wonderings

Not sure why Affinity is so insistent on having us edit PDF's in Publisher. PDF's can be a nightmare to edit at the best of times when not using the right software to rip it apart and now they are trying to do this with a page layout program? How can I place a PDF without it making every bit something I can edit??? Sometimes you just want to place a PDF and not have that, well I would say most times I want to be able to just drop a PDF in and not edit it. Seriously, this is something that would be more functional and useful in Designer/Illustrator or directly in Acrobat DC. It is not needed and I for-see it causing more headaches then it is worth to be able to edit a PDF right in Publisher. At the very least give an option to simply place a PDF without the option to edit it in the software. Maybe it is there and I have missed it, I tried clicking various things in the dialogue box that only seems to come up when I drag and drop a PDF outside of the document page. Placing a PDF through file>place does not bring up the dialogue box and directly dropping the PDF inside the page itself does not bring up a dialogue box. Guessing that is a glitch.

Unless I am missing how Affinity does it, I see no way to package a file. This is a VERY important function in my opinion. Please add this as a priority along with bleed guides. There is no way I would work on a live job that I could not package and pull all the fonts and linked images into a neat organized folder. This has been around for ages with Quark and Indesign.

So if I understand it correctly Publisher does not link placed images like indesign, everything seems to be embedded. Seems to me like this might lead to a problem if you want to edit the placed image and using something other then Affinities software. With Indesign I can right click on my image, then select "edit with" and I am given a list of apps to open the image with. This is pretty flexible as you can see from the screen shot I can choose my Adobe apps or I can use Affinity plus a host of other apps of which I will never use for editing a picture. Are we going to be locked into Affinity software for placed images and vectors that need editing because they are embedded ant not linked? Screen Shot 2018-09-14 at 1.14.19 PM by B P, on Flickr

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.

Once you start getting into the in app purchase it can quickly spiral out of control. I would rather a piece of software that has everything I need and more done right and ready for purchase. If Affinity is honestly trying to compete with Adobe then they need to match feature for feature. Anything they leave out is a big negative for Affinity. Things like preflight and data merge are 2 off the top of my head that are must have features for me. Affinity has done some amazing things, I find the application incredibly slick and fast. Definitely a learning curve trying to figure out the Affinity way of doing things when so used to Adobes (I like Adobes way of doing things in applications). No way am I going to put serious time into understanding software that in the end will not be able to handle my needs. If I was a small time user this is definitely the software I would be looking at. It is head over heels better then anything else out there. It, at the moment, is not in the same league as Indesign and possibly Quark (have not used Quark in years).

Without being able to properly handle PDF's the software will never be something a pro user can use. PDF's have increasingly become the standard file format for print and just about everything. 9 out of 10 files we receive from clients come in PDF format. People will pay a higher price for software that works right. The BIG issue with Adobe is being forced into a subscription service. I had no issue paying for the Adobe CS updates when I wanted to do them. I do resent being forced into subscription and if I ever cancel being left with ZERO software, even older versions. If this is ever to be an app used in pro environments PDF support is an absolute must. There is no way around this, it is the standard. If I cannot trust how Publisher is going to handle a PDF then I am never going to use it. As an app for amateurs it has a great feature set and would definitely be the best budget layout app out there.

Is it a graphic heavy PDF or is your computer a little old? Even in beta that sounds extremely slow. I tried exporting a 180 pg PDF from a math textbook and seemed to export as I would expect from Indesign. My computer is a maxed out 5K iMac though with a 1tb flash drive so that helps with a lot of things.

Part of it is a workflow thing. I prefer making the changes to the PDF itself and not edit the PDF in a program that I am saving it with those changes. This really is embedded vs linked. I can have a PDF that needs to be used in a few different jobs, so rather then copy from a Publisher file into a new Publisher file the changes would have been done with the PDF that is to be linked. All changes done now for anything I am using it with. So opposite of you I would like to make changes to the actual PDF, save it, then place it. Unless of course I missed something where Publisher will also resave the edited PDF as well. Microsoft is horrible with PDF's though I find Adobe handles them pretty well, I rarely have issues with them other then trying to fix the customers file to make it work for print (i.e. bleeds, fold position, etc).

Editing PDF's can be a nightmare. I am all for editing a PDF in the right place. Trying to get a page layout program to also properly rip apart a PDF and make it editable is scary. Programs like Illustrator/Designer are going to have far more options to do this when PDF's are complex. Currently Publisher has trouble even placing a PDF without messing things up (from my experience with PDF's made from Word and placed in Publisher). Priority should be on that and not making a PDF editor. I get people wanting this, it has been something people have been asking for for a long time. Again I do not think a page layout program is the best place for this, trying to be too much while ignoring features that are an absolute MUST for any pro page layout software (data merge being one). I do agree with postmadesign that they at least need to have more advanced options when placing a PDF, and even a way to turn this feature off completely. The focus should be on different things at the moment to get a good solid base. People have had trouble editing PDF's for a very long time and I seriously doubt Affinity is going to solve that. They have software that can rip apart a PDF already and let you edit it. Designer would be a much better place to focus this on in my opinion to edit pages of a PDF.

I personally think they should scrap the whole notion of editing PDF's in Publisher.

Ok I see now that it is opening the PDF in a new tab. Have to say that needs some work as the tabs do not stand out at all, had no clue it even had tabbed documents. Would be nice to turn that feature off completely, an accidentally double click and I am in edit mode.

So I see some very very VERY faint lines that are my bleed margins. How do I make them so I do not need to squint? Basically want them to stand out to easily see my bleed margins like in Indesign. As is it is pretty much the same as not having them unless I look really really hard. They should stand out much more to easily and quickly see. **edit** Ok I did lighten the background colour which makes it way more readable. Still would prefer something that stands out a bit more and would be functional no matter what colour background you use. Really the only way you can see the current bleed lines is if you use a white background.

Ok see now, document > resource manager. Reminds me of how Quark works, and not the preferred or easiest way in my opinion. That may just come down to personal preference. - Would like (if there is not already) a way to have placed file always be linked rather then embedded - Would like to be able to right click on an image and have an option to edit in the preferred application as Indesign does it - ideally would like a links pane rather then going to resource manager. Much simpler to have a panel that is always open on the side (if I choose to have that) to see if something needs updating, is missing or to click the link and find in the document. Any other issues could be seen with a preflight panel (another of my must have items).

I hope so. Indesign has scripts you can get that add different functionality. There are a few I use for importing multi page PDF's while applying reduction or enlarging at a certain percentage. Super useful when needing to bring in a large PDF to adjust and prep for imposing.