Bryan Rieger

I've noticed this happens a fair bit as well. I'm running macOS Sonoma 14.4.1 on an M1 Pro MacBook Pro. It doesn't happen all the time, but it's frequent enough to be annoyingly memorable. After a little more reflection, pressing TAB before saving or exporting isn't really a solution, as it's just yet another workaround that hides the entire interface. I have ZERO other applications that have this type of UI/UX problem. Any chance this can be logged as a bug to be addressed in a future update? Shuffling panels around every time I need to save, and then having to shuffle them back (as it's the location where I want to use them) isn't a great user experience.

If I remember correctly, I think it's possible to export a layered PSD from Fireworks which you could then use in the Affinity apps. I can't remember the exact settings, but there was something about 'maintaining edibility' that was quite helpful when exporting a PSD from Fireworks.

I wouldn’t make anything of it, as the ads were likely made before the acquisition was finalized, and the teams at Canva are only now likely beginning to think how best to integrate the Affinity products into their overall brand and messaging.

FWIW I've been super happy with the Xence Pen Tablet (Medium) which replaced my Wacom Intuos and works great with the Affinity apps. The Quick Keys controller is really handy as it enables you to largely work without also having a keyboard directly in front of you for common shortcuts.

@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.

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 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.

OMG @walt.farrell I've tried that so many times before and it's never worked. I must have had 'sculpt' off and not have known it. Thank you! Addendum: Thinking about it, this is one of those cases where the vector tools UX could use a bit of love. If you have a curve/shape selected, and you change tools, is the user expecting to continue editing that curve/shape, or to create a new curve/shape? Making users press 'sculpt' in the pencil tool is an option, but it might be useful/intuitive to have one way to toggle the 'edit/sculpt' functionality for all of the vector editing tools in a consistent manner. Adobe Animate has something similar where you can change the mode of the current drawing tool, enabling users to specify how they want that tool to currently behave.

Yeah, it's somewhat counter-intuitive, but you can't draw one curve with the pen tool, and then use the pencil to continue editing that same curve. They're not interchangeable. The brush tool also works the same—as each tool creates its own separate shape/curve. You can however select curves made with each of the tools and merge them together which then treats them as a single curve/shape. And of course you can always use the node tool to edit any of the curves draw with any of the tools. I should also mention that with the pencil tool if you enable 'keep curve selected' and 'sculpt' you can continue to add to, and (somewhat) edit that path still using the pencil tool. It would be nice if the line-drawing and vector editing tools in Designer could be used more in combination with one another.

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)

Hi @Dan C, as I said it's not nearly as bad as v1 but as shown in the screen shot below (the second one is zoomed in on the first path) I still do get some weirdness/extra points/controls at the end of the lines. Even with strokes with no pressure applied often the last node has an awkward control point applied that results in an offset endpoint that doesn't fully match the direction of the line/curve itself. Using a stabilizer can help, but it doesn't get rid of it entirely. I then need to fix this by either editing the affected nodes directly, or by fiddling with the pressure graph—or more often than not, a mix of both. It's even noticeable with lines/curves that have no pressure or velocity data applied to them.

@Dan C yeah, this is still an issue in v2 on the iPad. Not as bad as it was in v1, but still requires regular clean-up. I notice it most when I've been using Fresco or Illustrator on the iPad for a bit, then come back to Designer, as it requires me to break my flow to clean things up.

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.

Yeah, I can't count the number of times I've seen photo/videographers edit on a smaller MacBooks in café after a shoot, let alone all of the illustrators (using Procreate by far) and designers working on iPads and smaller laptops (with or without a mouse). FWIW I've also seen a lot of these same folks using Canva over the past few years. (yeah, I'm nosey.) Maybe it's just a Montréal thing…

Yeah, I started with computers in the 1970s as well, but things have changed. Consumer tech is now just 'tech' for the vast majority of users and businesses. Whether you continue to dismiss that as fashion or ignorance, I'll leave up to you. Folks who need highly accurate colour calibration (I suspect that number is still shrinking) will always need tools that provide that. Of course, a large number of people not only don't need highly accurate colour calibration, but also wouldn't know how to set-up and configure a highly accurate colour corrected workflow anyway. Today with sRGB, Adobe RGB, Display P3, etc many platforms, apps and services perform 'good enough' colour conversion on the fly, and many printers I've worked with in recent years are fine taking Canva (or equivalent) RGB images or PDFs and producing something perfectly acceptable. And for digital-only work, it's largely irrelevant as you can't control what device the user will view it on. As for precision, on a phone it's difficult, but not impossible. On my iPad it's not a problem at all, especially with an Apple Pencil. Regarding the Apple 17 inch laptops, they haven't been in production for over a decade. While they do currently make a 16" version currently, I believe the smaller 13" models (as well as the MacBook Airs) sell magnitudes more.

