Bryan Rieger

While I’m not a fan of markdown I find myself using it more and more these days. It occupies a sweet spot in where it’s more than plain text, not as complicated as Tex, and not @!#@! Word. It can be shared with anyone (no special software/version required), incorporated in version control, easily diffed, and converted to and rendered as many different formats. Also, in contrast to a few years back where markdown was firmly a developer centric format, I’m finding it appearing in more and more non-developer contexts (chat, forums, writing apps, etc).
While I can convert markdown to a Word docx file to import into Publisher, I’d much rather cut out the middle step and import the markdown directly—especially if I can maintain the link to and update from the original document.
While Word is still integral to many in publishing, I am running into many others moving towards using markdown at the centre of their workflows.

Honestly, I'd much rather Serif focus on fixing the many new and long-standing bugs in 2.2 before adding anymore features. Having a shiny new blend tool {or insert your feature request here} which will probably add new bugs, while still having to deal with countless existing bugs and workarounds doesn't exactly fill me with anticipation. As it is I keep seeing comments around social media, the forums, and the web on how folks are getting increasingly frustrated with the bugginess of the Affinity suite. You really don't want "buggy" to be the first thing that comes to mind when somebody mentions Affinity.
Serif please focus on getting the next few upcoming 2.x releases into a stable suite of apps that new and existing users can rely on for years to come.

While I’m not a fan of markdown I find myself using it more and more these days. It occupies a sweet spot in where it’s more than plain text, not as complicated as Tex, and not @!#@! Word. It can be shared with anyone (no special software/version required), incorporated in version control, easily diffed, and converted to and rendered as many different formats. Also, in contrast to a few years back where markdown was firmly a developer centric format, I’m finding it appearing in more and more non-developer contexts (chat, forums, writing apps, etc).
While I can convert markdown to a Word docx file to import into Publisher, I’d much rather cut out the middle step and import the markdown directly—especially if I can maintain the link to and update from the original document.
While Word is still integral to many in publishing, I am running into many others moving towards using markdown at the centre of their workflows.

Pretty much every publishing house is looking for ways to reduce overhead. The first who makes a good enough effort in this space, wins.

Honestly, I'd much rather Serif focus on fixing the many new and long-standing bugs in 2.2 before adding anymore features. Having a shiny new blend tool {or insert your feature request here} which will probably add new bugs, while still having to deal with countless existing bugs and workarounds doesn't exactly fill me with anticipation. As it is I keep seeing comments around social media, the forums, and the web on how folks are getting increasingly frustrated with the bugginess of the Affinity suite. You really don't want "buggy" to be the first thing that comes to mind when somebody mentions Affinity.
Serif please focus on getting the next few upcoming 2.x releases into a stable suite of apps that new and existing users can rely on for years to come.

I agree. It's in their interest to always plan mandatory refinements. They should come after the new stuff has been laid down and then it should just be a lengthy period knocking out bugs and working on usability/polish. It's not like there's a shortage of people willing to comment on what best needs/doesn't need adjustment. Most reasonable people expect software to encounter bugs during development. This is fine. As long as it's addressed at some point by the end of that point release's development.

The issue currently is we have to wait for potential future updates for fixes to bug(s) that are breaking/impacting our own workflows. Even if the bug(s) are fixed in a future update, some new bug(s) are introduced that further impact workflow and some go unaddressed. Perhaps it is slightly better than before or maybe it is worse. Either way, the user experience is never really improved for those users as impediments become the norm and they feel unrewarded for their patience. In this way, trust is constantly being chipped away at and leads to chronic complaints. I feel like a refinement cycle would nip much of that in the bud and help build back trust. Hopefully they listen. I generally enjoy using their software (when I'm not encountering the issues) and would like to see how things will progress further.

Honestly, I'd much rather Serif focus on fixing the many new and long-standing bugs in 2.2 before adding anymore features. Having a shiny new blend tool {or insert your feature request here} which will probably add new bugs, while still having to deal with countless existing bugs and workarounds doesn't exactly fill me with anticipation. As it is I keep seeing comments around social media, the forums, and the web on how folks are getting increasingly frustrated with the bugginess of the Affinity suite. You really don't want "buggy" to be the first thing that comes to mind when somebody mentions Affinity.
Serif please focus on getting the next few upcoming 2.x releases into a stable suite of apps that new and existing users can rely on for years to come.

@TrilexWe do an issue logged with the developers that relates to the x/y position with the Spline JSON option, I can add your report to that.

