RTF as an addition to HTML 1

[retrositelover]

Hello,

this is an more or less offtopic posting, I just want to ask for your opinion:

after dealing a long time with difficulties regarding text appearance of my homepage to 'not well educated people' who are better off with MS Office, I switched to outsourcing few texts to RTF which also has hyperlinking in the newer specifications, just as HTML.

would you personally appreciate from an professional point of view if colleges use a mix of HTML and RTF files? what would you expect as a symbol for an Office document link in HTML (TITLE=""-Tag, advise for newbies to take MS Office since older Windows versions have Wordpad associated, icon anchored possibility to open the document in a new Window (Word Viewer Internet Explorer 6.0 plugin)/TARGET="_top" in frames)? I have 0 experiences on how most Windows systems *Vista * which I sadly have to support (because 99% of my visitors use them) react when surfers want to open RTFs over an HTML site. most Firefox based browsers open RTF as source, this is a problem, too.

My concerns especially regard the appearance and accessibility on mobile/small screen devices, no clue what a webmaster should code to ensure best viewing experience when leading visitors from HTML documents to RTFs. I guess it's impossible to embed RTFs in existing framesets, but don't know for sure.

I hope this is not too offtopic, but since the plugin problems concern the way you link RTF from HTML, it's certainly ok to post it here.

thanks in advance
Joerg

PS: I use Atlantis for compiling Supercompact RTFs, and link other documents both with embedded hyperlinks and showing the URL (for Wordpad). to not shock users too much compared to nicelooking CSS formatted Fonts (Trebuchet 10pt) -> Times 11pt in Office documents so they feel both familiar + know what document format they have loaded

 

[Vragabond]

I would not appreciate if all pages on a website would not be in HTML. I can only accept other extensions when there's something that needs to be printed exactly or is a larger publication (for these I prefer PDF) or when I am actually supposed to mangle document further (whatever document it is).

I think advising users to use specific versions of OS or browser or how to manipulate one or the other is the wrong way to go. Having a not entirely perfect outlook with HTML is much better way to go.

___________________________________________________________
[small]Do something about world cancer today: Comprehensive cancer control information at PACT[/small]

 

[vacunita]

I don't quite follow what the problem is.

Web and HTML is the most cross platform compliant medium in this day and age.

With that said, what could you possibly be showing in RTF files that cannot be achieved consistently across a multitude of operating systems and browsers through HTML?

If the problem stems from the Font you are using, or form the size of the text they have set in your browser, perhaps the usage of relative sizing of text such as ems instead of pixels would be more beneficial.

As Vrag mentioned, it would be kind of annoying if suddenly a page i wanted to view was not displayed in my browser, but had to open Word to do it.

If there is Information that needs to be displayed outside the browser and still maintain its layout and styling a PDF would be the better choice.



----------------------------------
Ignorance is not necessarily Bliss, case in point:
Unknown has caused an Unknown Error on Unknown and must be shutdown to prevent damage to Unknown.

 

[retrositelover]

users tend to see an HTML page (especially when it comes to 'political sounding stuff') as a real 'selfimportant holy' publication, whereas an Office document has kind of an temporary character, so this would be understatement. I absolutely prefer HTML but I doubt that stressed out people will devide between (even if declared as such) drafts and final documents published in HTML.

the further advantage is that people can modify RTF reliable and it's 1 piece, whereas HTML due to incompatibilities of editors, CSS etc. are not that easy. -> so gives a secure feeling to people for whom visiting a website is quite much confusion already. of course I'd never advise people to get Vista, I meant more in the direction to help Windows users e.g. to at least recognize if Wordpad started and not MS Word, which on quite many occasions they wouldn't if not explicitly told (but some wonder, where on earth this stupid document suppresses the start of their beloved dancing paperclip ) )

 

[Foamcow]

I don't think the average user will make any distinction between file types. They should never need to. As stated, if you need to present documents for download then use PDFs. They were designed to encapsulate content and style information within a platform agnostic file format.

HTML or RTF really is irrelevant to the user other than that by using RTF you are making the delivery less seamless and more disjointed, breaking the axiom of the web. Surely what matters is the content and the means in which it is delivered - which should be as seamless as possible.

To be perfectly frank, I think you are seeing a problem where there is none. The web works because of HTML. Why reinvent it? It seems that you are concerned with accessibility of your content but virtually everything you are suggesting is at odds with that. Changing file formats, framesets etc. I get the feeling you are unfamiliar with producing websites but have been tasked with doing so.

You seem to be concerned with users downloading a document from your website, then editing it and somehow putting it back on the website? However, you also seem to indicate that these users will be confused by a website and furthermore cannot differentiate which software they are using and won't be able to edit HTML due to it being more than '1 piece'. If this is the case, then how do you expect them to republish the document they have edited? In fact, why would it even matter to them if a document 'opened' within a web browser or within WordPad?

