JET_Affinity

Until/unless we get a ‘leaf tool’ you can use the Cog Tool and the Corner Tool to get what you want, see attached video.

2021-01-08 09-23-16.mp4

Select just the icon in the Layers panel then in the export screen set the Area: to Selection without background

Feature requests need pro and con discussion and clear behavior description.
Someone says "Please add a Live Paint Bucket Tool!" because the only other drawing program they're familiar with is Adobe Illustrator and they seem to think "Live Paint Bucket" is some kind of universally understood generic industry standard 'feature in a box' that a development team can just pick off a shelf somewhere and plug it in, when it's just Adobe's proprietary name for its own particular implementation of what is generically known as a flood-fill feature. So would the voting 'ballot' list four (or more) 'party' candidates?:
Live Paint Bucket Tool, identical to Illustrator's Fill Bounded Areas Tool, identical to Inkscape's Smart Fill Tool, identical to CorelDRAW's Smart Vector Fill Tool, identical to Canvas's 'Voting' features in an open public discussion forum are as silly as the user-created 'Poll' feature in a motorcycling forum I frequent. There's nothing scientific about them. Are we going to register to vote? What stops me from having a dozen login accounts so I can vote 12 times? What if 60% of the most experienced users are introverts who are simply disinclined to participate in such 'elections'? What if the majority actually making a living using the software are just too busy, or are not allowed to participate by their employers? What if the vast majority of users have never touched a 'Blob Brush Tool' because they can't afford Captive Customer fees and therefore they all vote "No"?
What if the majority of the users have only ever used Adobe Illustrator and don't understand that things can be better than that?
You really want the priorities of an application's development to be driven by mob rule? Building an innovative product that wins in the marketplace is not driven by simple democracy. Systematic development requires discernment about which functions comprise the most fruitful foundations upon which later higher-level features will depend. The best features are those which are cleanly integrated with each other so that the combined functionality is more elegantly powerful than just a collection of standalone functions. The feature that ends up truly 'putting an application on the map' and empowering its users the most may be something no one has ever dreamed of before.
The 'voting' mechanism is already there: You can click the reaction buttons. Yeah, they could be re-named with terms less ambiguous. But the 'mob' can't even follow the most common-sense procedures:
Search for an existing feature discussion topic before starting yet another one. You're very unlikely to be the first person to ask for a 'Shape Builder Tool.' Don't post 'personalized' lists of your pet features. If the topics don't already exist, start individual topics, so they can be sensibly discussed. No one is doing a search for a topic called "Joe Blow's wishlist" just because Joe Blow thinks he's someone special. No one is going to tediously dissect individual features from Joe Blow's wishlist post and move them to their appropriate subject threads. Joe Blow may have the most valuable contribution that no one else has ever thought of on a topic, but it will be forever lost because it's merits are stirred and shaken somewhere inside an unnavigable grab bag. JET

Since this is the "General Query" thread:
Does anyone know when the extra batteries for my DeWalt chainsaw will be shipping?
Thanks in advance.

JET

Feature requests need pro and con discussion and clear behavior description.
Someone says "Please add a Live Paint Bucket Tool!" because the only other drawing program they're familiar with is Adobe Illustrator and they seem to think "Live Paint Bucket" is some kind of universally understood generic industry standard 'feature in a box' that a development team can just pick off a shelf somewhere and plug it in, when it's just Adobe's proprietary name for its own particular implementation of what is generically known as a flood-fill feature. So would the voting 'ballot' list four (or more) 'party' candidates?:
Live Paint Bucket Tool, identical to Illustrator's Fill Bounded Areas Tool, identical to Inkscape's Smart Fill Tool, identical to CorelDRAW's Smart Vector Fill Tool, identical to Canvas's 'Voting' features in an open public discussion forum are as silly as the user-created 'Poll' feature in a motorcycling forum I frequent. There's nothing scientific about them. Are we going to register to vote? What stops me from having a dozen login accounts so I can vote 12 times? What if 60% of the most experienced users are introverts who are simply disinclined to participate in such 'elections'? What if the majority actually making a living using the software are just too busy, or are not allowed to participate by their employers? What if the vast majority of users have never touched a 'Blob Brush Tool' because they can't afford Captive Customer fees and therefore they all vote "No"?
What if the majority of the users have only ever used Adobe Illustrator and don't understand that things can be better than that?
You really want the priorities of an application's development to be driven by mob rule? Building an innovative product that wins in the marketplace is not driven by simple democracy. Systematic development requires discernment about which functions comprise the most fruitful foundations upon which later higher-level features will depend. The best features are those which are cleanly integrated with each other so that the combined functionality is more elegantly powerful than just a collection of standalone functions. The feature that ends up truly 'putting an application on the map' and empowering its users the most may be something no one has ever dreamed of before.
The 'voting' mechanism is already there: You can click the reaction buttons. Yeah, they could be re-named with terms less ambiguous. But the 'mob' can't even follow the most common-sense procedures:
Search for an existing feature discussion topic before starting yet another one. You're very unlikely to be the first person to ask for a 'Shape Builder Tool.' Don't post 'personalized' lists of your pet features. If the topics don't already exist, start individual topics, so they can be sensibly discussed. No one is doing a search for a topic called "Joe Blow's wishlist" just because Joe Blow thinks he's someone special. No one is going to tediously dissect individual features from Joe Blow's wishlist post and move them to their appropriate subject threads. Joe Blow may have the most valuable contribution that no one else has ever thought of on a topic, but it will be forever lost because it's merits are stirred and shaken somewhere inside an unnavigable grab bag. JET

