Jump to content

RM f/g

Members
  • Content count

    37
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RM f/g

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    NL

Recent Profile Visitors

76 profile views
  1. I was wondering if the folks at Serif saw “Highlight Fields” as a sort of extention of “Show Special Characters”. Then it could make sense. Just a little inconvenience. They have a lot more important issues to solve.
  2. I noticed that clicking "Highlight Fields" in the text menu also toggles "Show Special Characters" in the same menu. Is this a little buggy or is it to be seen as intended behaviour?
  3. Hi Jeff Have a closer look at the text frame. You'll see two handles/nodes in the bottom right corner. Moving the inner one will scale/transform the frame only, moving the outer one will also scale the contents of the frame. Brilliant.
  4. Part of my work is in the archaeological field. Drawings of finds are 99.9% drawn in ink on paper, scanned and eventually saved as 1-bit, 1200 ppi tiff. Placed in books, magazines these drawings should output to 1200 ppi, 100% black, high res images. No downsampling, no halftone screening. Another disappointment.
  5. Exporting files as 1-bit tiff files would do for me, I presume. Part of my work is in the archaeological field. Drawings of finds are 99.9% drawn in ink on paper, scanned and eventually saved as 1-bit, 1200 ppi tiff. In Photoshop work on these scans is done in greyscale mode as possibilities in bitmap mode are ever so limited. Then converted to 1-bit and saved. So working on files in APhoto in greyscale mode and exporting the finished image as 1-bit tiff would do for me, I presume.
  6. Thanks for the tip, Walt. I didn't even know is was possible to find by name. To be honest: I hadn't noticed the search box and recent glyphs yet. Would expect them to be in the top section of the panel. The idea to show glyphs in more human categories isn't mine. It's what my beloved InDesign already does.
  7. Looking for the multiplication sign in the glyp browser, I experienced some difficulty finding it. It appeared not to be in the group ‘Mathematic Operators’ but in ‘Latin - 1 Supplement’. Looking further I noticed that the plus sign appears to be in ‘Basic Latin’, but the minus sign in ‘Mathematic Operators’. Strange enough, to me at least, something similar with fractions: ¼, ½ and ¾ are in ‘Latin - 1 Supplement’, whereas ⅛, ⅜, ⅝, ⅞, ⅓ and ⅔ are to be found in ‘Number forms’. Is it possible to show glyphs not only in their ‘native’ group, but also in a ‘logical’ group? For example: the multiplication sign in the group ‘Latin - 1 Supplement’ and also in ‘Mathematical Operators’ (like InDesign does)? Would make them easier to find. I published this topic at first accidentaly in the Affinity Designer forum. You know: Designer / InDesign. Not the first time I clicked myself into the wrong direction.
  8. Looking for the multiplication sign in the glyp browser, I experienced some difficulty finding it. It appeared not to be in the group ‘Mathematic Operators’ but in ‘Latin - 1 Supplement’. Looking further I noticed that the plus sign appears to be in ‘Basic Latin’, but the minus sign in ‘Mathematic Operators’. Strange enough, to me at least, something similar with fractions: ¼, ½ and ¾ are in ‘Latin - 1 Supplement’, whereas ⅛, ⅜, ⅝, ⅞, ⅓ and ⅔ are to be found in ‘Number forms’. Is it possible to show glyphs not only in their ‘native’ group, but also in a ‘logical’ group? For example: the multiplication sign in the group ‘Latin - 1 Supplement’ and also in ‘Mathematical Operators’ (like InDesign does)? Would make them easier to find. Edit: Meanwhile I copied this topic to the Affinity Publisher forum, where it should have in the first place. You know: Designer / InDesign. Not the first time I clicked myself into the wrong direction.
  9. RM f/g

    Glyphs Browser Bug

    Same problem here. All my fonts that show no glyphs in the glyph browser appear to be PostScript Type1.
  10. If it's similar to how a table of contens works, can't you just make a second and third table of contents refering to the captions of images and tables?
  11. An ‘ink trap’, that little wedge.
  12. RM f/g

    Scripting

    Thanks for your hint. Myself, I'm Mac only too. I'll have a closer look at BBedit. Who knows?
  13. Possibly. Haven't had to go that way for years.
  14. RM f/g

    Scripting

    Old Bruce, could you give a hint towards what this ‘something’ would be? I have been thinking of this solution. ’Something’ would have to support footnotes, so most likely a word processor.
×