I remember when you made the Online Access available, however I do not recall it being mentioned that we would no longer be receiving a physical copy. What did I miss here and when? Was the 3-month trial "top scret"? I just reviewed the September issuse, and see no mention of it in there either.
Well, my first attempt to view the new softcopy. Results: WORTHLESS!
Let me be clear: I have no problem, in general, with softcopy pubs. In fact, I rather prefer them because they are easier for me to retrieve when I actually have time to read them.
But, this first access to the Nov-2006 issue was a wasted effort.
1) Could not get the PDF to display directly in the browser window. [Note: I do NOT use any Windows or MS software. My browser is the latest SeaMonkey available.]
2) Second attempt was to download the PDF and read it that way. Don't know what the problem is, but when trying to open the document, Acrobat Reader complained: "There was an error opening this document. This viewer cannot decrypt this document."
Possibly you are using a very new version of PDF that requires a viewer that is not available on my platform. A few phrases come to mind:
"'Latest and greatest' is not always the best."
"Just because you can, does not mean you should."
I publish a lot of PDFs. I force the compatibility level to PDF V3 to assure that every potential reader [person] will be able to view the document without being forced to upgrade to a new viewer. Possibly this is the problem.
Now, having said this, I was able to view the document with Lucide. This leads to my next complaint: The watermark on the page 'behind' all the text is VERY distracting, annoying, and unnecessary! I know where the article came from. I do not need the background reminder.
Sorry, but this is an example of using technology for technology sake and ignoring basic usability requirements. Let me know when the above are fixed and I'll try again.
Having been a member of NASPA for 20 years, I think the online access method that was chosen for Technical Support starting October of this year was a really poor choice. The November issue is the 2nd one I have tried to read online with dismal results. The Settings application that allows customization of magnification cannot be made to get a full page to fit on a screen. The printing of the magazine, which I am forced to now do, doesn't print a full page either. Instead it prints like a web page, with the standard Internet Explorer header and footers, and about 1 1/2 inches of wasted space at the bottom of each page, which could be used to print the page in larger format so it actually takes up the entire physical print page.
Using Adobe Acrobat would have been a much better choice in terms of viewing and printing. Then again, leaving the printed edition available would have also been better. I find it difficult to believe that you solicited and comments about this change from your membership, otherwise you would have heard these complaints sooner. If cost savings is what drove this decision, you should reconsider the decision and find other ways to cut costs and still provide the printed edition, or at the very least convert to the more universally accepted Acrobat format
Thank you for your honest feedback regarding the digital edition. The decision to move to a digital edition was not taken lightly. The November issue is the second of a three month trial. Although members have experienced a few glitches, reaction has for the most part been cautiously optimistic.
The publishing department is working diligently with our digital edition service provider to "fix" the formatting issues that you have encountered. A PDF version of each article in the magazine is available by clicking on "Publications " and "Technical Support issue index."
We are working on a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page to refer to when you experience problems.
In the meantime, please feel free to contact NaSPA's CustomerCare department at 866-213-8497 or me at 414-768-8000 ext. 109 or drockhill [at] naspa [dot] com.
Comments
Online Accces
I remember when you made the Online Access available, however I do not recall it being mentioned that we would no longer be receiving a physical copy. What did I miss here and when? Was the 3-month trial "top scret"? I just reviewed the September issuse, and see no mention of it in there either.
I tried! - BLANK Screen/Download-Doc Errors!
Well, my first attempt to view the new softcopy. Results: WORTHLESS!
Let me be clear: I have no problem, in general, with softcopy pubs. In fact, I rather prefer them because they are easier for me to retrieve when I actually have time to read them.
But, this first access to the Nov-2006 issue was a wasted effort.
1) Could not get the PDF to display directly in the browser window. [Note: I do NOT use any Windows or MS software. My browser is the latest SeaMonkey available.]
2) Second attempt was to download the PDF and read it that way. Don't know what the problem is, but when trying to open the document, Acrobat Reader complained: "There was an error opening this document. This viewer cannot decrypt this document."
Possibly you are using a very new version of PDF that requires a viewer that is not available on my platform. A few phrases come to mind:
"'Latest and greatest' is not always the best."
"Just because you can, does not mean you should."
I publish a lot of PDFs. I force the compatibility level to PDF V3 to assure that every potential reader [person] will be able to view the document without being forced to upgrade to a new viewer. Possibly this is the problem.
Now, having said this, I was able to view the document with Lucide. This leads to my next complaint: The watermark on the page 'behind' all the text is VERY distracting, annoying, and unnecessary! I know where the article came from. I do not need the background reminder.
Sorry, but this is an example of using technology for technology sake and ignoring basic usability requirements. Let me know when the above are fixed and I'll try again.
Online Access Stinks
Having been a member of NASPA for 20 years, I think the online access method that was chosen for Technical Support starting October of this year was a really poor choice. The November issue is the 2nd one I have tried to read online with dismal results. The Settings application that allows customization of magnification cannot be made to get a full page to fit on a screen. The printing of the magazine, which I am forced to now do, doesn't print a full page either. Instead it prints like a web page, with the standard Internet Explorer header and footers, and about 1 1/2 inches of wasted space at the bottom of each page, which could be used to print the page in larger format so it actually takes up the entire physical print page.
Using Adobe Acrobat would have been a much better choice in terms of viewing and printing. Then again, leaving the printed edition available would have also been better. I find it difficult to believe that you solicited and comments about this change from your membership, otherwise you would have heard these complaints sooner. If cost savings is what drove this decision, you should reconsider the decision and find other ways to cut costs and still provide the printed edition, or at the very least convert to the more universally accepted Acrobat format
Technical Support - Digital Edition
Thank you for your honest feedback regarding the digital edition. The decision to move to a digital edition was not taken lightly. The November issue is the second of a three month trial. Although members have experienced a few glitches, reaction has for the most part been cautiously optimistic.
The publishing department is working diligently with our digital edition service provider to "fix" the formatting issues that you have encountered. A PDF version of each article in the magazine is available by clicking on "Publications " and "Technical Support issue index."
We are working on a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page to refer to when you experience problems.
In the meantime, please feel free to contact NaSPA's CustomerCare department at 866-213-8497 or me at 414-768-8000 ext. 109 or drockhill [at] naspa [dot] com.
Sincerely,
Denise Rockhill
Publisher
Post new comment