AllAppsUser

Surely for the 'space' it would take up in the app, it matters not if it's there? I can't see a downside to it being present. I'm not about to get all 'pure' about it being a "word processing, not design" thing. Clients will often ask me for a word count, so it would be useful. "design" is a business with clients to satisfy, as opposed to some 'high art' with only the artist's own sensitivites to satisfy.

I do...😎

This is precisely why Affinity’s development is ignoring some fundamental customer needs, and why my signature says what it does. Trying to work in a really bright environment, or outside, with a dark UI on a reflective iPad screen is virtually impossible.

I tried to search for your pdf in the forum to link to here @DM1, but failed... glad you’ve popped along and added it.

I’d be surprised. I’m booleaning (not a word, but hey) all the time. If you can show some screen captures of before, then after, I might be able to see what’s happening.

I assume you’ve looked at the Help that comes with the app? I know it’s a bit obscure, because you have to go out to the Home Screen to see the link to it (top right).

I did not know this was possible! Hope this helps.

If you choose the node tool and drag select the top corner, then zoom right in, how many nodes do you see? It looks like there’ll be a cluster of nodes there to me, because I experience a similar thing, and it’s the explanation in my case. Expand needs ‘clean’ paths to work with. Beware also that sometimes nodes can be on top of each other so they look like only one (yes, I know). If you look carefully at where exactly it’s ‘choppy’, and you see only one node there when you select and zoom in... try experimentally deselecting (because drag select will have selected all of them). Then touch (to select only the top one) and either drag or delete it... that’ll reveal the node underneath, if there is one... You can Undo if there isn’t one to restore things. If extra nodes is the reason - imported vector artwork suffers from this a lot. It tends to need a lot of cleaning up if you intend doing anything fancy with it. Hope this helps. There are quite a few vector actions that need ‘clean’ paths and this is one reason why many people can struggle with vector work.

First thing I need to say here is that I’ve not really worked with the assets panel. That said, given no one else has chipped in (it is a Sunday evening here in the UK, I don’t know your location). Are these assets linked rather than embedded? This would potentially explain the file size you’re seeing. ‘Assets’ often behave this way, though that doesn’t guarantee they work the same way in Affinity. If they are linked, the only issue I could anticipate is when you come to package it all up for printing. Then, something might drop out. I’d be tempted to explore that a bit to see what happens to the file size.

Hah, I’ve been tapping on the colour reference itself to bring up the number pad... expecting to paste it there, where logically I’d expect it to be... you know, in the input. It’s what inputs are for? I’ve been finding the dialogues generally odd today. You can use scribble in some for example (I suspect when it’s text input) but not in others (I suspect numerical input, though I’ve not methodically gone through to check this explanation). Then with text frames, you can’t use scribble at all? It’s just inconsistent for no reason I can see. When things are inconsistent, it really doesn’t help you fathom things out.. it just ends up feeling really tedious. Other apps don’t make me work this hard over simple stuff... rant over. Thanks @Alfred

Keh? What 3 bar hamburger?

Another two I’ve bumped into now: Swatches panel to default back to last used palette. Ability to store palette as files in Files app 99% of my real work uses predetermined brand colours and therefore a Document Palette associated with it. I work for many different clients. Some throughout a year, some once or twice a year, some it’s a specialist one-off. It adds up to thousands, so Application palettes are NOT the answer. Real work? I use Affinity only for my personal projects (which is why I’m active here mostly on weekends) for real work, it’s Adobe because all my clients are Adobe and the basics are there.)

To be fair, the global colour has been registered and I’m hopeful of a fix. The others may well still be under the radar. export/import document palettes paste hex numbers into colour palettes highlighting the colour assigned to the selected object in swatches Ability to create global colour without fiasco of having to edit after creation sort out the nuisance of not being able to use scribble in text frames (and general inconsistency here) conflict between keyboard and pencil UI ( still a bit of a wtf moment every time - still can’t get my head around describing it) Ability to pin layers to top of layer stack ability to drag colour over object to apply it Ability to set defaults to always show paste board Useful object styles that behave like text styles ability to nudge move objects (recommend ProCreate’s tap-tap-tap - unbeatably intuitive). I’ve just posted this list on another thread and thought: I really should put it somewhere where hopefully it’ll register. I may have asked for these before... I’ll keep asking because they’re basic-basics used everyday in normal workflow. Designer is great, but you should be aware there’s another app rising.

