Now many companies do this, but the issue here was, and still is, that Philips completely ignored the needs of its own web users as expressed in the findings of a server log study conducted by two respected academics.

The study showed clearly that most of the company's web users preferred using the prior year's HTML annual report over the PDF version.This was especially true of ordinary individual shareholders, but even investment professionals showed a slight preference for HTML over PDF.

A month after our story ran, Philips contacted us to say they were considering some improvements for this year, namely posting the report in smaller PDF files rather than just one big one.

And that, in part, is what they've done. But they've gone further and have posted some parts of the report in HTML as well.

That's good, you say? Well, no, it's not good because only less-used, less-important parts of the report are in HTML. Most of the fluff is in HTML, but the financials — the stuff that really matters — is still only in PDF.

Essentially, Philips is showing off how it thinks internally. What's important to the company is its own hyperbole. The facts, they're relegated to a lower priority.

It is utterly baffling to us why a company would ignore what it knows to be true. Most shareholders are not going to peruse the financials if they are only available in PDF.

Unless, of course, that's the objective...

Every public company needs to think through much more carefully how it is preparing information for the Web. These decisions should not be left to chance and whim.

The wrong decisions can influence how people perceive the usefulness of your site and ultimately the trustworthiness and believability of your management.