I just got the email from the ARRL:

"QST's Stacking Up? Get Digital QST Only".

.... with a button to push if I want to opt out of getting the "dead
tree" version of QST.

Now, let me make it clear that I don't have any problem with people who
want the printed version. I also don't have a quarrel with those who
prefer an online publication.

I've been a life member of the ARRL since 1972. They do some good and
important things in Newington. What they are not doing, at least not
yet, is producing a version of QST that can be used online.

There are some nice features, such as clickable links in the table of
contents. They are a good start toward making QST online more usable.

But ...

From what I've seen of the online edition, it looks like the pdf file
that was sent to the printer to make the paper-and-ink version. The
articles are shown in page-image format, which means that each page
appears as it would if I were holding the paper-and-ink version open,
but with the lower 2/3 of each page obscured. I have to page down to the
bottom of one column, go back to the top, go down to the bottom of the
second, etc.

It's not going to work for me. When it comes to digital publications, I
go back so far that I get to say "We used to write on the disks with a
chisel", and this isn't going to work. Computers are /not/ the same as
print media: graphic displays are not going to work well with content
that is formatted for a magazine.

In short: "A" for effort, but "D" for results. Check back later.

73,

Bill, W1AC

--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)

In article , Bill Horne wrote:
I just got the email from the ARRL:

"QST's Stacking Up? Get Digital QST Only".

... with a button to push if I want to opt out of getting the "dead
tree" version of QST.

What do you mean by "ARRL drops the other shoe"? Are they making the
digital edition mandatory?


From what I've seen of the online edition, it looks like the pdf file
that was sent to the printer to make the paper-and-ink version. The
articles are shown in page-image format, which means that each page
appears as it would if I were holding the paper-and-ink version open,
but with the lower 2/3 of each page obscured.

Hmmm, I'm not seeing any obscuration. Is it some kind of shaded gray
that's covering the bottom part of the page? Oh, and to be clear, are
you talking about the Nxtbook version of QST on the ARRL website, or
did you find a way to actually download a PDF file? Oftentimes, these
flashy online digital magazines let you download a PDF version, but
all I see with this one is an option to run their software on your
computer. No thanks. :-)

If you're hoping that the League will convert each issue to HTML
format, complete with nice layout and graphics, I wouldn't hold
my breath on that. The reason companies choose solutions such as
Nxtbook is because it's a lot easier and cheaper than redoing the
layout in HTML.


Patty

I think Bill, what is happening - is that the yuppies who wants to save the world - would like to eliminate as much mail as possible and use as little paper as possible..
Just look at books, how many times do you see someone buy an actual paper book anymore?

On the other hand, as the price of postage goes up, probably some pencil pusher at the ARRL got the bright idea that it would be great to get rid of the paper copy - then they would save the price of printing, mailing etc..

On the other hand, you joined the ARRL in 1972?
Lets say a lifetime membership at that time was $150.00
The ARRL - even if they put your money into a interest bearing account, stopped making money on you about 12 years ago....

Let alone a couple of friends of mine who has been a ham for 50 years and only paid like $65.00 in 1960 to join the ARRL and bought lifetime memberships...

At some point the ARRL is either going to have to raise lifetime memberships to about $1000.00 or close it's doors.

My friends tells me that if they buy yearly memberships and let it run out at the end of the year, in time the ARRL will send them free gifts to rejoin.
They let it expire purposely - just to get the free gifts...

Me personally - I don't have a tablet or a laptop computer, or a cell phone, so it doesn't matter to me if they want to give away electronic versions - they would also have to give me something to look at it with besides my home computer.

When you stop and think about it - the QST doesn't really have much in it.
It is sponsored by equipment manufacturers and amplifier dealers - since most people who calls themselves hams are either appliance operators or they compensate for a lack of antenna by using some type of amplifier.

This irks me as much as anything when I hear them talk about antenna tuners and G5RV's and how they can load them up and use them on any band.
You end up with one guy who's receive is as deaf as a door knob and another guys receive who is deaf as a door knob and they are shouting between each other, and not hearing anyone else.

The persistent drone of the antenna tuner - trying to match up the antenna - while a net is taking place, irritates me to the point of where I refuse to listen to most nets..

Maybe if QST would put actual articles in their magazine about good amateur radio practice, and how all new hams needs actual Elmers, and how to become a real Elmer and be knowledgeable and not just some moron who checks into a net and says NO TRAFFIC! We could produce a new pool of amateurs to replace the ones we have lost and maybe attract more amateurs that actually operates and not just ones that gets the license and then lets it expire 10 years from now when they find out that there isn't anyone to talk to of any intelligence anymore on anything below 10 meters!

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 12:35:38 -0500, Bill Horne wrote:

I just got the email from the ARRL:

"QST's Stacking Up? Get Digital QST Only".

