PHQ: FDF Functionality

[#1]

There are some reviewers like Regulatory who need to make dozens of comments and have offline collaboration on a routed PDF before adding comments to the proof.

While they like PHQ (Workfront Proof) by-and-large, in our old system it was more efficient to download the PDF, collaborate and make comments, and upload it via Adobe's FDF file functionality (where offline comments can be merged with a shared online proof).

So whereas in our old system they could upload the final comments via FDF in 15 minutes, it takes an hour to completely retype and re-markup online. That's costing us valuable time and money.

[#2]

There is no reason to bring something offline while you have the possibility to do the same online in the cloud.

Have you considered sharing the proof further with "Regulatory" to do the markups online?

[#3]

@Imre Magyar,

"There is no reason to" think the cloud magically solves all problems just by virtue of existing.

Have you ever used an Adobe FDF-based workflow for managing collaborative PDFs? Assuming it's wrapped in a good UI, it is leaps and bounds more efficient and easy to train to than Workfront Proof. Also more accurate and secure, as we keep being reminded. And…the final resting place of any such collaboration can be in the cloud, it simply has the ability to take advantage of a strong offline component (Acrobat).

For packaging review, Workfront Proof can be quite clunky already; I wouldn't force a third-party contractor of expertise to supplant their process with it (which is an element at play in this case).