Bit Dissapointed

Here's a list of the bugs which have been fixed in the beta build 2.4.0 (2279)
(fixes since the post above for 2.4.0.2256)
Please reply in this forum to comment on any fixes which are in this list (in particular to let us know if you notice that something we say is fixed isn't!) To report any new bugs please do that against the relevant new feature post, or if unrelated to new functionality in the Other bugs & issues forum.
Changes/Bugs affecting all platforms
Rounded rectangle and standard rectangle share corner settings AF-1628  Sony ILCE-7CM2 (A7C 2): colours off ("tinted" magenta) AF-1949 Bugs affecting Desktop (Windows and macOS)
"Layer States > Scope > Selection" doesn't work AF-1519 "Layer States > Scope" not honoured when creating captured state AF-1917 Bugs affecting Windows
Crash on app close AF-1957 Layer States 'On Switch' highlight is reversed on Windows AF-1945 Recent dialog- Pinned documents are automatically unpinned when opened AF-951 ALT + F4 does not close the app if a studio panel/window is actively selected AF-1485 Changing Stroke values from Context Toolbar without force committing does not apply the values until the dialog is next opened  Find and Replace Recent dropdown only displays one character from the search term AF-1944 Layer States: Queries object list difference on Windows compared to Mac AF-1763 Adjustment windows pop up behind floated documents instead of above AF-335 Recent dialog- Pinned documents are automatically unpinned when opened AF-951 Bugs affecting macOS
No macOS specific fixes in this build Bugs affecting iPad
Edit > Duplicate, "Edit" menu stays "pressed"   Changing Resize settings breaks UI or crashes app AF-912 iPad Keyboard will show, or dialogs will close based on the angle of the iPad (seemingly accelerometer controlled?) AF-1599 Adjustment Interface and Image placement menu flicker when iPad is held/Positioned at certain angles AF-1306

I would like to have the option to customize the toolbar with new icons for “Save” and “Save as…”

As I've mentioned a trillion times before in this forum, Serif has opted for many perplexing, contradictory, or technically incorrect or dubious solutions.
This is what happens when you stubbornly refuse to hire specialists for specialist work. If things haven't changed in 30 years, why would Serif alter its course in the next 10? It's the most effective cure against learning, market share, and happier customers I've ever seen. Personally, I would find it dull as dishwater and extremely unambitious to work in that way (I wouldn't be allowed to either) but they have so clearly chosen to cocoon themselves in their cave with their methods. Their choice.
I'm somewhat enjoying Designer, which does have its merits and performs well and swiftly, but I can say with conviction that my investment in Publisher and Photo turned out to be superfluous. Especially Photo. Bloody hell, the amount of unserious algorithms you can find there. Even considering the price.
But perhaps the worst part is that it fails to attract professional clients, despite the marketing team's zealous use of the term "professional." So, ambitious and professional clients who come here with expectations are, to their surprise and often irritation, told by non-professionals what professionals need and expect! Brilliant strategy, sure to drive potential professional clients away. Yet another effective cure against increasing market share.
The discourse in this forum is that many customers indirectly indicate that they have too much time on their hands, not to use Affinity professionally, but to talk about it. And much more.
In other words, don't expect Serif to take a sharp right turn towards Usability City, no matter how critical, constructive, or fanboyish you try to be here. Wishes are listened to in this forum, but there's no serious, professional, and structured work as there should be in a company like Serif, and that's the basis for the observations you've made.
In other words:

Content Authenticity Initiative
Today (26/10/2023) Leica has launched the M11-P (https://leica-camera.com/en-US/press/new-leica-m11-p#), a version of the M11 camera which incorporates a chip that implement the concept of the Content Authenticity Initiative. This is the first camera which integrates natively this feature.
I think that this initiative is of main interest for prefessional (but not limited to) photographers, and that a professional grade software like AP should be interested in integrating this initiative in its features.
Participants to CAI are top-level subjects (Adobe, Nikon, BBC, Leica and many, many others), and get informations about the initiative is easy to find on the net.
Some open source software is already available on the site (https://contentauthenticity.org/), and being part of it is totally free.
Hope this can be a further opportunity for AP to increase its top-rated quality rank and enhance it's visibility.