Honestly, I'd much rather Serif focus on fixing the many new and long-standing bugs in 2.2 before adding anymore features. Having a shiny new blend tool {or insert your feature request here} which will probably add new bugs, while still having to deal with countless existing bugs and workarounds doesn't exactly fill me with anticipation. As it is I keep seeing comments around social media, the forums, and the web on how folks are getting increasingly frustrated with the bugginess of the Affinity suite. You really don't want "buggy" to be the first thing that comes to mind when somebody mentions Affinity.
Serif please focus on getting the next few upcoming 2.x releases into a stable suite of apps that new and existing users can rely on for years to come.

Honestly, I'd much rather Serif focus on fixing the many new and long-standing bugs in 2.2 before adding anymore features. Having a shiny new blend tool {or insert your feature request here} which will probably add new bugs, while still having to deal with countless existing bugs and workarounds doesn't exactly fill me with anticipation. As it is I keep seeing comments around social media, the forums, and the web on how folks are getting increasingly frustrated with the bugginess of the Affinity suite. You really don't want "buggy" to be the first thing that comes to mind when somebody mentions Affinity.
Serif please focus on getting the next few upcoming 2.x releases into a stable suite of apps that new and existing users can rely on for years to come.

Honestly, I'd much rather Serif focus on fixing the many new and long-standing bugs in 2.2 before adding anymore features. Having a shiny new blend tool {or insert your feature request here} which will probably add new bugs, while still having to deal with countless existing bugs and workarounds doesn't exactly fill me with anticipation. As it is I keep seeing comments around social media, the forums, and the web on how folks are getting increasingly frustrated with the bugginess of the Affinity suite. You really don't want "buggy" to be the first thing that comes to mind when somebody mentions Affinity.
Serif please focus on getting the next few upcoming 2.x releases into a stable suite of apps that new and existing users can rely on for years to come.

Honestly, I'd much rather Serif focus on fixing the many new and long-standing bugs in 2.2 before adding anymore features. Having a shiny new blend tool {or insert your feature request here} which will probably add new bugs, while still having to deal with countless existing bugs and workarounds doesn't exactly fill me with anticipation. As it is I keep seeing comments around social media, the forums, and the web on how folks are getting increasingly frustrated with the bugginess of the Affinity suite. You really don't want "buggy" to be the first thing that comes to mind when somebody mentions Affinity.
Serif please focus on getting the next few upcoming 2.x releases into a stable suite of apps that new and existing users can rely on for years to come.

Honestly, I'd much rather Serif focus on fixing the many new and long-standing bugs in 2.2 before adding anymore features. Having a shiny new blend tool {or insert your feature request here} which will probably add new bugs, while still having to deal with countless existing bugs and workarounds doesn't exactly fill me with anticipation. As it is I keep seeing comments around social media, the forums, and the web on how folks are getting increasingly frustrated with the bugginess of the Affinity suite. You really don't want "buggy" to be the first thing that comes to mind when somebody mentions Affinity.
Serif please focus on getting the next few upcoming 2.x releases into a stable suite of apps that new and existing users can rely on for years to come.

Honestly, I'd much rather Serif focus on fixing the many new and long-standing bugs in 2.2 before adding anymore features. Having a shiny new blend tool {or insert your feature request here} which will probably add new bugs, while still having to deal with countless existing bugs and workarounds doesn't exactly fill me with anticipation. As it is I keep seeing comments around social media, the forums, and the web on how folks are getting increasingly frustrated with the bugginess of the Affinity suite. You really don't want "buggy" to be the first thing that comes to mind when somebody mentions Affinity.
Serif please focus on getting the next few upcoming 2.x releases into a stable suite of apps that new and existing users can rely on for years to come.

Honestly, I'd much rather Serif focus on fixing the many new and long-standing bugs in 2.2 before adding anymore features. Having a shiny new blend tool {or insert your feature request here} which will probably add new bugs, while still having to deal with countless existing bugs and workarounds doesn't exactly fill me with anticipation. As it is I keep seeing comments around social media, the forums, and the web on how folks are getting increasingly frustrated with the bugginess of the Affinity suite. You really don't want "buggy" to be the first thing that comes to mind when somebody mentions Affinity.
Serif please focus on getting the next few upcoming 2.x releases into a stable suite of apps that new and existing users can rely on for years to come.

Not necessarily. While global colours work great for compositions with limited colours, they tend to get a bit unwieldy with larger compositions. I recall when I first saw adjustment layers in Designer (in the main Designer persona) I imagined they behaved much like Phantasm from Astute Graphics, allowing for full the adjustment of colours while retaining the vector geometry on export.
Sadly, it doesn't work this way. Hopefully one day, Serif might revisit this decision and provide support for true vector adjustment layers, especially with Adobe now providing the ability to generatively recolour artwork natively in Illustrator.

