thomaso

Eigentlich egal, wie das in anderen Programmen ist 😉 … Es ist ja möglich, es genauer zu berechnen.

Dabei sind nicht die Prozente das Problem, sie sind sinnvoller als absolute Änderungs-Werte. Problematisch ist, dass die Berechnung im Hintergrund zu vereinfacht ist und die mathematisch logische Abweichung beim prozentualen Reduzieren der Größe nicht in der Formel berücksichtigt und in der Pinselgröße ausgeglichen wird.

Ich stimme dir zu, Hilfslinien sollten auswählbar sein + im Transformieren-Panel erscheinen, um wirklich praktisch zu sein. Auch seltsam im GuidesManager, dass neue Linien grundsätzlich bei 50 % der Site platziert werden und dort x Kopien liegen können während es keine Möglichkeit gibt, einen Basis-Abstand für neue Linien zu definieren. Als Workaround benutze ich gelegentlich Pen-Tool Linien oder Shape-Tool Objekte (zB Rechteck) auf einem separaten Layer "(Layer)". • Vorteile: Sie sind auswählbar (einzeln & in Gruppen), lassen sich (power-)duplizieren und unterschiedlich färben. Auch Freiform-Objekte sind möglich. • Nachteile: Snapping lässt sich nicht auf best. Objekte (oder Ebenen) begrenzen. Leider funktionieren solche Hilfsobjekte nicht in APhoto für Pixel-Auswahl. Und leider gibts in v.1105 noch einen Fehler bei der Auswahl einer gespeicherten Anzahl von Snapping-Kandidaten. Deine 30 bis 40 machen mich stutzig / neugierig. – Helfen die diversen Snapping-Varianten nicht beim Platzieren, bzw. wie vermeidest du visuelles Chaos aus Hilfslinien PLUS snapping guides? Oder beschränkst du dann Snapping grundsätzlich auf Hilfslinien?

Hi @Maler Klecksel, Willkommen bei den Affinity Foren! Ja, leider! Und ich sehe keinen Weg für User das zu korrigieren. I can confirm this unwanted deviations between increasing & decreasing the brush size via keyboard shortcut. It seems to be related to the calculation with percentage. (And also influenced by rounded values. For brush size the displayed / used number of decimals is always 1, regardless of the preference setting for unit 'pixel'.) I guess the formula for decreasing brush size should get adjusted to add this deviation after its default calculation of –15 %. Something like (–15 %) + (1.5 %) + (0.9 %) seems to me, as a layman, to be much closer to the initial value than just –15 %. I am convinced that there is already a correct formula for this problem in 'real' mathematics.

+ 1 By the way, this is the brush size behavior in Lightroom where brushes are used only to create masks. It is very helpful to get the brush size adjusted when zooming and thus always maintaining its visual size (relative to the screen size). Consider that you zoom-in in purpose to work more detailed, then you need a smaller brush size to make the zoom view useful at all.

I believe? More readable than what? – This is ~10% of the feature list with highlighted news/updates: (click image to enlarge) ... if still believed, give feedback about the parts where you have issues with readability.

I am convinced the part concerning the image metadata can be done in Affinity in one of its metadata fields. Currently we don't know what (or if) metadata field was used in your email. It seems you uploaded two screenshots of your phone, not the sent files. As mentioned yesterday after my uploaded examples, the forum software strips (deletes) most metadata from an uploaded .jpg (in purpose, to reduce website traffic). To avoid this you could upload the .jpg attached in your email packed in a .zip file to the forum. But what you see in your iPhone Mail app appears to be more than just a .jpg metadata field content. With my limited knowledge about email / html I just can say I assume in your received email contains html code which makes your Mail.app display the image the way you get it presented. You could try to upload the entire email message as .zip to the forum for possibly investigation – but I think you will be more successful in a different forum, specialised for web & mail (which is more a matter of code than of design).

