wonderings

This issue has been around a while and mentioned a long time ago. If they have not sorted it out by now I am assuming they are not interested in Publisher working this way. These little things make it unusable in my opinion. @Duboiz - I played around with the beta a bit, this was an issue I brought up then as well. I still bought it assuming these little things would not be corrected. I do appreciate the attempt and I like to be somewhat familiar of other options out there, especially at the price of 1 month for Adobe CC. Not a bad buy for what it is though not ready for pro work.

I brought this up for the beta and it seems nothing has changed. Not sure how anyone could use Publisher with poor PDF handling. The original file I brought up in the past was made from Microsoft Word. Sure not a great program for PDF making but never had an issue with them in Indesign. Today I received a print ready PDF from a client. PDF was made in Indesign, everything looks good in Acrobat and Indesign and prints fine. Drop the file in Publisher and immediately the fonts are messed up. To be sure it was not just a preview issue I exported as PDF from Publisher and get the same results with the PDF. Just awful and I cannot be the only one noticing issues with placed PDF's.... can I? Screen Shot 2019-06-21 at 11.48.05 AM by B P, on Flickr

A big +1. I really hate the way Affinity handles colours. Not sure why it has to be so difficult. They really need to take some cues from Adobe who have refined many things over the year. I am sure a bit part of it is I do not use the affinities a whole lot despite owning them all I stick with the industry standard and what I am used to Adobe CC. If I drop in a PDF with spot colours or pantones I would like to see those automatically added to a pallet. I am trying to do a bit more with Affinity just to better familiarize myself, but this is one thing I have never liked with Designer or Photo and now Publisher. Really needs a change to something simpler. Should have a document pallet that has all colours used in the document, should have a separate pallet for the pantone library and others. The current setup seems overly complex for something that should be quick and simple and not something I should have to give much thought to. That being said I would rather have preflight and separations view added first. I can muddle around with the colours and make something work. Not having preflight and separations are another reason I will not switch to Publisher for real work beyond testing and exploring.

Adobe has also done something really good with their packages. If everything is correctly there in the font folder you do not need to activate fonts. Indesign automatically sees the font in the folder and uses them without need of font management software. It is really slick and has taken a big headache away with multiple font versions, deactivating reactivating etc. So if you have to send your packaged file (we get them from a few clients) I just open it and everything is there ready for my changes or for me to make a PDF and prep for proofs and press.

Because packing also pulls fonts and puts everything in a nice package neatly organized. Say you place images in your document, you do all the work but you forgot to put it in the folder, that would not matter when it comes time to package (as long as all links were still fine). It will automatically pull everything together for you. You can then delete all the loose stuff in a folder and are left with a workable file and 100% all necessary pieces for that file.

+1 Requested that before the last update came out. They are making something that is necessary and simple complex and unintuitive.

+1 would much prefer that name. Publisher already has a bad name from Microsoft and you are immediately reminded of that. Not that the 2 applications can really be compared, Microsoft Publisher is a nightmare, Affinity Publisher is a dream in comparison.

Adobe does the private community with beta releases. I know I participated in one for a release of Indesign. They listened and implanted changes as the small community requested. I found it to be a very positive experience. Maybe that could be implemented here, have both a wider use base finding bugs and issues but start a secondary filled with people who are in the market they are after, be it pros or hobbyists. You certainly cannot please everyone but you can definitely listen and see what professionals need in the software. Many of the things asked for are not just personal preference but tools needed to work professionally. It is asked by professionals who are looking for options in this marketplace as Adobe is king and currently has us all with a gun to our head (I still love the software but hate the subscription).

+1 Variable data is one of the fastest growing segments of the print world. Now no one is expecting it to be a full featured variable data program but it must be able to do the basics.

+1 There will never be a perfect conversion tool for Indesign files to something else and vice versa. Same goes for Quark. There is software that does convert Quark to Indesign but that is not perfect either. A perfect conversion from Indesign to Publisher for your work flow is never going to happen and obviously Publisher is not the app for you as you are dependent on Indesign. You are only opening up yourself to possibly expensive problems and mistakes by looking for a solution like that.

It is incredibly important for anyone developing software for a market that is already there to listen to the needs of that community. The daily users will have far more experience with apps both good and bad then most developers and company support for that app. Goes with most thing like that, I know more about what our digital press can handle and can do then the techs we call in to service it. They have been amazed at some of the things we run through with no issue and some of the issues or suggestions that would make it a much better machine. Those things they would never think of because they are not using it as an end user would use it. Serif definitely has their own way of doing things and I have no issue with it despite finding some simple things difficult to do (just a learning curve for new software when used to Adobe). I think Affinities colour panels are atrocious and overly complex, but they do the job and others will have no issue with it I am sure. As long as the job can get done and you can accomplish what needs to be done everything else can be learned. The important thing is to be able to capable of what needs done in the application.

Strongly disagree, preflight is a MUST HAVE FEATURE. If people actually used preflight they would catch so many problems before sending their files out to a printer. Indesigns preflight is customizable, I have various preflight profiles based no the type of work I am doing. It is the easiest and fastest way to get an overview of your job and let you know any issues. Be it overset text, colour issues, whatever, it is incredibly important and a must have functional tool for any pro work.

Honestly I had never heard of PagePlus before Serif released Designer and Photo and I looked at the forums here. I hope they do honestly want to compete and do listen to what professionals who use their competitions software WANT and NEED in a page layout program. If not they will be the bargain bin application for a lot of amateur work. That being said looking at it now I would rather take a file made in Publisher then in Publisher... Microsoft that is. Still hate that they chose the name Publisher, one of the most reviled names in print thanks to Microsoft.

Personally I would like to see REAL competition for Adobes software. I do not want to settle for subpar software just to keep the price down. With that you will get sub par software. It will be OK but it will never be a mainstay application used by professionals as they would then need to find software to do the other things Publisher cannot and Indesign can. Charge $500 for the software or a $1000, just bring the features needed to make this a pro application. Striving to keep the price down will keep the features down that are necessary for a page layout application. They are in a good place for a beta but it is far from finished.

All those features have a purpose, not having them is far worse. You may not use them all, I could do way more with Indesign and the rest of the apps I am sure. I grew into certain things and very glad those features were there. One big one that has its own thread is the ability to data merge (Publisher needs to on release). This is not a bloated unnecessary feature, it is actually a very important and crucial feature to compete against an incredibly well refined app. Not matching feature for feature will lead to an app that is not capable of meeting the needs of professionals. Affinity can add its own twist, do it the Affinity way, but they cannot ignore them if they want a viable app for pro needs. When it comes down to someone looking to buy they are going to look for software that does everything and more then they need. Going down feature for feature between Publisher and Indesign you see Indesign is a clear winner (not fair at the moment I know as Publisher is in beta). As a business I am not going to buy Publisher because it is cheaper, I am going to buy the software that does what I need and possibly more. As I mentioned in a previous post I would happily pay what Adobe was charging for apps before the subscription service became mandatory.