Layoutman

Affinity Designer V2 perspective warp group uses totally wrong math to calculate the result. It's been wrong from the start. It's not fixed in V2.4 beta. The original is in the left. The black one in the right is the result of applying the perspective warp group. The diagonal lines are curved and the circle is transformed to something else than an ellipse. Mathematically valid result is shown as blue. It's made in Inkscape. Affinity developers should check the right formula from there.

Thanks, but the link text is nailed by the writer. It's how he wants it appear in printed versions. The publisher (=the same for the printed and PDF version) doesn't accept any visual differences between the contents of the printed and PDF versions. Period. Often there's an image which clearly refers to the existence of some available online content. In such case I get an yellow tag which says " make the image also to work as a weblink!" Screenreader NVDA is popular where I live. Adobe Reader's "read aloud" and also what's in Windows are considered as crap. The customers are gradually starting to demand that NVDA must read links understandable. Alt text is the way to make it possible. Something which maybe is good (https://a superlong cyptic string ) for copying and pasting to the browser address line is not the right aural appearance of the link. I guess that missing bounding box attribute is a problem for PAC itself. It's screen reader simulator cannot show the right portion of the screen when there's a figure tag with wrong or none bounding box attribute.

I make accessible PDFs, because my best customers cannot any more accept anything else. The situation has been here the same over 2 years. That's declared by the rules how public money can be consumed. Adobe Indesign offers a way to make PDFs which Adobe call "Accessible". Hopefully Serif succeeds to avoid copying the inferior solution of Adobe. Let me explain some of the most idiotic features of the Adobe solution: The result is not Accessible - no matter what Adobe Acrobat accessibility checker happens to write. Actually Adobe has understood how to avoid lawsuits. Acrobat doesn't claim anything accessible. It says only "No errors were found". As useful as a blind chicken! The result does not fulfill formal PDF/UA nor WGAC accessibility criterions. A good formal accessibility tester is PAC 2021. Virtually any image, link, table ad form field is tagged wrong by Indesign and must be manually fixed in Acrobat. Especially often attribute objects bounding box and placement are missing or wrong. Unfortunately fixing manually is not so easy. There are at least as many errors as there's images, links tables and form fields. In addition the the tag tree is full of Span and Story tags. The tags which need fixing are hidden deep. It's much easier to tag say 100 page book manually in Acrobat than to fix the mess generated by Indesign. A big part of the problem is Adobe's idea to use text styles as the basis of tagging. Layout artists hate it. (I like use a couple of them because their artistic ability and stylistic confidence is a high boost of what I can deliver). In Indesign any piece of text must in any case to be selected in Indesign and marked to be included to the tagged content. It would be a gift from the heaven if the used tag could be inserted in this phase and the tagging by text style could be totally skipped. If someone really wants the story and span tag -jumble caused by tagging by text style -idea I gladly like to let him continue in his masochism, but I do not want the same. That's way I tag manually in Acrobat. Tagging in Acrobat has a drawback. The customers often want to make content changes. They do not understand why in the hell I do not give already the first version as an accessible PDF, but before making the tagged PDF I require an email confirmation "this version is final and the next change will be paid separately" The customers have learned to require some quality. Many of my rivals are dropped because - some of them only said "this PDF is accessible" I reality there could be say 100 red and 200 yellow errors in PAC2021 checklists and the screen reader simulation could be unreadable. - some of them did not lie, but they do not know how to convert PDFs accessible in Acrobat or have found it too difficult. Today the customers do not accept a single red nor yellow error in PAC2021's PDF/UA nor WGAC checklists. In addition the PAC2021's screen reader simulator must show a simple linear layout which contains proper captions and alt texts for images and links. The text level must not change randomly. A single paragraph must look a single paragraph. Adobe stuff costs too much. Your products are more affordable and the developments in ver.2 make also professional usage meaningful. Hopefully this happens also in the field of accessibility. But do it properly, without copying the Indesign approach.