2015 BPVC pdf files TOC not linked ;(

[keyen]

I've just downloaded Section II and Section VIII-1 pdf copies. We get our subscription through IHS. The table of contents of these files cannot be clicked to take you directly to the page/paragraph you're looking for. This worked fine in the 2013 editions. This is rather frustrating. Do any of you have a solution for this? Is this something ASME failed to do, or IHS? If any of you get your copies from another provider, please let me know.

A quick tip: if you use Adobe Reader or Adobe Acrobat Pro to read the ASME BPVC files, you may have noticed the search function often fails when the words you're looking for have been elongated (to accommodate the justified paragraphs). For example: "designated agent" in U-2(a). Google Chrome's built-in PDF reader can find these words without any trouble.

 

[TGS4]

Doesn't your version have "Bookmarks"?

At least the links in the text work.

I agree that the two-column format is so last-century. Which, of course, is why Division 2 went to a 1 column format.

 

[jte]

Thanks for the heads-up that the new edition is available! I just downloaded a copy from IHS as well. Viewing using Adobe Acrobat XI.

I usually use the bookmarks, and they seem to be working fine. A quick spot check of blue links seems to be working fine.

A search for "designated agent" [including the quotes in the search term] gets hits on App NN and Interpretations. [Isn't this new? I don't recall Interp's being a part of Div. 1.] But no hits on U-2(a)

When I eliminate the quotes in the search term, it finds both words together in U-2(a).

I'll go on the record as favoring the two column format. Guess I was born in the last century...

But if we are going to go off on a tangent regarding format, I'd still like a rational explanation of why the current format of eliminating adjacent figures, tables, etc. and moving them to a separate part of the document is somehow superior. Matching some other country or continent's preferred format doesn't qualify as a rational explanation. Some of us still prefer to use dead tree versions of the codes so arguing that the figures are just a click away ain't gonna work...

 

[marty007]

I just downloaded all of the 2015 editions from Techstreet. All of the links appear to work, and I have no problems searching for designated agent.

 

[pperlich]

But if we are going to go off on a tangent regarding format, I'd still like a rational explanation of why the current format of eliminating adjacent figures, tables, etc. and moving them to a separate part of the document is somehow superior. Matching some other country or continent's preferred format doesn't qualify as a rational explanation. Some of us still prefer to use dead tree versions of the codes so arguing that the figures are just a click away ain't gonna work...

Couldn't agree more. I like the two column format as well.

 

[TomBarsh]

column width:

Newspapers use multiple columns that are relatively narrow to the width of the page. A lot of research and experimental practice went into this. There are good reasons for the multiple columns (or you could say good reasons for the narrower column, but then we don't want a 4" wide newspaper with one narrow column, so multiple columns are used with wider sheets). There has been actual academic research on this and the narrower (less than full page width) columns were found to be most readable. The quickest I can Google is this link, the first reply to the question in this link gives a good succinct reply

http://graphicdesign.stackexchange.com/questions/3553/why-do-newspapers-use-multiple-columns

Many of my textbooks do not use multiple columns. Most use one column, a few use two columns (usually these books are large format). But either the pages are narrower than are ASME Code books (these are older textbooks) or have wide margins with pictures, comments, etc (the newer textbooks), so in both cases the column of text is not unduly wide.

I certainly far prefer the two column format of Div 1 versus the Div 2 format.