Feature requests need pro and con discussion and clear behavior description.
Someone says "Please add a Live Paint Bucket Tool!" because the only other drawing program they're familiar with is Adobe Illustrator and they seem to think "Live Paint Bucket" is some kind of universally understood generic industry standard 'feature in a box' that a development team can just pick off a shelf somewhere and plug it in, when it's just Adobe's proprietary name for its own particular implementation of what is generically known as a flood-fill feature. So would the voting 'ballot' list four (or more) 'party' candidates?:
Live Paint Bucket Tool, identical to Illustrator's Fill Bounded Areas Tool, identical to Inkscape's Smart Fill Tool, identical to CorelDRAW's Smart Vector Fill Tool, identical to Canvas's 'Voting' features in an open public discussion forum are as silly as the user-created 'Poll' feature in a motorcycling forum I frequent. There's nothing scientific about them. Are we going to register to vote? What stops me from having a dozen login accounts so I can vote 12 times? What if 60% of the most experienced users are introverts who are simply disinclined to participate in such 'elections'? What if the majority actually making a living using the software are just too busy, or are not allowed to participate by their employers? What if the vast majority of users have never touched a 'Blob Brush Tool' because they can't afford Captive Customer fees and therefore they all vote "No"?
What if the majority of the users have only ever used Adobe Illustrator and don't understand that things can be better than that?
You really want the priorities of an application's development to be driven by mob rule? Building an innovative product that wins in the marketplace is not driven by simple democracy. Systematic development requires discernment about which functions comprise the most fruitful foundations upon which later higher-level features will depend. The best features are those which are cleanly integrated with each other so that the combined functionality is more elegantly powerful than just a collection of standalone functions. The feature that ends up truly 'putting an application on the map' and empowering its users the most may be something no one has ever dreamed of before.
The 'voting' mechanism is already there: You can click the reaction buttons. Yeah, they could be re-named with terms less ambiguous. But the 'mob' can't even follow the most common-sense procedures:
Search for an existing feature discussion topic before starting yet another one. You're very unlikely to be the first person to ask for a 'Shape Builder Tool.' Don't post 'personalized' lists of your pet features. If the topics don't already exist, start individual topics, so they can be sensibly discussed. No one is doing a search for a topic called "Joe Blow's wishlist" just because Joe Blow thinks he's someone special. No one is going to tediously dissect individual features from Joe Blow's wishlist post and move them to their appropriate subject threads. Joe Blow may have the most valuable contribution that no one else has ever thought of on a topic, but it will be forever lost because it's merits are stirred and shaken somewhere inside an unnavigable grab bag. JET

Since this is the "General Query" thread:
Does anyone know when the extra batteries for my DeWalt chainsaw will be shipping?
Thanks in advance.

JET

Since this is the "General Query" thread:
Does anyone know when the extra batteries for my DeWalt chainsaw will be shipping?
Thanks in advance.

JET

No, I would peg it as more of an intermediate-level feature.
Far from being overly advanced/complex, but not nearly as basic/fundamental as you are suggesting.

Less important to who?
Most important to who?
 
Different users have different priorities.  The most important thing to you might be useless to others and vice versa.
 
Also, sometimes the "most important" functions will rely on other functionality to be built before it can, and those "less important" functions just might be implemented directly from the building blocks that are being constructed to produce the "most important" ones.  In other words, the "less important" functions just might be essential to creating the "most important" functions in a manner that Serif believes is consistent with their objectives for the program.

Development is not dead.
1.7 introduced new functions.
1.8 introduced new functions, which you can see listed here.
1.9 will introduce new functions, some of which you can see listed in the current beta announcement (here, as I write this).
Serif may not be implementing what you want, but they are implementing the functions they want to implement, on the schedule and in the order they want to implement them (which is the appropriate way to do it, in my opinion).

If it were, there wouldn’t be any version 1.9 beta releases for us to test.

