Jump to content

cai

Members
  • Content count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Thanks
    cai got a reaction from Sean P in Paragraph spacing controls not working correctly   
    Unfortunately not... that version of the file doesn't exist any more.  But this happens relatively regularly to me so next time it happens I will attach here.
  2. Like
    cai got a reaction from Fixx in Affinity Publisher is not a copy of InDesign - no massive fail!   
    This would be useful.
    Think of a simple example with a parent master page with some details (running head, page number, other design elements), and then three child master pages: each for different common types of layout in your document: say one with a passepartout image, another with a full-page text frame, another with a chapter start page.  Then if you want to change the running head you can change the parent master page just once rather than all three (or more) master pages.
  3. Like
    cai reacted to Patrick Connor in Inline Graphics & Anchors to objects   
    @Arun Sarkar
    This will be a very popular request I am sure
  4. Like
    cai got a reaction from phooph in How to fix an accidentally rotated document?   
    I did the same thing. I can't find a way to reset view rotation on a document, but you can get around this with: View > New View. For me this opens a new tab of the same document with a straight view. Then I can just close the old tab.
  5. Like
    cai reacted to TonyB in Open PagePlus (*.ppp) files   
    I think we have received all the feedback we need for PagePlus import. I will end this thread by saying that if we did produce an importer we would wait until Affinity Publisher supports enough features that the importer would be better than our current PDF import. Sorry but that's best we can say at this time.
     
