Jump to content

Bikerbudmatt

Members
  • Content count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bikerbudmatt

  • Rank
    Newbie

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Connecticut, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

147 profile views
  1. Would love to do that. Can’t find the special request, but lots of individual threads requesting this! Point me toward the thread you’re seeking support for.
  2. Thanks, of course. I’ve been asking for this for 2 years and want it to be implemented.
  3. I have previously requested this for Designer and Photo, but accepted that pixels/points was possibly adequate for most folks' needs. But I'm aghast that Publisher does not support Pica & Points as a measurement standard. Please implement this in your measurement engine! I understand that picas may not be used in Europe, but in North America it's a very useful standard. Points alone is not enough. And, thanks for the public beta release!
  4. Bikerbudmatt

    Affinity Publisher

    Two true things: Sometimes people need to vent their impatience. I don't need to be around while they do it. For me this thread is over. (Oh, okay, three, THREE true things.)
  5. +1 to this feature request. And a big –1 to users who argue that everyone should just get used to a black-on-black UI because it's what they think is "correct." On my screen, the icons are very small and nearly indistinguishable when rendered white-on-black, as they are now. The inky void swallows up the details that would otherwise make them easy to identify. And thanks MEB for highlighting Andy's video bit, which seems to show…yes, an adjustable UI!
  6. The other Point (I like the oblique there!) is one of those things that got carried forward for backward compatibility with legacy measures. I still have some metal rules that are marked in traditional point increments. By the time you get to measures like 36 Picas, there is a noticeable difference between the two. As one example of how an identically-named convention could be handled, I took a look at InDesign's "Units & Increments" dialog. Adobe arguably set the 72 pts/inch standard when they introduced the PostScript language, so they have an editable pop-menu with two hardwired selections: "PostScript (72 pts/inch)" and "Traditional (72.27 pts/inch)". But, you can also define a point to be ANY arbitrary factor/inch. That suggests to me a powerful idea: would your engine be able to deal with a measurement system that allows the user to define their own measurement scale? I'm not sure you'd really want to get in to that, and you'd have to set some boundaries to avoid blowing up the app, but I'm wondering if the app is still "young" enough that you could add this without crossing a whole bunch of dependencies? And all of that being said… I'd be happy to see a PostScript or digital Pica/Point measurement in the 1.6 release. Thanks Ben!
  7. Well, yes. The point is the base unit of a pica. So by definition there are two different references for points.
  8. If I were confined to just one, though, I'd ask for the digital "DTP" pica, 4.233mm or 0.166 in. 12 points to the pica, 6 picas to the inch, 72 picas to the foot are very convenient in countries that have not yet converted to the metric system.
  9. Ben, since all three have a defined reference point, why would you not want to include them? Yards and metres are wonderful units to include for drawing and drafting. But, points and picas are bread and butter for typography. (I had to go back to my original post to recall that I recommended at least the American and "digital" simplified pica. But there's no reason to exclude the Didot pica.) Bumping my original request and advocating that it be implemented in the next revision. Thanks!
  10. Bikerbudmatt

    Affinity Publisher

    Agreed. I was used to working with professional front-ends driving precision equipment—starting with film-strip fonts and later some of the earliest imagesetters rasterizing type with CRTs or lasers directly onto film. PM was primitive compared to $100,000 (and up) composing systems. BUT…it was able to produce complete page layouts, including graphics, at a sliver of a fraction of the cost of one of those systems. They were not the pinnacle of typesetting perfection, but they were the practical expression of the WYSIWYG GUI that Lisa and Macintosh popularized. I've learned and forgotten more markup languages than I care to remember. But Pagemaker and FreeHand were two monuments in the evolution of graphic arts, and need to be respected for their historical significance. (And with the other poster above, I made money on them for many years, until one was extinguished and the other was no longer viable.)
  11. Bikerbudmatt

