I wonder if you realize that both your points wildly miss what I said.
First, there's no need to stretch my argument to the point of it being ridiculous. I don't have to reach for a watch to suffer from PDF. Even a tablet is enough: I don't see many 14" tablets flying off the shelves. I also know for sure that the vast majority of ubiquitous communicator devices, aka smartphones, are about the same size as mine, so everyone with those is guaranteed to have the same shitty experience with papers on their communicators and will have to sedentary-lifestyle their ass off in front of a big display for barely any reason.
Secondly:
> Likewise, when layout makes the difference between reader understanding or confusion, it's hard to trust automatic reflowing on unknown screen sizes. PDF is simply better than HTML when it comes to preserving layout as the author intended.
As I wrote right there above, still no explanation of why the layout makes that difference and why preserving it is so important when most papers are just walls of text + images + some formulas. Somehow I'm able to read those very things off HTML pages just fine.
Some people are very "funny" about the layout of items and text and want it to be preserved identically to their "vision" when they created it. For example, every "marketing" individual when they see a webpage seem to want it pixel-perfect.
I think it's the artist in them.
This is understandable in some instances:
a. Picasso's or Monet's works probably wouldn't be as good if you just roll them up into a ball. Sure, the component parts are still there (it's just paper/canvas and paint after all!) but the result isn't what they intended.
b. A car that has hit a tree is made up of the composite parts but isn't quite as appealing (or useful) as the car before hitting the tree.
c. A wedding cake doesn't look as good if the ingredients are just thrown over the wedding party's table. The ingredients are there, but it just isn't the same...
That's a tradeoff between complex formatting and accessibility of the result. Authors are making readers sit in front of desktops/laptops for some wins in formatting. Considering that papers, at least ones that I see, are all just columns of text, images and formulas, the win seems to be marginal, while the loss in accessibility is maddening with the current tech-ecosphere.
First, there's no need to stretch my argument to the point of it being ridiculous. I don't have to reach for a watch to suffer from PDF. Even a tablet is enough: I don't see many 14" tablets flying off the shelves. I also know for sure that the vast majority of ubiquitous communicator devices, aka smartphones, are about the same size as mine, so everyone with those is guaranteed to have the same shitty experience with papers on their communicators and will have to sedentary-lifestyle their ass off in front of a big display for barely any reason.
Secondly:
> Likewise, when layout makes the difference between reader understanding or confusion, it's hard to trust automatic reflowing on unknown screen sizes. PDF is simply better than HTML when it comes to preserving layout as the author intended.
As I wrote right there above, still no explanation of why the layout makes that difference and why preserving it is so important when most papers are just walls of text + images + some formulas. Somehow I'm able to read those very things off HTML pages just fine.