GripsholmLion

I'd like to save my settings in Affinity on my computer, so that I can mirror the settings on another paid version of Affinity on my wife's computer. Is this possible?

This has always been a problem with all Affinity vector file exports, not just SVG, despite having been brought to the attention of Serif years ago: export canvas/page/viewbox size gets rounded up to the dimensions that would be required to contain an integer pixel count based on the document PPI (misnamed as DPI in Affinity).
Your 'circles and squares' example Affinity canvas of 20mm x 20mm @ 96PPI is approximately 75.591px x 75.591px, and Affinity exports SVG with viewbox of "0 0 76 76".
Use a text editor to correct the SVG viewbox to "0 0 75.591 75.591".
Note that if you open an SVG in Affinity on a Mac, the document PPI will wrongly be 72 instead of 96, and so the corrected SVG will appear to measure 26.667mm x 26.667mm. In an app that correctly considers the SVG to be 96 PPI, the corrected SVG will measure 20mm x 20mm.

The issue appears to have been resolved and somewhat irritatingly, I don't know how or why, it just doesn't happen now! To answer you question, I did switch off auto - it's still switch off - but the problem persisted a while after that. Maybe kicked in on a restart? 

One of those mysteries of Apple that we Windows users know nothing about! 😄

Have you customised your keyboard shortcuts? Perhaps you introduced an error or triggered a bug?
By default, Cmd + Z undoes on Macs. Redo, by default, needs a second modifier, i.e. Shift.
Maybe, you should check your app shortcut settings in system preferences, or Affinity preferences (in the Shortcuts section, change the second dropdown to Edit), and maybe check the tablet software as well. If necessary, reset any changes and start over.
If your tablet has buttons, map one of them to Cmd + Z in the software; it may well already be that way by default as it's such a common function.
If I am way off the mark here, my apologies; please ignore me.

Make that +2. I find that it can be a bit distracting to have it render just as I am trying to interpret all of the export settings. It is a bit buggy as well.

@Pšenda
it's not that I don't understand the icons or understand their purpose. I can't see them well enough to tell at a glance what's what - and having to hover over the icon to get the tool tip is a huge time-waster. Same with the lock/unlock icons - it's not that I don't understand what they mean - but they're so small and similar I can't tell the lock from the unlock at a glance.
Please have your designers study this document from W3C, "Accessibility Requirements for People with Low Vision" https://www.w3.org/TR/low-vision-needs/
They needn't adopt all the recommendations in the document, but they are leaving many people behind with their design choices.

Here's another example of a GUI that's completely unfriendly to ppl with mild vision problems:

I have mild vision issues and absolutely deplore the current design trend towards "form over function" when it comes to GUI's and websites in general. There are a bunch of things in the new GUI that make it really hard for people with mild vision problems (which includes many otherwise healthy seniors) to use the product (V1 was bad enough). (In)ability to use the GUI is a make-or-break feature of a product like this. Hoping that some of the serious workflow issues had been addressed in Photo v2, I was considering a more serious trial of v2, but if other people are already complaining about the GUI, I am less inclined to slog thru the process of learning a new GUI and new program. It doesn't help that there's no option to export a document for use in v1. I'll be getting a new computer that will require a Photoshop subscription and sadly, looks like I will have to bite the bullet and pay Adobe.

How in the world does a palette that includes 100k black not get color managed?
I made my own default palette 100k to 10k in increments. Affinity applications color manage it just fine.
I made it because of this issue. I agree that if I choose a cmyk color model, the default palette, or maybe all of them, ought to be cmyk. It's the way other software works. That doesn't preclude making a swatch in other color models if desired. 

And it's responses like this that don't help anyone. Seriously... Starting with..."Why..." does. not. help. Period.
It's like asking "Why would you WANT 100K?" If there are other threads, just link to them and be done with it. Please. Thank you. 
------ 
I started "another" thread because when I want to give feedback, my first reaction is to give Affinity feedback. NOT search yet another forum for another unanswered post. And the only way Affinity allows to contact them "directly" is through these user forums. So, I'm submitting *MY* feedback. If it's annoying, well, it should be! They haven't fleshed out their feature set yet, which is annoying to users! Something something...Squeaky wheel.