I'm not asking Serif to implement this today (if ever), as there are far too many significant issues that need to be addressed in the short/mid term. Long term, it might be something worth exploring…
My main point was that by including adjustment layers (much like vector brushes) in a vector drawing application you might end up inevitably setting some user expectations that don't align with your actual product features.

While I do eagerly anticipate new features, I am finding that with each release the Affinity apps are becoming less stable, and generally more buggy. Software will always have bugs, but there comes a point where the number of bugs that impact users on a day-to-day basis becomes so great that continuing to use the tools becomes a liability for many—irregardless of cost. I keep seeing reports of corrupted files and lost work, which has really eroded my confidence in the apps. In 25+ years of using Adobe software I can count the number of times I have actually lost work on one hand (YMMV). With Affinity, it's happened half a dozen times to me in the past six months (the iPad apps are especially bad for it). What's more is that many of the bugs are difficult to reproduce consistently so you don't report them right away, but then the bugs that are reported often don't get fixed for years (if ever).
I do wish Serif would communicate to users some of the challenges they are having, and how they are actively looking to rectify them. I'd much rather have the next few releases be dedicated to fixing many of the long-standing issues than pushing out new buggy features on top of all of the existing bugs, and partially-implemented features. 
Technical debt adds up fast.
As for the beta releases. Testing from users should not replace a rigorous, in-house testing process—something that currently feels lacking within Serif. I stopped running the beta releases long ago as there is still no ability to back-save document versions (I often double-click files to open them, and something will always get opened/saved in the beta), and many of the reported issues were never addressed. Endlessly logging issues with developers that are never resolved isn't progress.
I had always hoped that v2 would have been the chance for Serif to build a modern, stable foundation on which to take the Affinity apps in amazing new directions. Instead, from my perspective, it feels as if things have gone backwards. The UI/UX in v2 is just awful compared to v1 (especially on iPad), and the day-to-day issues and constant workarounds are becoming increasingly frustrating.

This is sort of where I am as well. Why keep reiterating on the same set of issues that go unfixed. I spend less time contributing as a result.
 
I agree with the view rigorous testing is must, user and internal testing. However, I think another angle is being missed:
It is possible that the testing team does their job adequately but the reports just continue to mount.
If the reports are not being dealt with in a timely manner, then any other input they may provide in terms of overall usability/completeness go ignored as well. That really handicaps their capabilities.
I suggest this because 1) The easiest assumption is testing is inadequate. It's not a bad one but it may not be true. One can write reports and provide feedback all day long, but if it is ignored, doing more testing would not resolve anything.
2) We know the testing team pays attention because testing teammembers do post on the board quite regularly and are active with feedback.
It is rather unfair to throw them under the bus for bug issues when they are only the frontlines. They can't say much beyond it is reported and we have checked that the bug is valid. For all we know, their reporting work is quite vigorous, but either nothing is done or not enough follow through to help get to a solution to actually close the issue.
3) To be frank, there are features added in that are or were left unfinished and unpolished for quite some time. That doesn't scream lack of testing to me. Especially when so many of the issues are already quite obvious between user reports and staff reports with reported workarounds discovered between both ends. That suggests to me rather their work is underutilized.
 
This is where the beta program doesn't go far enough. It gives us a sense of momentum, because we can finally see features and improvements that are much needed. This is a great thing and definitely nothing to complain over. However, when important pain points are not addressed in a timely manner, we end up with a different problem. Especially as new bugs are added and left in that degrades everyday functionality. In my case, I still have to regularly minimize the program when doing masking work with a paintbrush because the UI becomes locked. Also changing brushes doesn't always apply correctly. I get brush settings trying to anticipate this by tapping multiple times.
Downgrading is often not an option because of the haphazard way new featuresets are applied and critical/usability-related bugs are left in into the next point release.
If 2.2, as an example, was the most polished, productive and stable the suite ever was.. then I can see that as rewarding users for their patience when work on 2.3  begins as they improve their progress. They have a stable release that they can depend on and the option to hold off at least until the next point release passes a polished state. Most understand bugs happen and that the only way through that sometimes is to keep updating until they find the issue.
Imho, they should continue 2.2. Maybe make it a habit that feature updates have a refinement cycle (2 cycle, add features... major refine). That focuses solely on knocking back reports and mission critical design flaws, building upon a solid UI/UX design philosophy, etc.