Allow me to be clear: any user is welcome to post here on the Affinity forums.
We do not keep track of our users professional intents, knowledge or experiences.
We openly welcome newcomers and professionals alike to provide their personal opinions and feedback for the Affinity apps - as we are all simply users of the Affinity suite.
No user is greater than another because of their personal experiences or professional history.
Every retail customer pays the same amount for an Affinity license, and therefore all are equal users, who all have the equal right to voice their thoughts and feelings when using the Affinity apps.
I ask that you stop insinuating, or directly referring to other users experiences, knowledge or professional qualities. This is not for you to judge here on the Affinity Forums, and should not minimise or belittle another users wishes or intents for the Affinity apps.
This forum is not a commune, it is a website owned by a private company, where the Affinity team controls the rules by which you all must abide.
If you do not like following our rules, we ask that you do not post to the forums. Continued or flagrant breaking of these rules will result in forum membership being terminated.
Much akin to other users, we welcome your feedback and criticism of the Affinity apps.
We do not welcome direct criticism of other users, or of their personal feedback.
It is not for our users to decide what is right or wrong for other users to post, or suggest for the Affinity apps - though of course you are welcome to voice your disagreement with their suggestions, should it negatively impact your workflow or if other potential options may improve their original idea, for example.
We are not looking to create an exclusionary, homogenous group - but we are looking to create a safe space for all Affinity users.
This thread was started by a relatively new user to the forums, who has every right to share their feedback when using the Affinity apps, and request changes they'd like to see in the app.
Personally, I feel Erno is deserved of an apology - as their thread was overtaken with discussions not related to their feedback, partly not even directly related to the Affinity apps themselves.
I'm sorry that after sharing their feedback and engaging with other users about their workflows, that the thread was overrun with such negativity and personal criticisms.
This is not what the Affinity forums are designed for, and will not be tolerated further.
Again, this is not to say that criticism of the Affinity apps is not valid or welcome here, but we do ask that the criticism remains constructive and threads remain on-topic.
If you wish to discuss the hiring practices of the Affinity team, the design decisions made by the developers or our marketing teams campaigns for how the app is sold - then you should begin your own thread on the subject.
Other users, and the Affinity team, may even be willing to engage in conversation regarding your points raised.
Brigading on another users thread, not related to the above meta commentary, is unhelpful and in my opinion leaves a bad impression on the original poster of the feedback/question - who likely wanted to provide their valued feedback to help improve the Affinity apps, and not much more.
This bad impression might not only cause this user not to return to the forums, but also may dissuade users from posting in the future - neither of which is acceptable in my opinion.
This is why we ask that threads are kept on-topic, so that the user is free to discuss the points they wanted to raise with the Affinity team, or other forum members, in a relaxed and safe environment.
The above does not only go for this thread, or you as a user.
Many threads here on the forums have begun trending in a similar direction as this one, so I wish to make the above very clear to all users of the Forums, new and old.

Noted, but I shall conclude by emphasising that if there is one aspect that falls under feedback for the products, it is the specific things that cause dissatisfaction in them, which are the concrete errors in methodology behind them. And the method is precisely what frames all the individual errors. Meta? Well, then let's have a meta-feedback forum. Instead of unmethodically trickling in tiny individual drops of feedback here.

It is still stunningly irrelevant. The point is that they should have learned something in their field over the past decades, and their Mac and Windows versions contain the same hopeless usability errors and algorithms as before, and their work methods and deficiencies are the same. I'm talking about methods, you're babbling about products. The products are products OF the method. Serif will make many of the same elementary mistakes today if they start over with the Mac code, because their corporate culture and deficiencies are unchanged over time.

Oh, give me strength. It doesn't matter that they started on Mac 10 years ago. I'm talking about how the company works as professionals, methodically, involving specialties, what algorithms they develop themselves or obtain from external sources, what their attitude is towards the professional level of the algorithms and to their products as such, and much, much more. The WHOLE thing! You shouldn't think you're starting over just because you're also making a Mac version.
But you do start over when you fail to work professionally in advance, then you end up with the clunky tablet versions of the products that we have today. Nothing learned and no empathy, they try BY THEMSELVES and fail BY THEMSELVES.
The company has been working with graphic software for 30 years and should be at a much higher level of consciousness, professional level, and possess much greater industry knowledge than they do today.
 
They had the chance to make a fresh start with Affinity as a company on all levels, but it was only partial because the corporate culture does not extend further. 

I never said it is my business. It is Serif's business to take into account amateur or non-designer feedback with a grain of salt. Affinity declares the ambition of a professional graphic design suite so it should behave as such.
I do not mean any harm by "relevant minority", it's just a fact that if Affinity or any other professional design software will be developed by mainly taking into account a minority of the use cases instead of their target audience it will sooner or later either go bankrupt or turn into a glorified Canva (which by the way is a great software for running "affordable" marketing materials for small businesses).
I truly wish you the best of luck with your business and hope you succeed with it, but once again, Affinity is (by their own standards) a professional design suite, so when we're all here discussing improvements to professional workflows and you come screaming "cheap, old hardware, iPad" I don't think I am the one with the attitude.
I never said you or any other person's business is insignificant and I would never disrespect you, your business or your skills, but if you truly wish for the best from this suite as most of us here do you would have no problem telling the staff (not me) what you use this software for so that they can make informed decisions when establishing priorities.
Also a great thing about Affinity's licensing, code, and ethics is that if you ever feel like this suite has become too complex or expensive for your personal or business needs you can just stick to 2.0 and keep doing your thing, as most of us here are discussing with a 3.0 release in mind that will hopefully integrate much better with a professional workflow.
All the best to you, your team, and your business.
Tudor.

