Raptosauru5

I disagree. It isn't bad in its current state, but I still think Affinity's settings is rather oversimplified. I prefer to have more control, rather than "fewer things to be bothered with". However, at this point this is an individual preference. This is why some people prefer iPhones and some prefer Android.

And I understand that. I also have quite a few things that I would like to have more control. But those are probably not the same things that you want, and it could even well be that I'd be in a very small minority of users who would want it "my way".
And therein lies the aforementioned art of "finding the right balance" where developers need to decide what will satisfy the majority of users.
With the Affinity suite, for example, Serif already did the right thing not to release a one single monolithic app to "do it all" (which they technically still could do), but they split it into the focused trinity we're using right now, including even more focused personae for dedicated "very special features" like astrophotography in APh. I.e. Affinity has many advanced features we can control, but they won't get into our way if we don't need them. I, for one, will never have any use for the astrophotography persona, but it doesn't bother me.
So yes, as of now it requires one or two "extra" steps to put the layers where I want them if I want them "there" and not "here". For the majority of Affinity users, this is probably fine as as, myself included. It's no "workaround" because there's nothing "broken". It's the Affinity workflow. (Vive la différence )
That all said, I don't want to put your feature request "down", by the way. I'm only commenting on how I see this, which is the purpose of these forums.

@loukash
Thanks for your input, but these solutions require more steps than I think should be necessary.
My post is about discussing, how we could skip there extra steps and having things to happen more automatically.

I disagree. It isn't bad in its current state, but I still think Affinity's settings is rather oversimplified. I prefer to have more control, rather than "fewer things to be bothered with". However, at this point this is an individual preference. This is why some people prefer iPhones and some prefer Android.

This is exactly what I mean! 😊

Right now, that would likely require having more preference options or yet another menu item to the already long lists.
The "art of programming" also involves finding the right balance between "infinite customization" and "stiff defaults". 
In my opinion, Affinity apps do maintain a pretty good balance here.
Whereas apps like GraphicConverter or VectorStyler are examples of apps that massively suffer from Featuritis™ and Preferentirrhea®. I use both for some of their specific niche features, but having too many options and preferences actually doesn't always make them more usable for me.
We're eagerly waiting for the already announced scripting!  
 

Which is obviously why stacking new objects on top is the default behavior.
Not always and not generally, but for someone who "knows what they're doing and why", it would be a useful global option.

^ That said though, sometimes I'd also wish a "permanent global switch".
So +1 from me.

You're certainly not the only one. I've been about to request something similar many, many times. In my work, it's also incredibly rare that the copy needs to be inserted above the original.
For the same reason I miss a "Paste Behind" keyboard shortcut so I don't have to use the Move Back One shortcut every time I copy paste something. 
I think the Layer -> Insertion option should apply to copies and duplicates as well. And possibly that this setting is remembered between sessions.

When cloning multiple selected items in Layer hierarchy, the copy will simply duplicate above each item individually.
What I would prefer is that the items would keep their order and wouldn't mix with the other "group", so I can for example duplicate a UI button with text and icon on it in the same order.
Setup:

 
How it works now:

 
What I would prefer:

 
Current workarounds:
A: Right after cloning press CTRL+G to group them, then release them from the group and delete the empty group.
B: Drag them with the mouse somewhere and then back. Can't always do it right above though.
 
I believe this could be more intuitive. I know I can also solve it by putting everything in Groups, but sometimes I don't want to have nested groups everywhere.
I can also imagine that this could become problematic if the cloning layers have other layers between them...
Perhaps there could be a new shortcut, that would "smash" all selected layers to the upmost/downmost (<- is that a word?) layer? Maybe users would use it even in different cases!

Please, add an toggle somewhere, so that hitting CTRL+J (duplicate layer) or copy/paste would create copy BELOW the original layer in hierarchy, not above.
I usually work my UI design from top to the bottom.
How it works now: 

 
What I would prefer:

 
Thanks for considering! I believe I am not the only one
(please do not post obvious workarounds like shortcuts etc. I am using those currently. I actually use them every single time, because I 99% of time want to clone downwards)

So, I like to work FAST and efficient!
That is why I use shortcuts for everything possible, minimizing aiming and clicking on buttons with a mouse, which is way slower and interrupts the flow.