Is it possible to do this? Paste a copied Hex colour reference into the colour values panel, whether arrived at via the swatches panel or not.... anywhere?

There’s too many ‘basics’ to fix before charging for a v2 is justifiable. And I mean basic-basics. Most of these are ipad related, but may also be in the desktop version.... export/import document palettes cope/paste hex numbers into colour palettes highlighting the colour assigned to the selected object in swatches Ability to create global colour without fiasco of having to edit after creation sort out the nuisance of not being able to use scribble in text frames (and general inconsistency here) conflict between keyboard and pencil UI Ability to pin layers to top of layer stack ability to drag colour over object to apply it Ability to set defaults to always show paste board Useful object styles that behave like text styles ...and on.... and that’s another thing: general inconsistencies between apps, and between iPad v desktop. There’s a long way to go before these apps will persuade pro designers to shell out repeatedly for upgrades. Bells and whistles won’t do it. They’re more likely at this point in time, to go seeking a better app by someone else to start investing their time and money in. I’m watching a couple of others developing rapidly myself. I’m still not recommending these apps to the industry I work in because these basics annoy every day.

Big thank you!! That's just awesome.

This is one of the most frustrating things about Photo. Having to tap back to the select persona in order to deselect. Two actions instead of one for no good reason I can see. Really hope they implement it.

Doesn't double-clicking on the layer turn it to an editable one?

Firstly, it's not just me, but the OP and others on this thread. I've tried to illustrate what they're asking for (and I'm still not sure I've done them any favours by trying to do so). I chose to illustrate with a really simple version of the 'exercise' as an example, in order the demonstrate the 'problem' of umpteen actions instead of just a few. The exercise I chose to illustrate it could possibly be automatically in-filled. I appreciate your suggestion @GarryP Mostly, though, these exercises involve something a bit more.... a lot of selecting and drag copying different parts, to different positions.

I find the pen tool in Designer (iPad) excellent. I can't comment on the Desktop Pen Tool because I've hardly used it, tbh. The pen tool is much closer to FreeHand's which set the bar very high IMHO. I always found Adobe's a bit frustrating after Macromedia's. The one tool people struggle with, in my experience, is the pen tool. It all depends on who Serif want to sell their stuff to, in the end. There's a tension for business between copying the competition and trying to innovate without alienating potential customers. It's a tricky path, I've tried to plough it myself. My own view is that I'm open to things being 'better'.. different is not automatically 'better'. And yes, the more ways to do the same thing, the more a creative can work intuitively. There are many things that Serif have had some good ideas about and I commend them. But they are not perfect or 'right' on everything. I'm an 'open' person, who respects everyone's views, and appraise everything (whether rooted in past processes or not) without prejudice. I began my career using Macromedia's products, then moved over to Adobe's. Now I'm using Affinity, and haven't touched Adobe in months. I'm in a position to do so right now because I'm working entirely on personal projects. It would be great if Affinity was usable by commercial studios, because I'd like to use it in a production environment too, but it's not. And this is a point worth noting... there's a big investment professionals make in software. If a business is to grow in a market such as this, it's pragmatic to understand it and not dismiss it. One day @loukash, you may be faced with the same thing.

It's so hard to communicate isn't it. Was it Napoleon Bonaparte who said something about everything always being misunderstood? So, to clarify.... I (and others above) have a way of working, currently in Adobe PhotoShop, that is super efficient. The topic of discussion here is that Affinity Photo cannot support the same degree of efficiency. What counts is efficiency. Time = money. So how do we evidence efficiency here? A time and motion study (what are they called nowadays?). Whatever it's called, it's a study/analysis that lists all the distinct actions needed to complete a task - 1, 2, 3 style - really clear. Above, I've compared using a set of actions that are well established in the industry (as another contributer has said already) versus... the Affinity Photo way. Setting it out 1-2-3 stylie allows direct comparison in a compellingly really-really clear way. I'm happy for anyone to challenge me.. pointing out an AF Photo method that is AS efficient that I've missed (here's hoping still). Conclusion (at this point in the thread): Photo does fail here (as others have pointed out) and we now have good evidence demonstrating it above. Now, there is a clear Business Case for correcting it. The clear case? "A set of actions that are well established in the industry" and therefore a standard in efficiency expected by a high value customer segment. If Serif want the high value customer segment that comprises commercial studios, they will have to fix this demonstratable inefficiency. Whether that is with an alternative equally efficient set of new actions, or the established one's is up to them to make the call. The important thing is: fixing it. If I do establish the design studio that's being discussed in my neck of the woods, will I invest in Affinity? In a word: No - because of the basics Serif just don't grasp... like: efficiency. I'm an avid fan of Affinity for fun unpressured 'personal projects'... but not for production environments. Hope that helps.