I think when people throw out this kind of feedback with little to no justification or with irrelevant arguments they should also mention:
1. How does Affinity help their professional work.
2. What kind of professional work they do relying solely on Affinity. (We are not in the game to switch between 10 apps for a single web/print graphic).
3. Years of experience with Affinity and as a professional in the field where they use Affinity.
I keep seeing the same relevant minority pop up with prayers for Affinity to stay “cheap, old hardware compatible, up to date on iPad, etc.” in topics where people talk about actual improvements to a professional workflow.
This doesn’t do the software suite justice or the community any good. I sincerely hope the Affinity team take these factors into consideration when evaluating the relevance of given feedback since it would be beneficial to both us and them as a company for the software to be developed with professional users in mind.

As I've mentioned a trillion times before in this forum, Serif has opted for many perplexing, contradictory, or technically incorrect or dubious solutions.
This is what happens when you stubbornly refuse to hire specialists for specialist work. If things haven't changed in 30 years, why would Serif alter its course in the next 10? It's the most effective cure against learning, market share, and happier customers I've ever seen. Personally, I would find it dull as dishwater and extremely unambitious to work in that way (I wouldn't be allowed to either) but they have so clearly chosen to cocoon themselves in their cave with their methods. Their choice.
I'm somewhat enjoying Designer, which does have its merits and performs well and swiftly, but I can say with conviction that my investment in Publisher and Photo turned out to be superfluous. Especially Photo. Bloody hell, the amount of unserious algorithms you can find there. Even considering the price.
But perhaps the worst part is that it fails to attract professional clients, despite the marketing team's zealous use of the term "professional." So, ambitious and professional clients who come here with expectations are, to their surprise and often irritation, told by non-professionals what professionals need and expect! Brilliant strategy, sure to drive potential professional clients away. Yet another effective cure against increasing market share.
The discourse in this forum is that many customers indirectly indicate that they have too much time on their hands, not to use Affinity professionally, but to talk about it. And much more.
In other words, don't expect Serif to take a sharp right turn towards Usability City, no matter how critical, constructive, or fanboyish you try to be here. Wishes are listened to in this forum, but there's no serious, professional, and structured work as there should be in a company like Serif, and that's the basis for the observations you've made.
In other words:

As I've mentioned a trillion times before in this forum, Serif has opted for many perplexing, contradictory, or technically incorrect or dubious solutions.
This is what happens when you stubbornly refuse to hire specialists for specialist work. If things haven't changed in 30 years, why would Serif alter its course in the next 10? It's the most effective cure against learning, market share, and happier customers I've ever seen. Personally, I would find it dull as dishwater and extremely unambitious to work in that way (I wouldn't be allowed to either) but they have so clearly chosen to cocoon themselves in their cave with their methods. Their choice.
I'm somewhat enjoying Designer, which does have its merits and performs well and swiftly, but I can say with conviction that my investment in Publisher and Photo turned out to be superfluous. Especially Photo. Bloody hell, the amount of unserious algorithms you can find there. Even considering the price.
But perhaps the worst part is that it fails to attract professional clients, despite the marketing team's zealous use of the term "professional." So, ambitious and professional clients who come here with expectations are, to their surprise and often irritation, told by non-professionals what professionals need and expect! Brilliant strategy, sure to drive potential professional clients away. Yet another effective cure against increasing market share.
The discourse in this forum is that many customers indirectly indicate that they have too much time on their hands, not to use Affinity professionally, but to talk about it. And much more.
In other words, don't expect Serif to take a sharp right turn towards Usability City, no matter how critical, constructive, or fanboyish you try to be here. Wishes are listened to in this forum, but there's no serious, professional, and structured work as there should be in a company like Serif, and that's the basis for the observations you've made.
In other words:

Company: Serif 35 years.
Product(s): Affinity(designer MAC only) 10 years.