If it's been answered or Affinity is working on it, then by goodness sakes, they can respond --on the record-- and lock the thread. Otherwise, redundant threads only points out how pointless it is to use of forums threads as "feedback".
Cheers.
 

And maybe the bigger problem is that Affinity has no real feedback system. Just these forums. 

You can make a post and put it out in the ether. But there's never any indication if the dev teams even acknowledge your 'feedback' or problem. 
That's considerably more frustrating, folks. 
 
 

Please Affinity, for the love all things binary, please let us change the default 'black' to 100K, especially when the document settings are already in CMYK!! 
Why continue to punish (some of) us users by having the default black a "rich" black? It's annoying as heck to constantly have to change any new black objects or type, even imported stuff back to just K. Getting rid of the "rich" black is costing me time. 
Just set CMYK documents' black to K. 
I want to set black as 100K. Just K. K. Ok? 
Please? 
 

Perhaps questions about text in linked frames being the wrong size could be avoided if the shape of the content scaling icon was changed.
[EDIT: This proved a poor idea, see further below for a better suggestion to change the mouse pointer shape]
I don't love the plus icon I drew for this post but any shape that looks a bit different, or perhaps a solid circle, would be better.
v2

 
mockup

 

It's pretty common for other vector graphics applications to be able to save layouts down to earlier versions of the software. Obviously newer effects and features would "break" when saving down, but if all one needed to do was get elements with a basic appearance exported to another application such a thing should be do-able.

For example, the current version of Adobe Illustrator can open an AI file made in any prior version, going all the way back to the late 1980's. In Illustrator it's possible to save AI or EPS files down to any prior Creative Suite version, as well as versions 10, 9, 8 and 3. This capability is there because a lot of other applications, such as industry-specific software, cannot import an AI, EPS or PDF file saved using the latest version of Illustrator. CorelDRAW has some backward saving capability, but not nearly as good as Illustrator. The past few versions of CorelDRAW will not open or import CDR files made prior to version 6 and will save down no farther back than version X5.

I wish there was such a thing as a truly generic, open source vector graphics format that supported all the advanced features in applications such as Illustrator but wasn't dependent on such an application. I think EPS is about the closest thing we have to that (PDF is not really an edit-friendly format; it's really for viewing & print only). But the EPS format is primitive. It doesn't support features like true transparency. SVG is not a print-friendly format.

No, OP did not:
V2 should be able to import (which it already does) and export V1 files. Not vice versa. And I absolutely agree with that.
Similarly to OP, I could use V2 on iPad if I could export V1 files to use on Mac (running an OS unsupported by V2). Besides, it would make the instability of V2 less of a burden, because one could always go back to V1 if needed.
Right now, having purchased the whole V2 suite, I can only make use of V2 Designer on iPad, and only for knife and shape builder and port the vectors to V1. Quite limited. Not to mention user base fragmentation, but I guess I've sent enough feedback.

This is one of the reasons why I use SimpleLogin to create a unique alias for each internet account. It took even less time to generate a new alias and disable the old one than it took to update my account settings here. No organisation has my canonical email address other than, obviously, the provider of it.