... with a button to push if I want to opt out of getting the "dead
tree" version of QST.

Now, let me make it clear that I don't have any problem with people who
want the printed version. I also don't have a quarrel with those who
prefer an online publication.



But ...



I'm not an ARRL fan, so I don't know about what QST is doing right now,
but we won't get into that.

The only way I will subscribe to a "digital magazine" is if it's a DRM-
free PDF file (like K9YA is).

CQ/PopComm/WorldRadio use some proprietary format called Zinio, which
from what I heard, makes the magazine ads as pop-up ads to click off, and
cannot be converted to PDF (though they do say the articles can be
printed, so I guess Bullzip or something might work for part of the
article).

No freedom, no open standards: I choose paper or a blog's RSS feed.

--

Red Blade

President of alt.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, & talk.politics.misc
Fanfiction Committee Chairman of alt.tv.beavis-n-butthead

http://www.libertycolumns.com/

On 1/12/2013 3:20 PM, Patty Winter wrote:
In , Bill wrote:
From what I've seen of the online edition, it looks like the pdf file
that was sent to the printer to make the paper-and-ink version. The
articles are shown in page-image format, which means that each page
appears as it would if I were holding the paper-and-ink version open,
but with the lower 2/3 of each page obscured.

Hmmm, I'm not seeing any obscuration. Is it some kind of shaded gray
that's covering the bottom part of the page?

No, it's simply not on my screen, as if I were trying to read the
printed version with a book on top of the magazine, covering the lower
2/3 of the page.

Oh, and to be clear, are you talking about the Nxtbook version of
QST on the ARRL website, or did you find a way to actually download
a PDF file? Oftentimes, these flashy online digital magazines let
you download a PDF version, but all I see with this one is an
option to run their software on your computer. No thanks. :-)

I'm talking about the /appearance/ of the page on my computer screen,
which looks like the pdf file that most printers now ask for instead
of "photo ready" paste-up copy.

If you're hoping that the League will convert each issue to HTML
format, complete with nice layout and graphics, I wouldn't hold
my breath on that. The reason companies choose solutions such as
Nxtbook is because it's a lot easier and cheaper than redoing the
layout in HTML.

I'm hoping that the league spends the money needed to make the online
edition of QST viable. I don't care if it's done in HTML, or sent as a
pdf, or by other means. A page formatted to be easy-to-read in a "tall
and narrow" format such as a magazine page simply doesn't work in
a "short and wide" format such as my computer screen.

73,

Bill, W1AC

--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)

"Bill Horne" wrote

From what I've seen of the online edition, it looks like the pdf file that
was sent to the printer to make the paper-and-ink version. The articles
are shown in page-image format, which means that each page appears as it
would if I were holding the paper-and-ink version open, but with the lower
2/3 of each page obscured. I have to page down to the bottom of one
column, go back to the top, go down to the bottom of the second, etc.

When I first open the digital edition, the "magazine" shows up in FULL on my
15.6" laptop screen. That is, I see two full pages side by side. The print
size, however, is awfully small, so I have to enlarge it. To do that I click
on the page, it instantly grows to readable size. Holding down the left
button of my mouse, I can move the page around as necessary. Is that ideal?
Heck no. But it works, and it seems to be the simplest way. Still, I *much*
prefer the printed magazine regardless how well QST [ever] presents their
digital version.

Howard N7SO

In article ,
Howard Lester wrote:

When I first open the digital edition, the "magazine" shows up in FULL on my
15.6" laptop screen. That is, I see two full pages side by side. The print
size, however, is awfully small, so I have to enlarge it. To do that I click
on the page, it instantly grows to readable size. Holding down the left
button of my mouse, I can move the page around as necessary.

I just tried the QST Nxtbook on my 13" MacBook. In full-screen mode,
zoomed in to a readable print size, the content of some pages fits on
the screen. On most pages, I have to use the trackpad a bit to scroll
the page. It would be the same situation if I were reading a downloaded
PDF. So yeah, that's a bit annoying. Of course, no scrolling is necessary
on the larger screen of my iMac, so if "the other shoe" is that ARRL is
going to discontinue the printed edition of QST (although I really, really
doubt that), it'll be fine.


Patty N6BIS

On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 12:35:38 EST, Bill Horne
wrote:

I just got the email from the ARRL:

"QST's Stacking Up? Get Digital QST Only".

My only experience with reading a magazine electronically was a few
years ago when World Radio stopped paper publication, CQ bought it,
and published a PDF version on their web page (free for a while, they
charge for it now).

I downloaded a couple of the free issues. The problem I had was that
I don't have contiguous blocks of time to read an entire issue at
once. And there was no way to bookmark in the PDF file where I left
off.