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.

More and more I find myself reaching for apps that enable me to work across all of the devices I own; MacBook Pro, iPad, and iPhone—and it's one of the reason I prefer to use Affinity, Procreate, etc than Adobe as the same files can be opened, edited, and saved on any platform, whereas the Adobe mobile versions of the desktop apps have very limited feature sets, and use specific 'cloud' file types, which makes working between devices more difficult (not to mention that their cloud service routinely creates multiple conflicting versions of files). Much like "the best camera is the one you have with you", being able to open work on whichever device I currently have with me, whether to actually edit the work, export it, or simply to view it, has become indispensable to me in recent years. FWIW since the announcement I've been experimenting with Canva a little, and I'm really surprised how easy it is to make 'content' on your phone today. I can prepare a few eye catching social media posts/stories while sitting on the metro before I even get to a cafe (or office, studio, whatever), where I can then use my iPad to finish working on the illustrations for the posts in Affinity Designer or Procreate which can then be easily added to Canva and scheduled for publishing. Times, technologies, and expectations change. While you might prefer working on desktop machines, others may have different working preferences today—please don't dismiss them as inferior.

I used Quark extensively early on in my career, but when they acquired and promptly killed my beloved mTropolis I vowed never to have anything to do with the company again. Sadly, I still have some of that Quark muscle memory after all those years.

I don't disagree with you @bbrother but I'm pretty sure that getting angry is never going to change anything. I'd much rather be as supportive of Serif and Canva as I can as I'd like to continue to use the Affinity apps going forward—but that doesn't mean I won't be constructively critical (as I've always tried to be) of the massive list of issues and shortcomings in the apps that users have had to workaround for years. The ball is really in Serif and Canva's court right now. I already know my exit strategy (back to Adobe, I've been slowly migrating back already), and I'm willing to give them some time to make good on their promises/pledges before completely abandoning the products, company, and team that I genuinely prefer, despite all of their shortcomings. I definitely wouldn't suggest not having a backup plan, but personally I don't have much to lose by giving them the benefit of the doubt for a little bit longer—I want them to make good on their pledges. The Affinity apps today are exactly the same as they were before the announcement (with a few onboarding tutorials added in 2.4.1), with all of their bugs and quirks, along with more than a few truly delightful features that make me not want to give up on them quite just yet. Oh, and this acquisition has made me take a serious look at Canva, and I quite like what I see. They're not perfect (nothing is), but in all honesty I feel like they're probably the best owner/partner that Serif could have ended up with—and I'm really excited to see where this goes.

As I seem to have no more reactions available to me today, I'm just going to echo both @R C-R and @debraspicher's comments. Getting a handle on the ever increasing bug count and prioritizing stability must be a priority going forward.

Thanks again @Ash (and @Patrick Connor), the comment about being relieved of financial pressures setting the schedule is so important. If this enables Serif to release smaller, more frequent updates then I'm hoping we'll soon start to see both many of the long standing features requests being delivered upon, but also an increased focus on bug fixes, UI/UX issues, and stabilization. I have to admit, the more I look at Canva the more I'm seeing lots of possibilities with the Affinity suite — especially having access to their extensive font library. Also, the idea of optional cloud storage is actually quite enticing, especially if that were to be able to be tied into various client Canva accounts. -- BTW I've been playing with Canva a little more over the past few days, and I've actually come to quite like it for what it is (I'm even thinking of adopting it for social media content). An extremely accessible application that enables anybody to quickly (and cost-effectively) create effective content and messaging without the steep learning curve and overhead of traditional design apps. I also love the idea that the Affinity suite will be available to education and non-profits at no cost, which is really exciting as Canva is used extensively in both verticals, and while there is increased complexity with the Affinity Suite, it is still far more approachable than the competition. Exciting times. 👍

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.

CEO is more of an Americanism, while Managing Director is/was more often used in the UK (and Australia I believe). That said, the CEO title seems to becoming the more standard term used throughout the world today.

I recently fired up SheepSaver running MacOS 9.0.4 (on my M1 Pro powered MacBook Pro) and was amazed at the size and performance of many of the apps. Yes, MacOS 9 feels more than a little dated/clunky now, but I was somewhat astounded by how much I liked working in many of those older (Macromedia) applications in a VM. Not sure if it'll become a daily driver, but it's nice to know that it's an option. I've also rediscovered 'the joy of the progress bar'… it may seem counter intuitive, but when computers became fast enough to perform many operations in real-time the old faithful progress bar largely disappeared. While I welcomed the new realtime responsiveness, I found that I soon missed the contemplative time I had to consider my work while the operation progressed. The progress bar slowed me down a little, but in the process made me much more considerate of the work I was creating, and as a result the work often ended up better for it.