David, I appreciate the clarification on use of the term “click bait.”
If the definition for “interactive” is that the format can be interacted with by being viewed on screen, then every digital format is interactive, even a print PDF (even .txt files).
If the definition is that broad, it strikes me as meaningless.
I would define interactive as engagement through tools, so for me it’s about whether those tools exist and work as expected (below I list the interactive tools available in InDesign).
Also, I would also differentiate between what I think, and what a typical user would expect.
If someone can do the following in InDesign…
- Add video
- Add audio
- Create animation
- Create Object States
- Embed HTML
- Create Alternate Layouts
- Make a Liquid Layout
- Add Buttons to control audio/video, trigger animation, change object states, etc
- Add Hyperlinks
…then they have an export option called Adobe PDF (Interactive)…
What should they reasonably expect when they add those add those items to their document and export with that option?
What happens if some of those things work when they open the file on their PDF reader, but dont’ work when their client opens the PDF in their reader?
If 95% of the interactive stuff doesn’t work, should it still be called “interactive”?
That’s where I’m coming from. I’m trying to help explain why the result of exporting an interactive PDF from InDesign is so disappointing, and to provide other options for interactivity (and I happen to make an option).
Rather than trying to redefine “interactive” so that it still fits, I’m asking what someone expects when a format has “interactive” in the name (and has a previous history of supporting more interactivity than it currently does).
If I was pitching my product as a great interactive tool in 2021…and all it supported were hyperlinks…I would be in trouble, and I don’t think, “well you can view it on a screen” would convince many people. Though maybe I’d get a 4/10 from a generous soul like yourself. ;-)
