Bryan Rieger

@William Overington a great idea and $2.25 will get you a medium size drip coffee at Starbucks.
Also see: Ideas are cheap.
Can we please end this bizarrely surreal, entirely pointless thread? It would be impossible to calculate how or even if your idea had any impact on future sales as it's unlikely that 'your feature' would ship in isolation. The apps are a holistic collection of features and tools, and not broken down and valued by their constituent parts.
If/when Canva/Affinity release their SDK feel free to build your own extensions, plugins, etc and charge what you want.

The Ignore button is your friend.  

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'simplify'?
If you mean, to remove or 'dumb down' features? Possibly, but that defeats the purpose of acquiring a 'professional' set of apps in the first place.
If however, you mean to simplify in terms of improving the overall UX of the apps, then I'm all for it, as it would not only benefit Canva users coming to the Affinity apps, but all of the current Affinity users as well.
I can't see how they would benefit from creating yet another tier of tools to sit in-between Canva and Affinity, as it would only serve to confuse customers.

This is standard practice in product design and development. It’s often referred to as a “clean-room protocol” and is put in place to safeguard against potential IP infringements.

I could see lots of different verticals each looking for specific personas in time, where tools specific to their needs and workflows are readily available (gaming, film, architecture, landscaping, etc).
The problem is that implementing these each as separate personas would really bloat the overall UX of all of the apps. I’d much rather see vertical specific tools implemented as installable plug-ins, extensions, scripts, etc when the SDK is available.
Bonus points if it would be possible to implement an entirely new persona via a plug-in or extension. Enabling those users that require it to install it, and also creating an ecosystem where 3rd parties could create extensions for the Affinity apps catering to specific verticals.

I could see lots of different verticals each looking for specific personas in time, where tools specific to their needs and workflows are readily available (gaming, film, architecture, landscaping, etc).
The problem is that implementing these each as separate personas would really bloat the overall UX of all of the apps. I’d much rather see vertical specific tools implemented as installable plug-ins, extensions, scripts, etc when the SDK is available.
Bonus points if it would be possible to implement an entirely new persona via a plug-in or extension. Enabling those users that require it to install it, and also creating an ecosystem where 3rd parties could create extensions for the Affinity apps catering to specific verticals.

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'simplify'?
If you mean, to remove or 'dumb down' features? Possibly, but that defeats the purpose of acquiring a 'professional' set of apps in the first place.
If however, you mean to simplify in terms of improving the overall UX of the apps, then I'm all for it, as it would not only benefit Canva users coming to the Affinity apps, but all of the current Affinity users as well.
I can't see how they would benefit from creating yet another tier of tools to sit in-between Canva and Affinity, as it would only serve to confuse customers.

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'simplify'?
If you mean, to remove or 'dumb down' features? Possibly, but that defeats the purpose of acquiring a 'professional' set of apps in the first place.
If however, you mean to simplify in terms of improving the overall UX of the apps, then I'm all for it, as it would not only benefit Canva users coming to the Affinity apps, but all of the current Affinity users as well.
I can't see how they would benefit from creating yet another tier of tools to sit in-between Canva and Affinity, as it would only serve to confuse customers.

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'simplify'?
If you mean, to remove or 'dumb down' features? Possibly, but that defeats the purpose of acquiring a 'professional' set of apps in the first place.
If however, you mean to simplify in terms of improving the overall UX of the apps, then I'm all for it, as it would not only benefit Canva users coming to the Affinity apps, but all of the current Affinity users as well.
I can't see how they would benefit from creating yet another tier of tools to sit in-between Canva and Affinity, as it would only serve to confuse customers.

I'd love to move away from Adobe Photoshop and use Affinity Photo for all my painting, but I just need one feature to make the switch, Affinity needs to let users Clip a layer to a group. I've made a video showing off the feature, examples of using it, and why it's a must have, please check out the video and consider supporting this feature!
 
- Neil

Utilizing in-browser support for its native text support is very different than implementing an entire text engine into software...

By the way, BRAVO Canva. It was super quick to jump right into registration (I used my Google login) and straight into a new design. Less than a minute.

The text frame I created...


The text "entry" itself... 100% browser-based.


Convert these elements into a final bitmap image and "done".

Yes and I find that particular quote you and @bbrother cited to be both stubborn and insulting when there are years and years of unaddressed efforts by the users of this forum. That's why I refuse to participate in the betas at this point. It's counterintuitive. They have rode off into the sunset after literally cashing out on all our goodwill but still only have vague insinuations production could be higher (relying again on our imaginings of what could be), but then insist "nothing will change". They were acquired, not as a blessing but out of necessity, so clearly a lot needs to change.