    Affinity Publisher

    Agreed on the drop caps feature—it was primitive and out of control. Wrong apostrophes came from wrong typists. Since I came from an environment where quote marks were keyboarded as seen (no such thing as a "double quote"…that would be two keystrokes of the open quote symbol), it was always interesting to see how Pagemaker would import and interpret so-called "typewriter quotes." Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. But, Oval, you happened to pick on two features that did not exist elsewhere in the DTP layout world when they were introduced. Of course they were not polished. But in the late 1980s a lot of people started making a living with those tools, and a lot of other people found themselves adapting to new workflows because of them. Would I say Pagemaker is a great tool today, in comparison with what's available? Absolutely not. But much of the reason that it became a "horrible" product has to do with Adobe gobbling up the Aldus corporation, freezing Pagemaker's development, and then leaving it on the market way too long. It was problematic for long-form publishing, and had its quirks, but its many competitors were always chasing its feature set. And honestly, for this discussion, the main thing is integration of digital sources into a layout. Getting that right was a huge Pagemaker strength. It allowed artists, copywriters, and editors to do their work and then submit it to the layout artist working in Pagemaker. That's one of the crucial functions that Affinity Publisher has to get right.
  12. Bikerbudmatt

    Affinity Publisher

    PageMaker (which I first used in v1.2 on a Mac 512KE) was not IMHO a "horrible" or "terrible" product. When Aldus first published it in the mid 1980s there was nothing else like it. I came from a Compugraphic shop where I set galleys on photo paper, which then went to the layout guy, who waxed and pasted them down on boards with non-repro-blue guidelines. Corrections were 2-line slugs that got tipped in over the typos. Photos were indicated on the boards so that they could be shot separately with appropriate cropping and sizing, then stripped into the galley negatives. The negatives were used to make plates. And THEN you could go to press. PageMaker's great (and revolutionary) strength was that it integrated all those elements onto a single virtual pasteboard, and did it all with a mouse click. It was "PageMaker the Horrible" only in the sense that it went through the printing industry like an scythe and eliminated the need for many, many crafts that were part of an older established workflow. What I found horrific was Adobe's purchase of Aldus, which was more an attempt to eliminate FreeHand as a competitor to the truly horrible Illustrator (I'll retract that statement only if someone can explain to me why Illustrator STILL needs at least three different anchor-point tools for editing when FreeHand could do everything with a single, intuitive tool). When the rights instead went to Macromedia, Adobe eventually gobbled them up as well, and of course killed FreeHand. Instead of suffocating PageMaker, they put it in a development-free zone while they spent several years building InDesign from scratch. They allowed PageMaker to stay on the market, essentially a mid-1990s version, so that InDesign would shine in comparison. (And I confess, I'm a daily InDesign user, and overall it does not get in my way.) When PageMaker could no longer keep up with even the mediocrity that is Microsoft Publisher, THEN it looked horrible by comparison. But, I lay all that out to make this point: PageMaker excelled at source->layout integration. And, that's what APub needs to do. That's incredibly difficult to get right, because so many elements are out of your control. Affinity should not release a product until it can import and output files at least as seamlessly (for its time) as PageMaker did.
  13. I am already smitten by Designer and Photo! I have worked with digital design apps since the late 1980s, starting with the 1.0 versions of Freehand, and PageMaker, and with Photoshop since the early 1990s. I see these as viable "next steps" for my current CS6 suite, which is now pretty much frozen in time. Since I'm mainly a "type" guy, one missing feature that stands out for me as soon as I open the apps is an option to show measurements in picas and points. It may not be as important with painting and drawing programs on their own, but I still work with print publications where it really is easier (and for me, native) to think of measurements as 12 to the pica, and roughly 6 picas to the inch. I'd love to see another unit option that allows for this (go with digital picas if you prefer to keep it a straight 72 points / inch). This would add an important underpinning for your upcoming Publisher product, where I guarantee many of us who work with type will demand it. Thanks, and I'm going to go back and play with these new toys now… -- Matt
×