  6. Like
    cai reacted to Patrick Connor in Open PagePlus (*.ppp) files   
    Chris,
    I admire your ingenuity of suggestions for a work around which may well be needed, but I think it misses the thrust of the thread. Getting content into a program by a convoluted path is not the same as having a native file importer. For example PagePlus master pages and hierarchical text styles have no equivalent in the intermediate epub epd pdf or rtf formats. Consequently a file in Affinity Publisher that has been through another file format may look the same/similar to the PagePlus original, but it would not have the same integrity and objects as if it was made using Affinity Publisher objects. It would lose much of it's editability by going through any intermediate format (including our recommended path of PDF).
    No other company is ever going to make a PagePlus file importer, so these customers are rightly explaining and appealing to us to reconsider. They do not consider it a waste of time as it is the only chance they will get their existing files into Affinity Publisher "intact" or as designed. I would argue that the time and effort it would take to write such a convertor is not worth it in relation to the many other things that could be done instead, and that as PagePlus still functions that the number of documents that "need" conversion is smaller than some think. NOTE: Even a native file importer would not work 100% as there are no Affinity Publisher equivalents of many of the objects in a PagePlus document.
  7. Haha
    cai reacted to Przemysław in Printing Impositions   
    As a printer, I prefer when customers don't impose documents. Just saying. 
  8. Like
    cai reacted to Peter Kahrel in Footnotes/Endnotes   
    I'll add my vote for footnote and endnote support.
    > Hope you can implement it in a similar way like in InDesign, . . .
    Please, Affinity, whatever you do, don't look at InDesign's notes. Footnotes are at the document level in InDesign, they should be at the level of the story. That way each story can have its own numbering style and start number. It should also be possible (as it isn't in InDesign), to set the first footnote in a text as an uncued note. And users should be able to define their own sequence and appearance of note symbols (asterisk, pilcrow, dagger, double dagger, paragraph symbol, etc.).
    > Visit any university library and you'll find that endnotes replaced footnotes long ago, perhaps in the 1950s.
    Complete nonsense. Academic publishers prefer footnotes.
    > In the era before computers, endnotes were far easier to typeset.
    That's why notes were set as endnotes at some stage. Endnotes hung on for non-academic texts and in texts published by penny-pinching publishers, but nowadays footnotes are preferred by many. Footnotes are still more labour-intensive than endnotes, but the difference in effort is not nearly as big as it used to be.
    > In today's world, their appearance at the bottom of a page is seen as clutter by most readers. 
    In my experience, readers just get annoyed by having to go to the end of the book (or worse, to the end of the chapter in multi-authored volumes). 
  9. Like
    cai reacted to garrettm30 in Footnotes/Endnotes   
    Are footnotes and endnotes currently possible (besides manually creating them, of course)? I haven't found them so far.
    If not, this is a feature that I think would be widely used. I suspect it may take some time to get right if it is not yet under development, so I would understand if it is not a day-1 feature.
  10. Like
    cai reacted to Petar Petrenko in Affinity Publisher is not a copy of InDesign - no massive fail!   
    Yes, they will.
  11. Like
    cai reacted to JGD in thoughtful review and feedback on Publisher beta by experienced user   
    Actually, now that I read that review and got around to take a small break and test master page item usage/content editing/overriding (or its lack thereof; I really didn't think it would be missing and I just assumed it would be there, as it's so, so basic), I am aghast at how seriously behind Publisher is functionality-wise. Master page items ARE NOT used for decoration only, they serve very serious workflow and time-saving purposes for content insertion as well. I teach students how to use creative software, and a recurrent theme is telling them how to use as many of those “do once, reuse often” automation features as they can (in my case, it's side-bearing and kerning-pair grouping, as well as component usage – it's a kind of “typographic symbol/asset” of sorts, which you can fully parameterise – and basic scripting with classes for contextual alternates in the acclaimed type design application Glyphs). I would never, ever recommend Publisher to them if it didn't adhere to this basic standard of operation at launch, of which even Designer seems to be a great example, with its symbols, assets, etc..
    I concur with the reviewer's assessment; this may end up hurting Serif more than helping. This isn't even the “nice to have for complex projects” kind of feature like the ones I've mentioned before here in the forums (to save you some time, I mean having multiple-page spreads), let alone an advanced professional-level feature which no one really expected because the Serif team had already shot it down (think Multiline Composer), this is actually the kind of “I'd rather use the car-crash-interface-Scribus, install InDesign CS5 – or Page Plus, if that's your cup of tea, as I don't believe you can't override master page items on PP – on a VM, pay the Adobe CC tax or sell a kidney to buy a license from Quark if I can't do this on Publisher” kind of feature.
    So I will ask the Serif devs very bluntly: what is the ETA for this very, VERY basic feature, without which Serif shouldn't even be allowed to called Publisher a DTP application as many people would see it as, more than incomplete, actually broken/useless? 1.7 GM? Or 2.0 GM? I should also restate the same question re inline/anchored images and vector objects as well, while I'm at it… Is it a 2.0 affair, or can we expect it sooner?
    Sorry, mac_heibu, while I do concur that calling it “alpha” may be an “insult”, in the sense that Publisher is indeed way more stable than alpha-quality software, calling it “proof-of-concept” would be, as of now, entirely fitting, as it's a functional stage somewhere between alpha and beta (betas don't have to be feature-complete or even completely stable, but they have to be at least usable for basic stuff; for instance, Gmail was officially in beta for years on end and, guess what, you could always quickly and easily send e-mails – and then some – from the very beginning). It's an interesting piece of software, but in its current state it would be cumbersome (if not downright useless) for even the most basic of tasks (and yes, typesetting a 300+ page book of prose or poetry, without footnotes, is something I would call basic, as it's precisely the kind of easy DTP exercise we had to do at an undergraduate level). At some point, if using a word processor is easier and quicker than even using Publisher (and I had colleagues on my BFA that did indeed set entire, complex 40+ page documents in Word – and by complex I mean stuff with images and recurrent, master page-like decoration –, and I can assure you they looked good), its point of even existing is moot.
    To do DTP you can't just make do with multi-page Designer with cross-frame text flow, baseline grids and static masters tacked on; you need way more than that, and Publisher is currently failing to deliver on that basic set of needs (not of being an InDesign/Quark/Scribus clone per se, but at least a prosumer DTP app), period. After you properly set up your document, a DTP app should work for you, and not the other way around. Never, ever, in a million years, otherwise its cheap price will just be quickly offset by diminishing returns, as any economics 101 will tell you. I'd say 10 pages would be about the top limit over which that effect would kick in and hey, guess what, Designer can handle as many pages just as well so, again, Publisher's very reason to exist is rendered moot, and by another Serif app, no less. 