You've not started at the same point as me @loukash. And I broke down everything that is a distinct action rather than combined several. Don't think 'steps', think 'actions'. I'm not sure if you're trying to demonstrate the number of actions needed is equivalent, or suggesting another step-by-step way of doing it. This is your suggestion with the same methodology of representation I've used applied: Paste Rasterise (See 3) duplicate the whole(?) art (I assume drag with alt, so it's one action) <<< is this to rasterise?? select (1 action) copy (another distinct action) paste (another distinct action) deselect marquee select move tool duplicate pattern to the new position (I assume 1 action drag with alt key) power duplicate merge (May not be necessary... in my usual workflow, there's no extra layers created in the first place) Export It's still a busy way of doing something that currently takes me 6 actions in total to complete.

Drag select pixels -> drag move + copy pixels (in one action) Ok, I've been searching these forums trying to sort this out in my head once and for all. It feels like a basic. It's suggested the Photo way of doing the above (unless I've missed something better) is: Command + J = copy selected pixels to a new layer Then move (with Move tool) So example. I find a b/w raster logo of a pencil. It's too short. I need to lengthen it. Scaling it elongates the tip and the curve on the other end in a strange way. I need to split it and fill-in the middle - drawing one rectangle in black to fill it in won't do, it because there's a pattern involved. There's not enough to clone once (and stretch) to fill in the gap. I'll need to do it three times - this is not unusual in exercises like this. So the AF Photo way (bold is where the two approaches differ): Paste Rasterise Drag select command + J move command + J move command + J move flatten (yeah, not always necessary) Export The way I'm used to: Paste Drag select Drag with cmd + alt Drag with cmd + alt Drag with cmd + alt Export Got it now, what the problem here is? Multiply that over 10 icons to change and you've got 100 actions instead of 50. The more actions, the more opportunity for something to go wrong at some point resulting in a redo and even more faffing. I'm sure affinity will "get there eventually"., until they do, basic bread and butter stuff like this will stop studios moving away from Adobe. I'd not take the plunge and give my design team this headache to deal with - no way. You can keep your fancy stuff.

Has there been any head way on this? (On another topic I've not found, perhaps? Does the latest release that I've not bothered downloading yet, solve this?) - - - - - - I'm always wanting to do a quick-n-dirty: drag select, drag-copy selected pixels, (repeat) = ta-da, done. The round-the-houses, no sensible way to do this, is the one thing that makes Photo a 10 out 10 disappointment. Is Photo's target utterly devoted to photographers, and no one else? If so, then it should not be considered part of a bundle with Designer and Publisher. Doing so, misrepresents what it is. It should perform efficiently on activities such as cut-outs, and quick-n-dirty modification (tweak) exercises I've described above. Having to 'rasterise' an already raster image, because it's pasted, in order to drag select + delete, is really not clever either. Just doesn't make sense on any level.

He-he.. try this @Alfred. Draw a rectangle bigger than 1.75". Then go into Navigation Studio, and input 1.75"... I bet 1.8" is displayed (Rounds-up). Then.. draw a rectangle smaller than 1.75".... I bet you get 1.7" (Rounds-down). Entertaining? Either way, I'm confident it's only a Navigation panel display oddity. The physical rectangle IS 1.75"... ... er, unless we're being really-really precise, like @KelRao, who's into 0.1 of a pixel precision. That's way beyond anything I do - it's a level of precision that feels like quantum physics to me 😁!