While I do eagerly anticipate new features, I am finding that with each release the Affinity apps are becoming less stable, and generally more buggy. Software will always have bugs, but there comes a point where the number of bugs that impact users on a day-to-day basis becomes so great that continuing to use the tools becomes a liability for many—irregardless of cost. I keep seeing reports of corrupted files and lost work, which has really eroded my confidence in the apps. In 25+ years of using Adobe software I can count the number of times I have actually lost work on one hand (YMMV). With Affinity, it's happened half a dozen times to me in the past six months (the iPad apps are especially bad for it). What's more is that many of the bugs are difficult to reproduce consistently so you don't report them right away, but then the bugs that are reported often don't get fixed for years (if ever).
I do wish Serif would communicate to users some of the challenges they are having, and how they are actively looking to rectify them. I'd much rather have the next few releases be dedicated to fixing many of the long-standing issues than pushing out new buggy features on top of all of the existing bugs, and partially-implemented features. 
Technical debt adds up fast.
As for the beta releases. Testing from users should not replace a rigorous, in-house testing process—something that currently feels lacking within Serif. I stopped running the beta releases long ago as there is still no ability to back-save document versions (I often double-click files to open them, and something will always get opened/saved in the beta), and many of the reported issues were never addressed. Endlessly logging issues with developers that are never resolved isn't progress.
I had always hoped that v2 would have been the chance for Serif to build a modern, stable foundation on which to take the Affinity apps in amazing new directions. Instead, from my perspective, it feels as if things have gone backwards. The UI/UX in v2 is just awful compared to v1 (especially on iPad), and the day-to-day issues and constant workarounds are becoming increasingly frustrating.

AdjustmentsLayers.mp4 It's great that adjustment layers allow you to create not-destructive art with the ability to have control at any stage. However, what is missing is the ability to apply these adjustment layers to get vector objects for export. 
For example, I have some vector complex image with many colours and I need to shift the colour tone of the drawing a bit. I can easily do this with a recolour adjustment layer, but after that it will no longer be possible to easily export the vector image. The ability to "bake" the colour change into vector objects without using rasterisation is required.
 

I find it hard to believe that most people, professional or not, don’t care how “buggy” the software is that they use, as long as endless new features are being constantly added! This was one of the problems with the old Plus/legacy Serif software, endless new “bells and whistles” being added in order to have new selling points, while long standing, often serious, bugs just dragged on from release to release. In the end they scrapped the whole range and developed Affinity instead. I really would not like to see Affinity going the same way: the software getting so buggy that it becomes almost unusable, while endless, new features (often with their own new bugs!) are added in the hope of a few more sales!

I think they do care. But marketing works on those who don't know about the bugs.
The irony is that the bugs tend to hurt the most dedicated users. The ones doing the most advanced work. For example, not many here use Artboards. I use exclusively artboards, so most don't encounter the unbelievable number of bugs that are unique to artboards. Almost all of the live filters are broken on artboards. I've been meaning to write something up about it, but haven't had the time and my motivations are low as so far no bugs I've ever opened have been fixed as of yet.

I’m assuming that by “the next few releases” we mean releases of updates to v2, not upgrades to v3, v4 etc, which, going on the first two versions, could be years apart. Obviously very few people would want to pay to upgrade to new versions if there were only bug fixes without any new features. However, I can’t see that concentrating on bug fixes in the next few updates to v2 would be a problem. These are not paid for anyway, so the only affect on profits might be to help sales to new customers by providing a more stable product.

While I do eagerly anticipate new features, I am finding that with each release the Affinity apps are becoming less stable, and generally more buggy. Software will always have bugs, but there comes a point where the number of bugs that impact users on a day-to-day basis becomes so great that continuing to use the tools becomes a liability for many—irregardless of cost. I keep seeing reports of corrupted files and lost work, which has really eroded my confidence in the apps. In 25+ years of using Adobe software I can count the number of times I have actually lost work on one hand (YMMV). With Affinity, it's happened half a dozen times to me in the past six months (the iPad apps are especially bad for it). What's more is that many of the bugs are difficult to reproduce consistently so you don't report them right away, but then the bugs that are reported often don't get fixed for years (if ever).
I do wish Serif would communicate to users some of the challenges they are having, and how they are actively looking to rectify them. I'd much rather have the next few releases be dedicated to fixing many of the long-standing issues than pushing out new buggy features on top of all of the existing bugs, and partially-implemented features. 
Technical debt adds up fast.
As for the beta releases. Testing from users should not replace a rigorous, in-house testing process—something that currently feels lacking within Serif. I stopped running the beta releases long ago as there is still no ability to back-save document versions (I often double-click files to open them, and something will always get opened/saved in the beta), and many of the reported issues were never addressed. Endlessly logging issues with developers that are never resolved isn't progress.
I had always hoped that v2 would have been the chance for Serif to build a modern, stable foundation on which to take the Affinity apps in amazing new directions. Instead, from my perspective, it feels as if things have gone backwards. The UI/UX in v2 is just awful compared to v1 (especially on iPad), and the day-to-day issues and constant workarounds are becoming increasingly frustrating.