As I've mentioned a trillion times before in this forum, Serif has opted for many perplexing, contradictory, or technically incorrect or dubious solutions.
This is what happens when you stubbornly refuse to hire specialists for specialist work. If things haven't changed in 30 years, why would Serif alter its course in the next 10? It's the most effective cure against learning, market share, and happier customers I've ever seen. Personally, I would find it dull as dishwater and extremely unambitious to work in that way (I wouldn't be allowed to either) but they have so clearly chosen to cocoon themselves in their cave with their methods. Their choice.
I'm somewhat enjoying Designer, which does have its merits and performs well and swiftly, but I can say with conviction that my investment in Publisher and Photo turned out to be superfluous. Especially Photo. Bloody hell, the amount of unserious algorithms you can find there. Even considering the price.
But perhaps the worst part is that it fails to attract professional clients, despite the marketing team's zealous use of the term "professional." So, ambitious and professional clients who come here with expectations are, to their surprise and often irritation, told by non-professionals what professionals need and expect! Brilliant strategy, sure to drive potential professional clients away. Yet another effective cure against increasing market share.
The discourse in this forum is that many customers indirectly indicate that they have too much time on their hands, not to use Affinity professionally, but to talk about it. And much more.
In other words, don't expect Serif to take a sharp right turn towards Usability City, no matter how critical, constructive, or fanboyish you try to be here. Wishes are listened to in this forum, but there's no serious, professional, and structured work as there should be in a company like Serif, and that's the basis for the observations you've made.
In other words:

35 years of experience, or even 100 if you want, is worthless if the quality of the application is not proportional to that experience.
 
We often disagree Bit Arts, but here I agree 100%. I can't understand the approach and development model (locking yourself in your own cave/bubble) they chose in Serif.
 

CorelDRAW as well.

This has happened to me in just about any lengthy publication I create.  I'm doing a multi-page two-column layout with tables interspersed when after a few hours of working and some squeezing in new paragraphs into older content I suddenly notice that a random table from the middle of the document has utterly vanished.
I know that sometimes the pin stays and the table has been vaulted off the page into the ether... but I don't know how to find those pins since they seem to only be visible when a given table is selected.  I'll poke around and see if I can flip on all widgets and find the runaway table, but this is really ridiculous.
Let me put some pseudocode here for the devs:
If a table is pinned, and the pins moves such that the calculated geometry pushes the table completely off the page such that is it wholly invisible: KEEP IT ON THE DAMN PAGE WHERE THE PIN IS.  Just put it in the corner closest to it's errant off-the-planet calculated position.  The author will grab it and tuck it somewhere else. Seriously.  Don't make your users completely break flow and spend forever dicking around trying to find an object that should have never left the page constraints in the first place.  This is basic behavior that separates professional software from wannabees.

Ah, easy to recreate:

That sounds like a critical issue! Good catch!

How are Layer attributes being directly impacted by a Layer being hidden/unhidden? That's so error-prone.

The straight apostrophe (') and the typographic (curved) apostrophe (’) are visually similar but serve different purposes and have distinct Unicode points: U+0027 for the straight apostrophe, commonly used in programming and informal text, and U+2019 for the typographic apostrophe, preferred in formal typography for denoting possession or contractions. Unicode, a universal character encoding standard, assigns unique codes to characters, allowing for consistent representation across different digital platforms. This distinction is crucial for accurate text representation and processing in software like Affinity Publisher.
For the issue with different apostrophes in your text, it's crucial for Affinity Publisher to distinguish between the straight apostrophe (') and the typographic apostrophe (’). A feature suggestion for the developers would be to implement automatic recognition and adjustment based on language settings or user preference. This could involve a setting for choosing the default apostrophe type for a document and a smart text engine that switches between them based on context, such as automatically using the typographic apostrophe (’) for languages like Ukrainian, and the straight apostrophe (') for programming languages or other settings, unless manually overridden by the user. Additionally, ensuring export functions handle these characters correctly is vital for maintaining document integrity across different formats.
Adding automatic apostrophe recognition to Affinity Publisher requires modifying the text engine, updating UI settings, ensuring export accuracy, and thorough testing, marking a substantial but important development effort.

That sounds like a critical issue! Good catch!

The issue where Affinity programs can't start properly due to problems with hidden folders primarily falls on the software developer (Affinity) rather than Microsoft. It's the responsibility of Affinity's developers to ensure their software correctly handles file and folder attributes, including hidden ones, across supported operating systems. The problem, involving incorrect handling of hidden files during initialization, suggests a need for Affinity to update their software to manage file system interactions properly, addressing this specific issue for a more robust application performance.

Well explained @Bit Arts. I should have been a bit more detailed in the first place. And @thomaso as well.

Any multiple fills/strokes added to a layer will be removed when using captured states - undo and history can't correct this!
I have also run into this issue using queries, but I am finding it more troublesome to reliably repeat.  
AD 2.4 (2240) • macOS 14.2
Thanks