With a paper magazine, I can stop reading any time I want, put a piece
of paper at the point I stopped, and then a day or so later resume
where I left off. Sometimes it takes me more than a month to read an
issue. Also, when I have a doctor's appointment, I can take the paper
copy with me to read while waiting my turn. (Yes, I could do that
with an iPad or similar mobile device, but only if I had one, which I
don't).

Also, I bring my recent past issues of QST and CQ to the VE license
exams sessions which I run, and hand them out to newly-minted hams.
Can't do that with the online versions.

Dick Grady, AC7EL

On 1/13/2013 12:53 PM, Howard Lester wrote:
"Bill Horne" wrote

From what I've seen of the online edition, it looks like the pdf file
that was sent to the printer to make the paper-and-ink version. The
articles are shown in page-image format, which means that each page
appears as it would if I were holding the paper-and-ink version open,
but with the lower 2/3 of each page obscured. I have to page down to
the bottom of one column, go back to the top, go down to the bottom of
the second, etc.

The print size, however, is awfully small, so I have to enlarge it.

You and me both, brother, you and me both ...

Let's face it: hams, as a class, got old. There have been
volumes written about the readability problems associated
with tiny computer screens and old eyes, and the cure for that
problem is to let each viewer vary not only the font size,
but also the presentation of the page.

I want to read the page from top to bottom, not top-to-bottom-to-
top-to-bottom-to-top-to-bottom. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Still, I *much* prefer the printed magazine regardless how
well QST [ever] presents their digital version.

No surprise the I prefer the printed version myself. It has all
the classic advantages of paper-and-ink publishing, including
high contrast, intuitive formatting, and goes-anywhere portability.

As a computer professional, I stare at a display for as many as
ten hours a day. When reading about my hobby, I /like/ being able
to lay in a hammock on a nice day and hold QST between me and the
sky, and I'm reluctant to take my laptop out on a boat or to
try to read it in a car.

The postal service, however, does not work for free, and the ARRL's
advertisers are eager for more "active" content and more targeting
capability, neither of which can be gotten from Johannes Gutenberg's
methods. Ergo, digital QST will be with us for the foreseeable future,
and may even replace the dead-trees version.

I think it's reasonable to expect the ARRL to do more than copycat
the print image in return for the cookies my computer delivers up.

73,

Bill, W1AC

--
Bill Horne
(Remove QRM from my address to write to me directly)

In article ,
Dick Grady AC7EL wrote:


My only experience with reading a magazine electronically was a few
years ago when World Radio stopped paper publication, CQ bought it,
and published a PDF version on their web page (free for a while, they
charge for it now).

I downloaded a couple of the free issues. The problem I had was that
I don't have contiguous blocks of time to read an entire issue at
once. And there was no way to bookmark in the PDF file where I left
off.

I don't have the PDF files you write about, but if they are standard PDF
files and if you use Adobe Reader, at least on a Mac when you re-open a
PDF file if you have made the right Preference choices for Adobe Reader
the file will open to the very same page you were looking at when you
closed the file. Perhaps Windows machines behave differently.

In Adobe Reader Preferences, select the "Documents" category and click
the "Restore last view settings when reopening documents" choice. Then
the same page will show up that you were looking at when you closed a
PDF document. You just have to make this preference choice once, and
then it will hold for all PDF documents you look at in the future.

I've been using PDF files and Adobe Reader ever since they first became
available, and in particular during the past ten years or so while doing
pre-publication accuracy checking for John Wiley, Inc. of mathematics
textbook files written by others. That's ever since Wiley realized that
it would be easier for me to download a PDF file than for them to ship
100 pages of paper or so per chapter by UPS from New Jersey to
southwestern Canada, and for me to ship marked pages back to them. (I
had to laugh when they e-mailed me and asked "Do you know what a PDF
file is, and can you open them?" I had been using them for years and
years before that.) The ability to go back to the same point in a
manuscript where I left off reading the night before has been essential.
And being able to search for a word or two rather than to scan visually
through 100 paper pages until I found it has been essential also. But
the 27 inch screen in front of me does help.

As to ancient eyes and ease of reading, my 77+ year old eyes manage
pretty well. The 27 inch screen does help! But when away from home I
make do with a 13 inch screen on our laptop, and it's OK. With Adobe
Reader you can choose whatever magnification ratio you want.

One strong suggestion: If you use Adobe Reader, disable JavaScript for
it, again in the Preferences. (There is a "Javascript" item in the
Preference Categories list.) Frequently Adobe's implementation of
Javascript has opened up entry points for malware. They'll find this
out, cure it with an upgrade to Adobe Reader, and then a new entry way
will be found by the bad guys. I just permanently disable Javascript in
my copy of Adobe Reader.

David, ex-W8EZE

--
David Ryeburn

To send e-mail, change "netz" to "net"