Now current shortcuts system is GREAT and I very appreciate it in it's current state, but there are couple of things I am missing and I believe users would appreciate.
I would like to list them all here in a single topic for a discussion (sorted by importance):
 
1. Shortcuts in Settings need Search feature to search by both A: Function ("Show Rulers"), B: Keystroke ("Ctrl+R").
2. Shortcuts in Settings should have Mouse Buttons support! To speed up flow and avoiding to reach to the other side of my keyboard with my right hand for brackets [ ], I created a macro for my mouse which will emulate brackets press [ ] when pressing Back and Forward mouse buttons. This works REALLY GOOD when organizing layouts! I think it should be a built-in feature, supporting ANY mouse buttons (there are very advanced mice out there with many extra buttons that could be very useful in Affinity suite. I am not talking about you, Magic Mouse, you carpal tunneler). The point here is that the right hand can stay on the mouse, so most common keystrokes should require left hand on the keyboard only.
3. Shortcuts in Settings could have secondary field for alternative keystroke (like in videogames).
4. Like in Blender (3D software), Right-clicking on buttons could reveal a small menu, which lets you define a shortcut right away, even if this button does not have a shortcut ability.

 
5. Tooltips could display their shortcuts after the tool name (to help new users remember them and to make it easier to find for anyone).
   
 
6. Some important things are missing a shortcut ability. F1, F2, F3 (or so) could be shortcuts for Personas. Symbols Sync button could use a shortcut too.
 
Thanks to amazing Affinity developers for considering these suggestions!
Please feel free to suggest more relevant productivity-improving keystrokes.
 

So, I like to work FAST and efficient!
That is why I use shortcuts for everything possible, minimizing aiming and clicking on buttons with a mouse, which is way slower and interrupts the flow.

Now current shortcuts system is GREAT and I very appreciate it in it's current state, but there are couple of things I am missing and I believe users would appreciate.
I would like to list them all here in a single topic for a discussion (sorted by importance):
 
1. Shortcuts in Settings need Search feature to search by both A: Function ("Show Rulers"), B: Keystroke ("Ctrl+R").
2. Shortcuts in Settings should have Mouse Buttons support! To speed up flow and avoiding to reach to the other side of my keyboard with my right hand for brackets [ ], I created a macro for my mouse which will emulate brackets press [ ] when pressing Back and Forward mouse buttons. This works REALLY GOOD when organizing layouts! I think it should be a built-in feature, supporting ANY mouse buttons (there are very advanced mice out there with many extra buttons that could be very useful in Affinity suite. I am not talking about you, Magic Mouse, you carpal tunneler). The point here is that the right hand can stay on the mouse, so most common keystrokes should require left hand on the keyboard only.
3. Shortcuts in Settings could have secondary field for alternative keystroke (like in videogames).
4. Like in Blender (3D software), Right-clicking on buttons could reveal a small menu, which lets you define a shortcut right away, even if this button does not have a shortcut ability.

 
5. Tooltips could display their shortcuts after the tool name (to help new users remember them and to make it easier to find for anyone).
   
 
6. Some important things are missing a shortcut ability. F1, F2, F3 (or so) could be shortcuts for Personas. Symbols Sync button could use a shortcut too.
 
Thanks to amazing Affinity developers for considering these suggestions!
Please feel free to suggest more relevant productivity-improving keystrokes.
 

Hi @Raptosauru5,
Groups/layers do have their own bounding boxes on the canvas, and as demonstrated on your file/recording if you were to create a new artboard which intersects with the Groups bounding box it will automatically nest that group (or container layer) onto the artboard as it does with individual objects, as expected.
However, I can certainly see the benefit of this action not being carried out automatically by the app, particularly in circumstances such as your sample document when the group bounding box covers a wide area of the canvas, therefore i've logged this as an improvement with the developers.