If you have a need for the user to be able to edit the document within a WYSIWYG environment but cannot be sure which editor they might use then create the editor on your site and let the user edit the document there. There are numerous ways to do this, most of which involve fairly minimal work and can provide a familiar Word type editor then translate that into Standards Compliant HTML without your user ever having to worry about it.

My 5 year old daughter understands the basics of how to use the web, as does my 70 year old neighbour. Barring people with serious cognitive disorders there are few people that cannot grasp the basic usage of a, well designed, website. Those with such a disorder can be catered for with proper consideration. In actuality, throwing the user from the browser to another application, which you say they wouldn't recognise, is surely just going to confuse them further is it not?

I'm also guessing that perhaps English isn't your first language (no problem there) but it is making some of your rationale (such as the argument above) hard to understand. Some of your assumptions do not bear logic. Is this simply a language barrier or are we missing something from your argument?

--
Tek-Tips Forums is Member Supported. Click Here to donate

<honk>*:O)</honk>

Tyres: Mine's a pint of the black stuff.
Mike: You can't drink a pint of Bovril.

 

[retrositelover]

Perhaps you get me a little bit wrong. I know this is a very controversial topic due to the possible approaches to pollute the web with office formats what (if intended this way) I also wouldn't want to support.

You are right that this is dedicated to a smaller project indeed intentionally coded experimental (frames etc.), but I'm certainly not unfamiliar with website creation.

Of course, users shouldn't have a possibility to upload changed files, I meant just the feeling they could change the layout for printing purposes and if they like the document indeed have everything in one file, while HTML with all the additions like CSS and Javascript is very complex (reason why many set hopes on .mht).

What I had in mind with reading difficulties is when some people are under stress like in internet cafes or just having very little time (it was combined with some humour I hope got throw the lines despite my bad English, but certainly was not intended to be disrespectful). As a civil rights, what you really fear the most these days is _some few surfers_ reading fast especially when clicking in framesets, coming to false conclusions ('freak show') esp. what regards text dimensions and too huge numbers of topics, so spreading rumours which then develop, and tend to be very ugly so one becomes an escape gulp. HTML is a problem here because since 1996 there is no accepted text appearance standard anymore which once was the gray Netscape1 pages of the early years, while in office documents you have Times New Roman and Arial.

Of course, most homepages out there don't meet this range of problem for they have no critical content of such controverse nature as to name an example: critizising New World Order or local corruption. Of course, I don't intend to discuss such issues here, what's interesting is the best way to link and embed RTFs so that it meets professional standards. Give users an extra possibility to open in a new window, take precautions of Firefox showing RTF sourcecode etc..

No matter what content, it's quite an interesting topic. I mean, there are many scenarios where one has to deal with RTF files, especially in offices. The advantage over PDF is possibility to edit and the small file size since those RTFs without JPGs pretty much equal HTML.

You asked, I'm not a natural English speaker but try to give my best.

 

[vacunita]

Of course, users shouldn't have a possibility to upload changed files, I meant just the feeling they could change the layout for printing purposes and if they like the document indeed have everything in one file, while HTML with all the additions like CSS and Javascript is very complex (reason why many set hopes on .mht).

Correctly assembled pages, will have a style sheet specifically designed for Printing purposes.

This will automatically alter the page's layout so it is easier to print. And uses less link by not printing menus or ads etc...

Users should neither feel the need, nor desire to make modifications to a document for printing. That's the job of the Web designer. User's want to press a button and have to print nice and neat. Not have to change around the layout to get it to print correctly.

What I had in mind with reading difficulties is when some people are under stress like in internet cafes or just having very little time]

When users find themselves in such situations printing is the last thing that comes to mind. Usually what they want to do is save the page they are viewing for later perhaps offline viewing.

In that case yes you could offer an RTF version of the page, but it should not at any time replace the HTML version of the same page. Its just an additional service.
And if you are offering additrional means of viewing the page offline again a PDf would be the better choice. As it is more widely supported.

Taking the same scenario of a mobile user in an internet cafe. What's to guarantee that they are using a computer of any kind.

With the development of many mobile devices with Wi-Fi and browsing capabilities, I find more and more users access websites from those devices.

Devices such as Ipods/Iphones, SmartPhones etc.. that may or may not support RTF files. If your content is limited to RTF files then those users that would have wanted to access your website in an internet cafe or or other Wi-Fi hot spot location may not be able to do so unless their mobile device supports the format.

The content really should not determine your means of deployment. Whether it be politically acute content or just the ramblings of a fan in a blog, access should be your first concern.