I see this pattern: all the use cases you mention are for general computer work, with no indication in the pattern of a need for frequent or fast Undo. I think that working on an airplane, train or with only one hand would not increase the need for undo, but rather the users' interest in an efficient workflow that reduces the need for undo. My usage may seem limited because I am trying to avoid the need for Undo in general, and increase the efficiency of my workflow before Undo may get necessary – whereas this topic seems to have Undo in mind as a most used or most important task. This conflict makes me keep asking, commenting, listening and investigating. I long to understand how people work with Affinity when Undo in particular becomes so important, apparently even more important than many other commands (which don't exist as / aren't requested as additional buttons). As long as I don't understand what workflow leads to users feeling the need to undo as quickly as possible – while most to all other threads on the forum ask for ways to increase efficiency in Doing things, not Undoing – I'm still trying to learn, ideally with the goal of being able to give qualified help or qualified input. Of course, I am among the hundreds of millions of people who use the Undo function of computers. But I doubt that the majority try to Undo as often or as quickly as possible. At least not those who work on macOS or iOS, where such buttons were never common. So if someone could describe a concrete workflow that makes it clear how important, compared to other missing features or unfixed issues, the quick Undo accessibility is, I could understand.

Where, respectively after what user action, does "it" say this message? – If in the Preflight panel, click on the according entry to get guided to the spot in your layout. This can help to detect a possible culprit. Or upload a screenshot of your Hyperlinks Panel + your Preflight panel showing this issue (with page number to the right) + the according page displayed in the documents window. Or, if easier, upload the .afpub. Did you open, import, place or paste for/in your .afpub any file which possibly does contain a hyperlink?

What are they for instance? – I use "Undo" rather rarely and if, I don't notice any delay in using the keyboard shortcut. I usually just continue with a different setting when it comes to "trying out" things I haven't planned properly, or I simply create multiple copies for different alternatives without the desire or need to delete or undo them. Period. In real life this "Undo" doesn't exist at all, does it?

It was the combination of "let everyone" with the judgement "completely unusual". (by the way, on mac flexible spaces in toolbars are quite usual) This thread got that long also because some people think "the required two buttons" aren't sufficient. ("If two, why not three?" / "If two only, why exactly these two?" etc.). And yes, even the existence of just 1 option can confuse people, as shown in the existing "leading override" discussions. – UI will always be a never ending story if there is a space to discuss it. Possibly especially in Affinity because users come from all sorts of experiences and habits (e.g. different to more expensive software which gets purchased rather by professional designers only) and increasingly expect their individual feelings to be respected more than those of others. This durable goal of "optimization" of body & mind for "better efficiency" is typical for technical stuff – but "actually" not relevant for human life.

Ah, I haven't noticed this influence before, Thank you! – I confirm, with the Text Tool I am able to add variable filler text to a prepared series of text frames – while the Move Tool as used above prevents from variable text. Aside this issue I wonder: If I am allowed to add filler text with the Move Tool with 1 text frame selected – why should I not be allowed to do it for more than 1 selected frame at a time? I understand that the Text Tool wouldn't handle this, but the Move Tool?

Not really. Master pages are, like all pages in an .afpub, always white containers for additional objects which may get coloured. – Different to AD which allows to colourize its Artboards or apply a stroke, without creating an additional layer.

Sounds contradictory. The Toolbar may appear empty in the default state … and it may get filled, too. – Isn't that part of the expected flexibility? I would personally like to adjust the Context Toolbar, to decide which item gets hidden, demanding an extra click. Or to remove duplicates. An UI is a never ending story. If 100 % flexibilty would be achieved then it may feel "much too complex" for other users, for instance those who complain already about the existing option "Leading Override". Or people complain about the icons they do not recognize alias "understand". Or the font. Or the layout of certain panels. Or the contrast. … "As has been said here many times."

Not a seldom occurrence in Affinity, for instance if stroke gets applied, not to mention all objects with non-rectangular shape … bounding boxes are rectangular only. There's always news to eyeball: Use the paragraph decoration fill together with frame insets to bring bounding box + background fill a little more into line: (👁️ Differing 3 mm? Since it is a text style its perfection also depends on the used font file. Try with different fonts.)