for me at least, since layout and graphic design was what I went to college for, after all) it isn't particularly difficult. It's "Which would you prefer?"
For reading onscreen, I'd much prefer to read this:
http://www.sitesled.com/members/zombienirvana/SampleLandscape.PDF
than this, the single column you're recommending:
http://www.sitesled.com/members/zombienirvana/SamplePortrait.PDF
But other folks can look at them both and decide for themselves.
_________________
Butch Curry
Zombie Nirvana Games |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maldroth
Seasoned
Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 188
Location: Bismarck, North Dakota
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
you know I guess it really depends on the material. Just by looking at your example I could see the benefit of two column landscape for say an Atlas or adventure situation where you could have a map on one column and the adjoining text on the other.
_________________
Lord Maldroth Mathison
The Planewalker |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Prest0
Seasoned
Joined: 31 Dec 2003
Posts: 349
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think a companion question to the above poll is: how many people read their PDFs on screen (and GM from their laptop) versus how many immediately print them out?
_________________
Preston P. DuBose
12 to Midnight
Tell yourself it's just a game.
Check out Buried Tales of Pinebox, TX! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jblittlefield
Legendary
Joined: 13 May 2003
Posts: 7472
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Prest0 wrote: | | I think a companion question to the above poll is: how many people read their PDFs on screen (and GM from their laptop) versus how many immediately print them out? |
OK.
http://www.peginc.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8032 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill
Legendary
Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 3155
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Talk about responsive to readers!
_________________
The More I Learn, The Less I Know |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sinisterthings
Novice
Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 28
Location: Campbell, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Since I use both the printed and on-screen versions, depending on where I am and what I am doing (see other poll), having two layouts would make things more difficult. If I am used to seeing a table or paragraph in one place on the page (I scan by landmarks, not page numbers), and it moved when I switched to/from the printed copy, I might get lost and frustrated.
_________________
-- Patrick
www.sinisterthings.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Seeker of Truth
Heroic
Joined: 03 Nov 2005
Posts: 1031
Location: Medford, MA
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I never thought about it until I saw the poll, but now that I think about it, in an ideal world, landscape for on screen and portrait for printing. I realize that it would be double the layout work, so I have no problem with only portrait.
_________________
Epic of the Arrows - A Saga of the Untamed Lands |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
palehorse
Heroic
Joined: 21 Jun 2003
Posts: 1962
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sinisterthings wrote: | | Since I use both the printed and on-screen versions, depending on where I am and what I am doing (see other poll), having two layouts would make things more difficult. If I am used to seeing a table or paragraph in one place on the page (I scan by landmarks, not page numbers), and it moved when I switched to/from the printed copy, I might get lost and frustrated. |
Bookmarks are one of the nice things about PDF's; they make that sort of thing a lot easier! It's really too bad more PDF publishers don't include them.
_________________
Butch Curry
Zombie Nirvana Games |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
palehorse
Heroic
Joined: 21 Jun 2003
Posts: 1962
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Seeker of Truth wrote: | | I never thought about it until I saw the poll, but now that I think about it, in an ideal world, landscape for on screen and portrait for printing. I realize that it would be double the layout work, so I have no problem with only portrait. |
The extra work is not really that big a deal. For this sort of PDF release, it's going to be at most 40-50 pages. Like I said, that's no sweat for me, so don't let it influence your choice one way or another!
_________________
Butch Curry
Zombie Nirvana Games |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sinisterthings
Novice
Joined: 23 Nov 2005
Posts: 28
Location: Campbell, CA
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| palehorse wrote: | | Bookmarks are one of the nice things about PDF's; they make that sort of thing a lot easier! It's really too bad more PDF publishers don't include them. |
You mean like GWG?  The lack of proper bookmarking and links in the SW PDF was the first comment and complaint by one of my players.
_________________
-- Patrick
www.sinisterthings.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
