deeds

@MikeWaz Don't be distracted by their fixation on your installation options: Of the Affinity UI? No, as far as I know.

Transform tools, please: W = Move E = ScalE R = Rotate T = Transform (skews and distorting scales)

Does installing Affinity software differently alter the available options for the icons of the UI in any way?

Agreed, global lighting would be a huge boon to using shadows, bevels, 3D effects etc.

I don't know why they do it, but there's a seemingly core unit of forum users that seek to diminish and/or discredit the need/desire/usefulness of any suggestions of possible improvements to the Affinity software, no matter how objectively obvious a feature request or suggestion's benefits are. They'll pick on anything they can to do this. It's so obvious a pattern of behaviour, so dogged and determined that their temerity is somewhat shocking. Especially given that @TonyO is quite obviously a high value professional user with a need for the feature fluency, speed and stability of Designer (which he's seemingly happy with). In none of these areas is it fair to consider Publisher to be anywhere near close to Designer. Especially when it comes to stability with that much going on - which is probably in his top ten criteria. And there's significant reductions in performance and functionality when attempting to pretend that Publisher is Designer. This suggestion is merely the addition of something that's in the iPad app, and become somewhat of a staple within all sorts of creative apps from all sorts of industries. And a very good idea, I think, especially considering what we can all probably agree on with regards the stability of Publisher...

No, I'm saying that this kind of frequency of software issues shouldn't occur, ever, and if it does you should consider moving on to more reliable software. Especially for the things this lady is working on. For unexpected hardware failures and the infrequent but common crashes of software, one should backup. But the frequency with which one might consider backups for these kinds of concerns is more like daily than the "every time I save" that the OP was/is heading towards, because of the frequencies of issues she's having with the software. But I think you knew that.

The advantages of JavaScript far outweigh any advantages of Python, IMNSHO, for anything to do with creativity and user empowerment extensions of an engine/core written in C/C++. It's easy to think of JavaScript as a "lite" and dynamic C with objects/prototypes as an added means of wrapping, and dot notation for access, and go from there. Further, any programmer able to make something significant with Python will be able to do the same thing in JavaScript, or Lua, Wren, or MaxScript or any other scripting language, as scripting languages are no longer the barriers to production. With the possible exception of Apple Script, which is a wholly different beast able to turn sane men mad. Similarly, any skilled vector artist can produce with Illustrator, CorelDraw, Freehand, Designer etc. They might not like the workflow as much in some of them, but minus the need for a Blend tool, they can do their vector works in any of these. However, the processes of making a binding between an evolving program (and Affinity products are definitely evolving) and a scripting language needs (for best rates of production and freedoms of evolvement) a stable, specific scripting language choice for optimal flexibility so the tail doesn't wag the dog. Any attempt to be a truly agnostic creative engine for all scripting languages will heavily wag the dog and quickly begin curtailing and/or slowing the evolvement of the underlying software, despite the fact that scripting empowerment of a user base rarely leads to significant general buying of the software. The provision of plugin development in native languages, however, is a whole other thing, and also should not be at all curtailed or limited by scripting language choice, and especially not by a choice to try to be generically and generally extensible by all/any scripting languages. Plugins are a long game, though, and might be over for most creative software, now that we have "AI" that's soon going to be able to control other software.

Then you DEFINITELY deserve better, the best, in fact. I'm not sure what that is in terms of the compromises between performance, stability and features in the desktop publishing space of today, but what you're experiencing sounds horrendous. You really do deserve to not worry about the sanctity of your creativity with media of memories. I don't trust iPhoto, or Lightroom, having had similarly bizarre experiences with both of them on a Mac, so can't recommend either of them as a backbone for your memories prior to creative endeavours with them. Though I do love the productivity of working with Lightroom, I don't trust its archiving. As for layout software... Keynote and Pages, both free for Mac, are far more powerful than people generally think of them to be, but also tedious in the extreme, and it's a bit hacky to use them beyond their intended purposes. Was the older version of Affinity Publisher more stable for you?

I'm not sure you should continue using a program that treats you and your works, and treasured memories, in this manner. Don't put up with it, start finding alternatives, I suggest. This isn't acceptable when there are more stable alternatives. You shouldn't have to utilise versioning and backup systems for this kind of frequency of software issues. You deserve better!

Affinity copied the Duplicate shortcut of Command+J but not the zoom operation mechanics? What was the thinking behind that decision making?

Please only focus on one scripting language, so that it gets done, and done well. There's never been a case where the time spent making multiple scripting language support work hasn't significantly reduced the rate of production of the features that scripting support can provide, because being generic becomes too important. Theoretically good, but very limiting for a domain specific use of scripting.

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

Each individually selected object is turned into a Symbol (along with its children), no matter how many are selected, no matter how they're positioned in the hierarchy, the "make this into a Symbol" action presumes the user wanted that of all selected objects. Simple, quick.

where was pinning?

Jolly good, old chap.

Why, when those threads have been ignored for SO long?

Transparency of the black letters graphic are significantly different, too!

Mipmaps shouldn't be used in professional presentation applications. They're for games that need realtime performance improvements for objects at an angle to the camera, on surfaces at unknown and varying angles to cameras at significant distance from the camera. Mipmaps only ever have negative visual consequences in 2D. There is no acceptable excuse for the differences in appearance at differing zoom levels. The entire reason a user zooms in and out is better examine and determine the appearance of that which they're making, not just to move around. It's also a problem at higher zooms, wherein 200%, 400% etc are inaccurately presented, too, in a different way to being zoomed out. This is a truly ridiculous situation that needs to be fixed, but probably won't ever be because it'd require a rewrite of the presentation code.

All signs Affinity don't use their products and/or aren't listening to those that do.

try to remember:

Instead, Affinity very carefully worded their marketing so that it implied DXF export... ?

Affinity estimated $500k to port Designer back when it was only a Mac app, and their only app. Multiply that by all the features added since, and Publisher and Photo and then multiply that by the wage inflation of programmers and the complexities of their new optimisations and building blocks for their future. Now add the research time to figure out what they should be making it for (targeting) in the Linux world, and how that's going to impact their holistic approach to running all three apps forward at the same time. Now deduct the opportunity cost of tasking programmers with this, and the restrictions it brings to the overall future design and development of the software... Somewhere well north of 2 million pounds... and who knows how much revenue lost due to the inevitable, unavoidable slowing of the development of their trinity of software and whatever else they had planned. Linux users willing to start a kitty? I didn't think so.

I think it's even worse than that... Linux users tend to expect the targeted company to ALSO do the coding, and release it (the code), once it's done, as OpenSores, because... I've never known the reasoning, but reason doesn't seem to be any part of the equation, perhaps it's all purely emotional, inspirational and idealogical.

Attempt to distract, diffract, or otherwise dissuade with semantics built on straw men all you like. People like this fella tend to know what that means about you.

As designers, we've taken it upon ourselves to see the world both as it is and how it could be. I think you're blending the two, internally, which is causing idealogical bents to vent.