I regret the irony that there's a standard on the Portable Document Format (PDF), allowing many user-friendly options (rotated pages for landscape, bookmarks, ToC, hyperlinks, layouts, sets of page numbers with appropriate section headings so I know where the h* I am in the document, vector images, commenting, searchability, copying text, being the relatively simple things that come to mind) and standards organisations do not add that possible value to their products.
Sometimes they even remove such value (bookmarks) versus the source (some IEC standards to national standards) or mess up the bookmark links to uselessness.
Do note, some non-standards but supposed exemplary organisations befall the same fate: If you try to simply read and cross-reference some MDSAP companion guide content you'll be scrolling hither and forth with little inkling where you are while the ToC is unhelpfully sparse. Likewise for the 175 page EU MDR without corrigenda thought its sections are at least more numerous and it is fixable with a lot of time as its PDF save was unsecured. At least until the corrigenda roll along and the toss-up begins (EU MDR C1 consolidated PDF does have its Table of Contents, yay).
So while I can understand the 'license' type of use, I very much dislike that that seems to be the single PDF option such organization invest so heavily in and would stand firmly behind @Marc . Many a professional's hour is lost for what could have been gained by some hours work from only a few at the source. In typical ISO style: this customer (unmet) need is known, yet no endeavour is seemingly made to meet it other than the next online platform you'll need to subscribe to. Irony to hypocrisy.
Sometimes they even remove such value (bookmarks) versus the source (some IEC standards to national standards) or mess up the bookmark links to uselessness.
Do note, some non-standards but supposed exemplary organisations befall the same fate: If you try to simply read and cross-reference some MDSAP companion guide content you'll be scrolling hither and forth with little inkling where you are while the ToC is unhelpfully sparse. Likewise for the 175 page EU MDR without corrigenda thought its sections are at least more numerous and it is fixable with a lot of time as its PDF save was unsecured. At least until the corrigenda roll along and the toss-up begins (EU MDR C1 consolidated PDF does have its Table of Contents, yay).
So while I can understand the 'license' type of use, I very much dislike that that seems to be the single PDF option such organization invest so heavily in and would stand firmly behind @Marc . Many a professional's hour is lost for what could have been gained by some hours work from only a few at the source. In typical ISO style: this customer (unmet) need is known, yet no endeavour is seemingly made to meet it other than the next online platform you'll need to subscribe to. Irony to hypocrisy.
How petty it would be. Making an example of my breaking the security to improve the usability of the document. I'm sure big brother is watching me. Note: more