This is highly debatable: https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/30682/are-there-any-recent-studies-of-the-keyboard-vs-mouse-issue
 
People feel like they are working faster when using keyboard shortcuts, but in a great many situations, if objectively measured using an actual clock, using the mouse actually turns out to be faster in practice.  There have been studies in the past which prove this out.  Note that I am not saying it is true across the board - there will obviously be exceptions - but it is definitely true more often than most people realize.

Yes, I know I can do that. The point is that it's a pain in the neck, and introduces more friction into the workflow. I switch mouse in a second or two - they're both on my desk and plugged in at the same time - whereas it takes much longer to open a menu, open a settings popup, select the right category, open a file browser, select the appropriate file, OK it, and OK the settings popup. And that also requires me to remember that I have to do it, which is non-trivial since Affinity isn't the only software I use and literally everything else I use supports both sets of copy/paste shortcuts and has done for decades. So what actually happens is that I work for a while after switching mouse, go to do a copy/paste, it doesn't work, I assume that I just missed the copy so I repeat, it still doesn't work, then I remember to go and change the shortcuts again. I tried this first, and if anything it makes things worse - I'm better off just taking my hand off the mouse and using the right-handed shortcuts.
 
I'm sure you posted with good intentions, but please understand that it's actually quite frustrating to post a comment about/suggestion for an accessibility improvement and have a response within minutes telling you to do some cumbersome workaround you already know how to do that doesn't really solve the problem. I'd hope nobody would ask why wheelchair users want a ramp at the entrance when they could just go around to the back of the building, in the garage, up the car ramp, and through the service corridor, but that's frequently the kind of response one gets talking about software accessibility!
 
It's worth bearing in mind that the study in the question at the top of the page in that link was conducted in the 80s, when most software was driven by heavily-nested keyboard menus and mice just didn't exist on a significant proportion of computers. And also by a company who had just released a computer with a relatively-novel mouse-driven GUI that was the USP of their main product.
The more-recent (and given the degree of change in GUIs over the course of the 90s, more-relevant) studies in the top answer tend to suggest that keyboard shortcuts are quicker for simple operations by practiced users (single-shortcut things like change-tool, copy/paste etc.) and on a par with toolbars for nested commands for practiced users; the mouse is quicker for more-complex commands and for new users. I don't think it's really the case that most people think that nested sequences of menus and commands are faster with a keyboard.
(And obviously this is all going to be very dependent on not just practice but also mode of use. Keyboard shortcuts will have an advantage in software where the users' hands are already on the keyboard all the time, because switching to a different peripheral is also a time cost. Mouse use will have a clear advantage in software the user is unfamiliar with as it has a far greater degree of discoverability. And mouse speed will have a lower ceiling for a lot of users as it requires coordinating hands and eyes to use effectively, whereas a keyboard can be operated entirely from touch.

Save both of your sets separately = create an *.affshortcuts file for each. Then simply load each set as needed.

Seconding this one - "like in videogames" and also like in most other software! This is as much an accessibility thing as a convenient feature, though.
I'm old enough to predate readily-available ergonomic peripherals, so I have a bit of RSI that I've been fending off for years. I now use an ergonomic keyboard which has pretty much eliminated the typing stress, but mouse use - even with nice vertical mice - can be a problem after a while. So periodically, I switch mice - I have a left-handed one and a right-handed one, which means that I also switch from the right-handed Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V copy/paste to the left-handed Ctrl-Insert, Ctrl-Shift-Insert copy/paste. Affinity software is the only software I use where the left-handed shortcuts aren't pre-configured as an option, and on top of that it's impossible to configure them without replacing the right-handed shortcuts... which I also use half the time.
I was convinced something was just broken when I first came across the issue; it seemed like something was failing to enter the clipboard or something, it didn't occur to me that the left-handed controls just might not be supported.

