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. ;-)

I think we’re going around in circles, David. :-)

I agree 100%, if you want to send something as an email attachment (or archive something or print something), PDF is a great format. However, I don’t think it’s accurate to call it “interactive.”

This isn’t a slight against awesome content distributed as PDFs, like InDesign Magazine.

Again, I use PDF every day. And I love it.

Re: “The PDF (Interactive) feature is a method for exporting a PDF from InDesign that includes a few additional interactive features that PDF (Print) cannot do” — what’s left? Fullscreen mode, etc is specific to Adobe Acrobat/Reader and won’t work in most other readers. What distinguishes an “interactive PDF” that is reliable across readers?

I would qualify that HTML can be downloaded…it’s just not great to send as an email attachment.

“Just HTML” can support just about any interactivity imaginable, in every browser (and elsewhere) without a plugin. Which is what I was asserting. Whereas, PDF cannot.

I didn’t say PDF was bad for emailing or archiving, etc– just that its interactivity is limited to hyperlinks, which doesn’t merit the term “interactive” even by PDF’s standards.

I’m still happy to just agree to disagree, but I think it’s important to know what each format supports and what it doesn’t.

I don’t think we disagree about the content of the article, perhaps just the title.

Hi David,

Love you and I respectfully disagree right back. ;-)

I’m not claiming that PDF is dead as a format. I use it everyday. It’s wonderful.

I’m claiming that the *interactive* part is dead.

To me, hyperlinks (and bookmarks, which are just a special case of hyperlinks) are not enough to call something “interactive.” People expect so much more out of that word and certainly when exporting with InDesign’s capabilities.

A PDF with hyperlinks is just a PDF to me. Word Documents have hyperlinks, but we don’t call them “Interactive Word Documents.” It sounds silly because we just expect that a rich text format can have hyperlinks.

The forms are great, but they don’t work in all readers either. It’s much safer to go with an online service like DocuSign (or similar) if you want to ensure your forms will work for everyone.

Just updating this thread…in5 is now responsive! :-)
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/responsive-layouts-using-indesign-more-in5-v36-release-putney/

I know this is an old thread, but adding some details in case someone else finds it.

I believe the issue is that several browsers don’t support autoplaying media until the user has interacted with the page.

That’s particularly hard when the media is on the first page.

This security restriction can be avoided by muting video to start (which the user can unmute). I don’t believe this is possible with Publish Online.

I cover it in more detail in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGQ2qXiq8RY

Hi Keith,

This may not be anything wrong with the EPUB itself.

iOS blocks embedded content in EPUBs (although it allows it in files created with iBooks), including how OAM gets exported by InDesign. You won’t see this problem in iBooks on Mac OS, but it is a problem on iOS.

More info:
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1513879

It’s noted as a “bug” in the forum topics, but I suspect it’s a “feature” to give iBooks an advantage.

Hi Rosie,

I replied to your email, but I’ll also answer here in case others are interested as well.

Interactive content cannot be placed inside a button. Put simply: how will the browser know if you’re clicking on the button, or something inside the button?

This is unfortunate, because InDesign’s hide/show feature is limited to buttons (and form elements). In the future, in5 will support interactive content within Multi-State Objects, which should address the functionality that you’re looking for.

It’s a bit more work, but you can create a custom hide/show menu: https://ajarproductions.com/pages/products/in5/demos.php#creating-a-toggle-to-showhide-items

Regarding the Scrolling Frame, if you set Text Rendering to HTML, the TOC links will work within the Scrolling Frame.

Hope that helps.