Hi,
As an enthusiastic user of Affinity Photo (and occasional user of Affinity Designer), mostly on my desktop (MacBook Pro) but occasionally on my iPad as well, I was happy to support a 2.0 version and bought the suite and have them all installed. I find, however, that I am not using Photo 2.0 after all (I just went back to using the original version of Affinity Photo) due to some issues.
1. I love using the plugin Nik Silver Effex Pro 3, but with Photo 2.0, when I go to Filters/Plug-ins/NikCollection/SilverEffectsPro, the plug-in window opens up in Photo 2.0, BUT the dialog box at the bottom, that allows you to Apply (or Cancel) your work in the Silver Effex Pro pop-up window, does NOT exist when using the plug-in with Photo 2.0. So, there is no way to Apply my work in the Nik Silver Efex pop-up window so that it becomes a layer back in Photo 2.0.  This is not an issue with the original Affinity Photo version. Because I like to occasionally turn my work to a BnW version, I decided to just use the original Affinity Photo in my workflow because I know will support the plug in if I chose to employ it.
2. Today, I finally decided to just ignore the annoyance of the Silver Efex Pro performance and go ahead and bite the bullet and start using Photo 2.0 from now on for my work. To give it another chance. I opened 4 files at once (each RAW files from my full frame Sony a99ii) and I was working on the first image, using the Distort filter, and Photo 2.0 just crashed. Sigh. This does not happen with the original Affinity Photo version.
3. Some months ago, right after I purchased Photo 2.0 and installed it (shortly after it was released), I found that there was a lag when trying to use some basic tools on a single image file. That lag problem is something that I had never experienced with the original Affinity Photo version. It was at that point that I decided to just use what works for me and just ignore the fact that there was a 2.0.
4. This is just an opinion but I really do not care for the new look of the icons (I can't tell what the pictures are supposed to be in some cases) as well as the use of buttons instead of checked and unchecked boxes within the layers. This is just a personal aside. 
5. I went to View/ShowGrid and no grid appeared as it does in the original Affinity Photo version. ??
All in all, I think I am going to just continue using the oldie-but-goodie ORIGINAL Affinity Photo and put off, again, using the new 2.0 version. I haven't found any benefit to the upgrade, although this is due to the fact that I have had problems right away when using the new version and, thus, do not likely have enough experience using it, yet, to see the benefits.
Anyone else having these types of simple problems that do not seem to occur with the original version?

I tend to doubt there are many people who are happier to have their content scaled down smaller than the thumbnail square in order to fit blank areas due to a rotated bounding box. Can anyone think of a situation in which the current implementation is really helpful?
But in any case, I suggested it as an option, which would give users their preference (though perhaps not making developers themselves happy 😑)
Thanks for the link -- that thread seemed to reference a different situation, in which the aspect ratio of the content doesn't match the aspect ratio of the thumbnail. I don't have any issue with the way that's treated currently.

Perhaps you'd now like to apologise for saying it isn't in this app, when it's clearly shown working? 

Yeah, I think part of my confusion was the fact that some standard macOS interface keyboard shortcuts have been repurposed.  
In every single macOS program, Command-` cycles between open windows.  And Command-Tab is used by the OS to change between open programs.
Fortunately, Affinity allows me to change most of the shortcuts to restore expected behavior, and reassign the conflicting shortcuts.
I wonder if this is a case of Affinity trying to keep the shortcuts the same between operating systems.  Microsoft does that, and it's a disaster.  For some reason, software companies think it's more likely that someone is going to use their program on multiple computers than people would use more than one program on a single computer.  

@Revanian I have to confess that I did check out Adobe's pricing last night, it's still ridiculously priced though. I'm on the verge of buying DXO PureRAW 3, as it's better than Topaz Denoise AI which I already own. Amateur photographers are keeping Serif going and these tools would help tremendously, all the pro photographers I know still use Adobe or the likes of Capture One, Affinity Photo doesn't seem to be a good fit for them, if Serif want more pro togs to switch they'll have to innovate or be left behind.

Same here.
I bought the whole V2 package basically on the first day. Used it about five times. Even upgraded my  Mac from Mojave to Monterey which I don't like. (Lost two other good programs due to that)
And I've been working on V1 since then anyway. 
Just cannot get over the UI changes, especially in the light interface.
 
Well, we'll see what happens next. 😜 

Yes - which is why I gave specific examples in my earlier posts, if you care to read them.
There are many well constructed examples in these threads of why users do not like specific aspects of the UI, many of them addressing similar themes - eg the lack of context for binary selections.
You might add more value to these threads by responding to specific aspects of user comments, rather than criticising their content.

I don't appreciate being called naive.
The point is that there is no way to know whether a thread has been read by Affinity or not - that is just a fact.
I'm not 'implying' anything - simply stating facts. If you read my post carefully, you'll see that I referred to hundreds of POSTS - not hundreds of users.