marmite

@Pauls It looks like I raised the issue in the Publisher bugs forum around the same time that you replied. Many thanks for your response.

Hi Folks Absolutely loving Publisher. However ... ... I'm trying to insert a link to a phone number as a URL in a pdf. For the link to work the format should be something like "tel:+44123456789". The only available (and appropriate) option in Publisher to create this link is URL. However if you put "tel:+44123456789" as the URL then the exported pdf contains the link "https://tel:+44123456789", which is invalid. I believe either 1) the output URL should be formatted correctly or 2) a URL of the format "tel:+44123456789" should flag as invalid at the time of input (if the URL box is not intended to hold a phone number). See also this thread ... Link for telephone numbers. Publisher version 1.7.3, MacOS Mojave 10.14.6.

Update: Sejda (free desktop version) worked fine for me too. The pity is for Affinity, after all the hard work done in/by Publisher, the "content creator" field is overwritten and comes up as Sejda. Some nice free advertising for them I guess.

Hi. I'd like to raise this issue again. This is obviously something that multiple users would benefit from. And not, I would have thought, hard to implement. Can anyone tell me if this is on the Publisher roadmap anywhere? (PS Thanks @Neurojazz for the workaround. Though installing a whole new piece of software just to edit a link isn't my idea of fun (I'd rather not go the upload route)).

Aaaaaarghh!! Many thanks Chris, that did indeed resolve my issue. Having looked up the advanced features check-box in the help I kinda get why, though I don't really understand why these features appear visually so different. But the check-box itself is just something I completely overlooked when trying to sort this out. Cheers :) Paul Edited to add: I assume MikeW had the box unchecked in his export, rather than that the behaviour is different on Windows.

Hi Folks MEB has kindly moved this to the bugs forum; I'm hoping someone will take a look. I'm running AD 1.5.5 on OS X 10.12.4. Please shout if you need any other info.

Okay. Having done a lot more experimentation and testing I believe this may be a bug. If I remove all of the effects from the donut shapes, the colours match between PDF and jpeg. I can take a new document from scratch and add a semi-opaque donut to it. At this stage the exported image in either PDF or jpeg is the same. If I add certain effects to this then the exported versions exhibit colours with markedly different luminosities between PDFs and jpegs. This effectively recreates my original problem; see the screenshot in post #3. I suspect this is a bug because of the results of MikeW's test of my afdesign on a Windows machine which suggest that in his environment the correct results are returned. Unfortunately I don't have access to other machines or environments otherwise I could do further testing. I'd be grateful if someone from Serif could comment at this point.

Thanks Mike. I originally viewed in Preview, Mac's default viewer. I've just viewed the PDF in both Acrobat and AD and get the same issue. Whilst looking into possible differences one omission from my information is that my original is CMYK. Subsequently I've converted to RGB and still get the same issue. One big difference between us is that you're running Windows so the AD software is different for starters. You are, of course, seeing exactly what I would expect and want to see. It would be interesting to see a the results of a test done on another OS X machine. Any takers?

Gentle bump having fallen off the first page :)

FYI I also get calls to amazonaws from AD 1.5.5 on OS X 10.12.4.

Click 'More Reply Options'; bottom right. Then use 'Choose file' and 'Attach This File' bottom left. Repeat as necessary.

Simplified design attached (verified that this produces the same result). Also the export settings for PDF and jpeg. opacity.afdesign

Hmmm; fair point about the jpeg. I guess I mean that visually, if the opacity level in design is affecting the luminosity, then the colours have the same luminosity in the jpeg as they do in designer. In the PDF the luminosity is greatly reduced. I'll simplify the afdesign and post it; thanks. Meanwhile attached is a comparison of the PDF and the jpeg.

Hi Folks I have a document containing a background graphic at low opacity (18%). If I export the document as a PDF and then view the PDF, the opacity seems greatly reduced. If I export the same document as a jpeg, the opacity appears the same as within AD. Can someone explain why there's such a difference? Thanks

Oh, are there that many :D? Thought there might be a list of significant issues ... maybe there are just too many little ones. AD should be getting more more of a mature product by now ... bug count should be going down! Thanks again