So, I like to work FAST and efficient!
That is why I use shortcuts for everything possible, minimizing aiming and clicking on buttons with a mouse, which is way slower and interrupts the flow.

Now current shortcuts system is GREAT and I very appreciate it in it's current state, but there are couple of things I am missing and I believe users would appreciate.
I would like to list them all here in a single topic for a discussion (sorted by importance):
 
1. Shortcuts in Settings need Search feature to search by both A: Function ("Show Rulers"), B: Keystroke ("Ctrl+R").
2. Shortcuts in Settings should have Mouse Buttons support! To speed up flow and avoiding to reach to the other side of my keyboard with my right hand for brackets [ ], I created a macro for my mouse which will emulate brackets press [ ] when pressing Back and Forward mouse buttons. This works REALLY GOOD when organizing layouts! I think it should be a built-in feature, supporting ANY mouse buttons (there are very advanced mice out there with many extra buttons that could be very useful in Affinity suite. I am not talking about you, Magic Mouse, you carpal tunneler). The point here is that the right hand can stay on the mouse, so most common keystrokes should require left hand on the keyboard only.
3. Shortcuts in Settings could have secondary field for alternative keystroke (like in videogames).
4. Like in Blender (3D software), Right-clicking on buttons could reveal a small menu, which lets you define a shortcut right away, even if this button does not have a shortcut ability.

 
5. Tooltips could display their shortcuts after the tool name (to help new users remember them and to make it easier to find for anyone).
   
 
6. Some important things are missing a shortcut ability. F1, F2, F3 (or so) could be shortcuts for Personas. Symbols Sync button could use a shortcut too.
 
Thanks to amazing Affinity developers for considering these suggestions!
Please feel free to suggest more relevant productivity-improving keystrokes.
 

Thanks, this was the problem! 
I am using ENG (US) keyboard layout with English (US) system language, but I remember this happened to me before.
Re-assigning the shortcut to something else and then back to the Ctrl+Alt+] solved the issue.
 
So, this seems like it was a bug in the Default value.
...I still wonder why in Shortcuts Settings in Export Persona this is located inside Select group, while in Designer Persona has this inside Layer group. Why not to make both inside Select group, to make it more consistant...?

Thanks for this. When I said "Folder" I meant a "Group" (created by Ctrl+G), but this is a cool trick I did not know about, so thanks for sharing this! 👍
The reason why I think it is unproductive is that I do not necessarily want these grouped together when working. I would only group them for the exporting reasons and then this would cost more time than just selecting stuff manually (also, there is currently a bug where if you group Artboards, the snapping will stop working).
 
Thanks for demonstration video, but this is not what I was looking for.
I was looking for a shortcut how to select your favourite groups (Similar to strategy video games, where you select group of soldiers (A) and press Ctrl+5 and another group (B) Ctrl+3. From now on whenever I press 3 or 5, the group A or B will be selected, because the game memorized it). 
Changing my Designer layout just to make it nicer for Export persona is not worth it for me.
Maybe I am asking for something that does not seem like a big deal, but it becomes a time saver once you have 70 Artboards...

I am 100% with you on this PetHej. Honestly, the only reason why I haven't purchased Affinity Designer and I am using Inkscape is because I can't add a layer with measurements to my drawings. My drawings are not even technical/mechanical/architectural. I just need to specify the relative distance between some graphic elements.
Considering how long this functionality has been mentioned on this forums, I am not holding my breath. Fair enough, I guess. I am sure Affinity manages the development roadmap wisely. From my viewpoint, it's just a little bit disappointing but there isn't much one can do.

My bad,
Designer:


Export:

...it turns out I can't read properly and I mixed up different commands  
Everything makes sense now!
....and I still think Export Persona would benefit from Arrange keystrokes

Existing measurements are very useful, but it would be highly desirable to keep the dimensions shown in the project permanently for displaying, printing and saving with document. Very useful for serious and simple projects such as in construction, gardening, landscaping, water irrigation, etc. Do you consider to add these features in to the next version of this great software? Thank you for your answer.