Making critical parts of a website unavailable to a portion of the audience is never a good thing.





----------------------------------
Ignorance is not necessarily Bliss, case in point:
Unknown has caused an Unknown Error on Unknown and must be shutdown to prevent damage to Unknown.

 

[retrositelover]

That's the job of the Web designer. User's want to press a button and have to print nice and neat. Not have to change around the layout to get it to print correctly.

I didn't mean it in this direction, only that (non technical) users want to have the ability to change if they feel need to, and this is a problem with HTML for the lack of editors capable to easily simplify the page, while Office suites have it all on board. RTF has a very secure feeling of user control, quite familiar, this is what I meant, not necessarily more.

to name an example: You have this good sketch not really for being called 'publication' claiming impulse, so use RTF, everyone will understand your concern and wish for 'understatement'. I don't intend to reach mobile phones (most users just want to have fun); as for handhelds, I assume that all devices have something to view RTF, so should be fine. I consent certain types of internet cafes might be not, but I guess not many readers of critical stuff are to be found there.

Whether it be politically acute content or just the ramblings of a fan in a blog, access should be your first concern.

I have to admit that it's really a difficult consideration because certainly it preempts some audience, an amount which otherwise will be reduced in the next few years due to technical development of the devices. For me as a webmaster the most decicive factor to prioritize is not getting associated with any possible radicalism. I mean this sort of me e.g. writing an essay in beta state regarding personal views of a local district attourney's office policy towards minorities and possible sideeffects of too many weak search warrants. ->

You indirectly addressed the problem very good: I don't know how this is e.g. in the US. but here in Germany we have huge problems with vulgar remarks and generally mean bashing (hope this is the right word) in public, you know, students disrespectfully critizising everything; but in the end certain chaos of a less educated or just too stressed society tends to a scenario where a small webmaster can get easily hurt because if he *publishes* all parts of his website with the same level of claiming public influence this could be seen as a dangerous pamphlete him becoming a scapegoat for what others provoke. Many webdevs fear it, for you never know how (in case of law suites) well educated judges are (German internet law leaves much room for subjective decisions), when perhaps under the influence of false mass media reports. I don't want to discuss this here for we are in a technical board, but this is the reason why one tries to avoid HTML for certain texts, and to find a workaround using formats that everyone knows. DOC would be perfect in this regard, but I don't want to support the ideology behind that. RTF sad but true seems to be the only alternative with reasonable, not blown-up file size.

Anyways, what would you define a perfect linking to office documents? I mean, sometimes you have to exclude certain audience, but in technical view this might be not as bad as it seems if nicely implemented.

 

[Vragabond]

I would never expect an RTF document to have a different meaning than the same document shown as HTML. And as far as I know, Google spider indexes RTF files just like it does regular HTML. Therefore I would not expect your text to be more hidden from the general searches, but it might annoy some users (such as Firefox users like you mentioned above). I believe your best solution would still be to deliver regular HTML pages and add a disclaimer on them (if you fear the content might be misunderstood) or prevent robots from indexing them (if you fear being listed in the searches for specific words).

___________________________________________________________
[small]Do something about world cancer today: Comprehensive cancer control information at PACT[/small]

 

[vacunita]

Not sure exactly how the Web legislation functions in Germany.

But I would have to agree with Vragabond that just because its in a different format (RTF) it doesn't mean the content will have less of a statement than being in regular HTML.

It think you are better off using a disclaimer such that it releases the website, and you as the webmaster from all liability regarding the published pieces.

In any case returning to the question about linking:

You could have the RTF file be displayed directly into the browser using some type of server side language, though I guess that would defeat the purpose.

Or you can deliver the RTF files such that the mime type in the headers point to Word Document type of file. That would conceivably force them to be opened in Word. Again this would require some server side language to accomplish.

However if for any reason a user does not have Microsoft Word installed it sho9uld still open in whichever application is associated with the type of file. In this case usually Wordpad in Windows.




----------------------------------
Ignorance is not necessarily Bliss, case in point:
Unknown has caused an Unknown Error on Unknown and must be shutdown to prevent damage to Unknown.

 

[retrositelover]

thank you, I'll try the mime type. for RTF->Webspace references I guess one should always write the URLs in plain text inside the RTF files (beneath the named hyperlink) for good old Wordpad.

just a small addition to the legal stuff (I mean I know to post in a non German technical board, but for interested people as it played some role): here in Germany it's pretty much the EU-legislation, with many chaos because constitution and internet law don't well fit together. one's responsible for everything, and despite in the US disclaimers tend to get ignored in court. so the only way except changing file type indeed is as suggested to relativate in the text introduction