    And to the Serif devs, I am very sorry, as you've been very kind to me in the past, a kindness which I haven't returned for personal reasons (as I said before, I'm finishing a beast of an MA thesis – on typography, no less) that have nothing to do with what I think of your work and mission, which I feel is mostly useful and positive, but… While I used Designer and Photo betas for professional work with glee (despite all your recommendations to the contrary; yeah, sometimes I like living on the edge), I wouldn't subject myself to actually test Publisher even in a speculative setting in its current state. Please do appreciate where I'm coming from: reengineering old InDesign projects into APub format could be useful in the future, but only if I had the guarantee that by 1.7 or 2.0 GM they – or the muscle memory acquired in the process – might actually be useable and useful, hence my insistence on getting an ETA from you (also, it's not like I'm asking about some super secret feature Adobe mustn't know about, lest they rip it off from you).
    I know it could be in my (eventual) best interests as well, but it would feel like a potentially pointless chore (and an unpaid one, at that… wait, even worse, I would be the one paying for it after the GM launch!), and not like a fun (and actually useful from a strategic standpoint) thing like the earlier betas did. Also, I know that you always make a point of warning users that files created with the betas are not guaranteed to work properly with the GM versions, but that's a gamble that at least has some chance of return; Publisher's value proposition, even from that standpoint, is pretty much null at this point.
    I am impressed and relieved to see that you are taking typography – my baby – seriously enough, but when it comes to the mundane nitty-gritty of DTP workflows, I really do believe you have your priorities all mixed up and that most serious users would be more forgiving of many other bells and whistles not being there in the beta (like… many features from Designer – including, yes, advanced typography controls –, which are already there by default anyway). Please fix this, and then let us know in the forums or via e-mail newsletter when you do, so I can resume testing in earnest…
    My honest advice is: I know the road to GM is hard (having worked on a personal project with a somewhat fluid deadline for four years myself, I can absolutely relate) and, at some point, you will have to freeze the feature set (ditto for that), but please, oh PLEASE, do not ship this thing with either of those features missing, as you'll lose a few important pro testers/potential DTP clients in the process (me included; and I specified “DTP”, as Designer and Photo are, indeed, “good enough”), even if temporarily (though it won't make you look good in the eyes of the pro crowd even if you do get around to adding them in a later 1.x or 2.x release, that's for sure…). And don't think for a second this is a slippery slope and that, after these features were implemented, I'd start harping on about a myriad others (like literary/academic/technical-related ones, such as multiline composer, indexes, footnotes, the works; those should come eventually, but I'm obviously not holding my breath). No, these features would elevate Publisher into “good enough” status and put it at least roughly on par with its brethren, even if it stayed a bit behind the other incumbents in the DTP space… It would still be the inexpensive option, but the value proposition would be there and work its magic, as usual.
    As a matter of fact, I could quickly redo 90% of my professional freelance work (as opposed to some of what I did – and all of what my colleague did, as she was responsible for a medical magazine – at the medical event management business I worked for, namely long-ass conference programmes and books of abstracts) in a practical and sensible fashion (as in, in an easily editable/expandable/reusable form) if only – and only if – you added those two features. As long as they are not there, I won't be spending my money on Publisher or recommending others to do so, sorry; that's where I draw the line, and it's a sensible one at that, as the kinds of projects I worked on seem to match pretty well with your target demographic (people who do more artsy/marketing/advertising work and less literary/academic/technical – in essence, “boring” – work) and with those most of my colleagues worked on, too; I don't know what kind of market research you did but, unfortunately, I do believe reality will get the better of you and once the disgruntled InDesign user reviews start pouring in you will regret that decision (if you do indeed go the opposite route of focusing on fluff over workflow, that is). On that subject, I should also add that I have been heavily pushing Publisher (and Affinity in general) on social media and IRL (and while I don't have a metric crap ton of followers/acquaintances, I am a bit of an influencer on my niche, on account of having been a – still somewhat locally famous – computer room monitor and being a teacher), so my personal credibility would also be on the line, so to speak… In a sense, not recommending Publisher in its potentially incomplete 1.7 incarnation may hurt your wallet a bit in the short term, but it will also spare you some needless (and, I reckon, somewhat unfair, because I do think you have your heart in the right place) humiliation. Peace, and godspeed!
  12. Like
    cai reacted to Fixx in Affinity Publisher is not a copy of InDesign - no massive fail!   
    ^ This. Someone proposed that it would be useful to be able to apply several master pages to a content page to apply different master items to pages – I feel that would be confusing. Hierarchical parent/children master pages would be easier to use.
    Still, I do not know if would be more trouble than worth... I have managed just fine with bunch of single master pages in my productions.
  13. Like
    cai reacted to Dave Harris in Affinity Publisher is not a copy of InDesign - no massive fail!   
    We use "Character styles" for styles that apply to a range of characters, "Paragraph styles" for styles that always apply to whole paragraphs, and "Text styles" for both or either. So this may be just a different terminology to get used to.
    We have a third kind that we call "Group styles" which don't get applied at all. These are used to organise styles into a hierarchy. If you have hundreds of text styles in a single document, you might want to turn on Show Hierarchical in the hamburger menu top-right of the Text Styles panel. That should help deal with the long lists. We're deliberately flexible, so group styles can carry formatting, or not, and we also allow character styles to be based on paragraph styles and vice-versa, as well as allowing both to be based on group styles.
  14. Like
    cai reacted to aleale1 in Affinity Publisher is not a copy of InDesign - no massive fail!   
    AP Layers.mp4
  15. Like
    cai got a reaction from Fixx in Affinity Publisher is not a copy of InDesign - no massive fail!   
    This would be useful.
    Think of a simple example with a parent master page with some details (running head, page number, other design elements), and then three child master pages: each for different common types of layout in your document: say one with a passepartout image, another with a full-page text frame, another with a chapter start page.  Then if you want to change the running head you can change the parent master page just once rather than all three (or more) master pages.
  16. Like
    cai got a reaction from FaraGype in Ligatures and ordinals not working   
    I cannot get ligatures or ordinals to work.
    It works fine in TextEdit, Pages and InDesign, but not Designer.
     
    Examples attached for Zapfino (ttf shipped with Mac OS a while ago) with strings "Digestif" and "28th".

×

Important Information

These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.