These are my biggest fears.
Because I expect and would like development to move in such a direction that Affinity programs become truly professional tools equipped with mature and high-quality functions, which means, for example:
top-notch rendering library (no redraw issues, smooth zoom-in-out without flashing render tiles, no delays in rendering / updating thumbnails) professional object styles (dedicated dialog, ability to either clear and replace all object settings or replace only specific ones or save defaults) Split/ span columns  professional spread and page management (multi-page spreads, moving and page reorder) foolproof color managment and pdf export workflow comparable to a professional tool (without reinventing the wheel, where everything has been working optimally for many years) true vector brushes and patterns vector symmetry tools symbols libraries variable font support creating cutom glyph sets drag-n-drop to rearrange columns and rows in table tables across multiple page or inside text frames envelope distort (using selected object as a shape for the envelope) and more and more... Otherwise, I can't imagine how Affinity would compete with Adobe, which is what the owners of Canva declare.
 
And for God's sake, stop this type of marketing↓
With all my sympathy and respect for your programs, it has nothing to do with reality. What's more, such arrogant marketing, unsupported by quality, slowly becomes distasteful and discourages rather than encourages people to buy your products.
You can advertise your product in a more balanced way without treating your current and potential customers like mindless idiots.

In this particular instance I do not think there is a quality issue with the font.
The font was created by an expert.
And was created to demonstrate advanced font technology.
The font contains three formats:
Monochrome  (in the glyf table) COLRv1  (in the COLR table) Color-SVG  (in the SVG table) My guess is Affinity is confused by the COLRv1.
And simply does not know what to do with it, and gets stuck.
COLRv0 and COLRv1 are both in the COLR table, but have different formats.
My guess is it sees the COLR table, and tries to load it, and chokes on it.
Many browsers support COLRv1.
Some browsers only support Color-SVG.
Browsers should be smart enough to use the format they do support.
So that font should provide color text in most browsers.
Affinity should be smart enough to not get stuck on a format it does not support.
 

The Aref Ruqaa Ink font found on Google Fonts is an SVG colour font, which also doesn't render correctly in the Safari web browser (you see it for a second and then it disappears).
In looking at the font in both FontLab and Glyphs I've noticed there are some undefined mkmk (mark to mark) lookups which could cause issues, but it's most likely that a combination of SVG + colour + undefined mkmk features is causing the problems. I suspect when Affinity loads the available fonts on start-up, this specific font is likely creating an exception and/or race condition somewhere in the apps causing it to hang or crash.
Google Fonts is a great resource, but not all fonts on Google Fonts are created equally—the quality varies greatly (metrics, features, etc)—and as such, not all fonts work as expected.

Totally agree. I really wish they could combine the linking/symbols as more of a unified solution. There is so much potential there and yes, make it accessible from all 3 applications.

I use my Mac's Finder to organize and tag my images and occasionally the Canon application DPP4 for culling my Canon raw files. I have always used the Finder to sort and organize my photos even back in the day when I had the Adobe CS applications including Bridge. Your computer's file system can be your friend and is fairly future-proof.

i enjoyed reading  TidBITS   take on the issue:
Canva Acquires the Affinity Suite
 
 
 
 
;

The tools we end up using in the grand scheme are not the be all, end all of what sets us apart professionally as designers. Those focusing on which tools were used ("I used these long before these other 4 things came along!") have missed the point entirely.
If an artist is exclusively using Procreate, for example, to make a very decent living, then it doesn't matter in the end whether it is considered "pro" tools to that person. They balk at these discussions because they're often maligned by the elitist crowd as if they're exempt from the industry overall because they use an iPad over Mac/PC, etc. That discussion happened earlier and it is ironic given what gave Affinity its head start.
Affinity benefited a great deal from embracing this crowd, but they risk falling into the same counter-productive rat race as Adobe trying to score points by packing on half-baked features but not refining the programs to keep intact what sets them apart from traditionally industry tools, practically speaking.
One of the major reason programs like Procreate are so popular are because they are snappy, simple, yet highly polished and help produce deliverable productions with great UX. It is very accessible to people who need a workflow that works best with their creativity rather than being hobbled down with overbuilt functionality, needless knobs, dialogs, bugs, etc.
I imagine its also why some people don't upgrade to V2. Just a thought.

No problem at all, thanks for verifying that for me! I've provided these details to our team, alongside your screenshots to help them continue to improve this in a future update.
You're very welcome, thanks for letting me know! As above I've updated this issue with our team as were always working to refine the tools in Affinity

Thanks @Dan C,
Affinity v2 (2.4.1.2344)
iPadOS 17.4.1 (both iPads are up-to-date)
iPad-Pro (11-inch) (2nd generation), iPad-Pro (12.9 inch) (5th generation)
Both iPads are using 2nd generation Apple Pencils (the magnetic one)

Sure you can; that's one of the features of Sculpt mode:

20240402-1427-54.3743340.mp4    

In terms of archiving artwork PDF is definitely a viable option today. The file format is already open and widely adopted in archival systems.
Also, text based formats for graphics (esp. bitmaps/photos) are insanely inefficient. It's far better to document the format enabling others to build new libs/frameworks/apps to render/view the work based on the original, open, format (PDF does this already).
My main question is for what purpose are you intending the archive to be used for?
a perpetually accessible and viewable copy of the original work.
This could be achieved already using PDF, PNG, or any popular image format. Export it to the correct colour space at a sufficient resolution for archival work and you're good to go. an accessible, viewable/runnable and editable version of the original work.
This would require that the original structure of the document format remain intact as well as having an application capable of editing the format in its original contexts (incl. OS platforms, chip architectures, etc - ie: the entire 'tech stack'). This is probably best done via emulation, by recreating the original context (OS layer, application layer, etc) for the document enabling a highly accurate reproduction of the original work. This has been done with HyperCard and Classic MacOS on the Internet Archive, and other emulators such as SheepShaver, Basilisk II, Open Emu, Analog Pocket, Ruffle, etc for other platforms, architectures and media formats. FWIW I've recently been using SheepShaver to work with my old mTropolis, HyperCard and Freehand files from the MacOS 9 era, and it's been a great experience. a transitional or interchangeable version of the original work.
This one is what I think you're referring to, and it's much like trying to predict the future, and building something today that will meet the needs we have in 10, 20 or 200 years. While it sounds good in principle, it often omits the underlying platforms, architectures, services, and algorithms that the original applications ran on. Depending upon the libraries, frameworks, etc used in the applications they would all need to be documented and maintained (in all of their various versions) to be able to accurately recreate the work. I can't ever seeing this becoming feasible - too many moving parts. Could we use better archival formats than PDF? Absolutely, but that's a much larger discussion, and one better undertaken by museums, galleries, archival orgs, governments, etc. Beyond that, I think emulation provides the best way forward as it not only enables the viewing and editing of these formats in perpetuity, but also provides a more accurate representation of the whole underlying tech stack used at the time. As for cloud-based applications, how to accurately archive work from these platforms/services/formats is anybody's guess as emulation will most likely not be feasible for the vast majority of these services.
That said, being able to sign-in/activate the software in order to use it at all in an emulator in the years to come, is an issue that's going to become more relevant in time, and one that could begin to be addressed by many companies today by providing something akin to 'archival licenses', which could be made freely available to archival orgs.
 

Currently there's no such thing as an 'archival license', but as more and more of our media and culture becomes dependent on technology, many of the commercial platforms, applications, etc that were originally used to create these works have either been abandoned, discontinued or the entities that held them have ceased to exist, meaning any works created using those tools will become inaccessible.
It may also no longer be possible to purchase licenses for these tools and platforms, nor may it be possible to even access the original software via legal means. While many of the emulators available state that they are only to be used with licensed applications, the reality is that many folks using these tools have to do so with software, patches and licenses scavenged via the internet as their original software may be inaccessible (on floppy disks, unreadable CD-ROMS, cartridges, etc) and they may have misplaced their software licenses/keys/dongles after all these years.
As many orgs with digital collections seek to make more and more of these accessible to users via the internet, what will constitute a legal license that could be used by potentially millions of individual users without becoming prohibitively expensive? One way to look at this would be in terms of how services such as Libby, Hoopla and Kanopy who provide digital copies of books, music, films, etc to users via their local public libraries. In the case of Libby they chose to limit a number of copies available at any one time, and in the case of Kanopy and Hoopla, each user receives a set number of credits each months that can be used to borrow media for a limited time. These services all create scarcity where technically there is none.
I don't know how the Internet Archive licensing works with regards to online emulators and downloadable media as they don't seem to have the same restrictions as Libby and Kanopy. 
Anyway, I suspect in the coming years we'll need to find other ways for public orgs to archive digital material legally, and some sort of 'archival license' that provides unlimited legal use to an institution for all of it's users would go a long way in helping preserve our media and culture now embedded in our technologies. Not something we're going to solve on these forums, but maybe something for Serif/Canva to start to think about as they make their software available for free to educational and non-profit orgs.
 

What makes any of you think Canva has any good reason not to continue to, as you say, support & cater to you professionals by continuing the development of the Affinity apps, including but not limited to adding features both pro & hobby users have requested, & by eliminating the many bugs that plague us all?
This is not the either/or, all or nothing thing that some seem to think it is. It is entirely possible, as it was from the beginning, for the Affinity apps to cater to the needs of both pros & amateurs. In fact, arguably it is one of the things that has helped make Affinity so successful. Canva seems to be run by people who understand this -- otherwise why would they have paid so much to acquire Affinity?
As for the whole 'woe is us, these easy-to-use tools are killing our profession' thing, disruptive technology is something that professionals in many different industries have had to deal with for a very long time. A few examples are automobiles, electricity, radio (which in turn was disrupted by TV), & more recently by what is perhaps the most disruptive technology of all, the Internet itself. All these things presented opportunities for those willing to learn & adapt. This is no different.