Feature requests need pro and con discussion and clear behavior description.
Someone says "Please add a Live Paint Bucket Tool!" because the only other drawing program they're familiar with is Adobe Illustrator and they seem to think "Live Paint Bucket" is some kind of universally understood generic industry standard 'feature in a box' that a development team can just pick off a shelf somewhere and plug it in, when it's just Adobe's proprietary name for its own particular implementation of what is generically known as a flood-fill feature. So would the voting 'ballot' list four (or more) 'party' candidates?:
Live Paint Bucket Tool, identical to Illustrator's Fill Bounded Areas Tool, identical to Inkscape's Smart Fill Tool, identical to CorelDRAW's Smart Vector Fill Tool, identical to Canvas's 'Voting' features in an open public discussion forum are as silly as the user-created 'Poll' feature in a motorcycling forum I frequent. There's nothing scientific about them. Are we going to register to vote? What stops me from having a dozen login accounts so I can vote 12 times? What if 60% of the most experienced users are introverts who are simply disinclined to participate in such 'elections'? What if the majority actually making a living using the software are just too busy, or are not allowed to participate by their employers? What if the vast majority of users have never touched a 'Blob Brush Tool' because they can't afford Captive Customer fees and therefore they all vote "No"?
What if the majority of the users have only ever used Adobe Illustrator and don't understand that things can be better than that?
You really want the priorities of an application's development to be driven by mob rule? Building an innovative product that wins in the marketplace is not driven by simple democracy. Systematic development requires discernment about which functions comprise the most fruitful foundations upon which later higher-level features will depend. The best features are those which are cleanly integrated with each other so that the combined functionality is more elegantly powerful than just a collection of standalone functions. The feature that ends up truly 'putting an application on the map' and empowering its users the most may be something no one has ever dreamed of before.
The 'voting' mechanism is already there: You can click the reaction buttons. Yeah, they could be re-named with terms less ambiguous. But the 'mob' can't even follow the most common-sense procedures:
Search for an existing feature discussion topic before starting yet another one. You're very unlikely to be the first person to ask for a 'Shape Builder Tool.' Don't post 'personalized' lists of your pet features. If the topics don't already exist, start individual topics, so they can be sensibly discussed. No one is doing a search for a topic called "Joe Blow's wishlist" just because Joe Blow thinks he's someone special. No one is going to tediously dissect individual features from Joe Blow's wishlist post and move them to their appropriate subject threads. Joe Blow may have the most valuable contribution that no one else has ever thought of on a topic, but it will be forever lost because it's merits are stirred and shaken somewhere inside an unnavigable grab bag. JET

How would people in the forums ‘voting’ for features give Serif a good idea of what users want?

Illustrator, for example, has always been awash in old fashioned modal dialogs.
Correct. Interpreting the referenced article as 'putting an interface in modes is bad practice' is too broad a generalization.
Working with Affinity's axonometric grids feature effectively puts all the tools in a different 'mode.' That's certainly not a bad thing.
FileMaker Pro's interface has four modes: Browse, Find, Layout, and Preview. In Browse Mode, data is worked with in either Form, List, or Table views. One of its claims to fame is that its UI is arguably the most approachable in the database world.
I'm not saying that Affinity's interface doesn't have some problems. I can say that any of its competitors' interfaces do, too, if I have an axe to grind.
The biggest problem I have with Affinity in this regard is that its faux 'pages' are really just contiguous groupings within the object stack, like layers. Affinity is not the only program to do this, CorelDRAW being the obvious example. The problem is one of function; page-specific layers are really little more than another hierarchical level of groups, and nowhere near as versatile as they should be. But the frustration and confusion it causes is mostly due to Affinity's mixing of two metaphors; those of 'page stacking' versus 'page spreading'. Functionally, it's similar to CorelDRAW. But CorelDRAW's treatment inspires less frustration because it—wait for it—opens a modal window in order to view pages in a 'page-spreading' mode.
I don't really have any problem with Affinity's Persona views. I've seen more users applaud it here than dislike it. At this stage, I certainly don't think it's going away, and I expect it will be further exploited to help minimize UI clutter as more features are added or fleshed-out. Perhaps then it will feel more 'necessary' (justified).
JET

Illustrator, for example, has always been awash in old fashioned modal dialogs.
Correct. Interpreting the referenced article as 'putting an interface in modes is bad practice' is too broad a generalization.
Working with Affinity's axonometric grids feature effectively puts all the tools in a different 'mode.' That's certainly not a bad thing.
FileMaker Pro's interface has four modes: Browse, Find, Layout, and Preview. In Browse Mode, data is worked with in either Form, List, or Table views. One of its claims to fame is that its UI is arguably the most approachable in the database world.
I'm not saying that Affinity's interface doesn't have some problems. I can say that any of its competitors' interfaces do, too, if I have an axe to grind.
The biggest problem I have with Affinity in this regard is that its faux 'pages' are really just contiguous groupings within the object stack, like layers. Affinity is not the only program to do this, CorelDRAW being the obvious example. The problem is one of function; page-specific layers are really little more than another hierarchical level of groups, and nowhere near as versatile as they should be. But the frustration and confusion it causes is mostly due to Affinity's mixing of two metaphors; those of 'page stacking' versus 'page spreading'. Functionally, it's similar to CorelDRAW. But CorelDRAW's treatment inspires less frustration because it—wait for it—opens a modal window in order to view pages in a 'page-spreading' mode.
I don't really have any problem with Affinity's Persona views. I've seen more users applaud it here than dislike it. At this stage, I certainly don't think it's going away, and I expect it will be further exploited to help minimize UI clutter as more features are added or fleshed-out. Perhaps then it will feel more 'necessary' (justified).
JET

Although the linked article warns of the potential dangers of modal interfaces, it doesn’t actually argue that modes are a bad idea! It does say they are “usually good to avoid” but it goes on to point out that “modes can sometimes be helpful to control and guide input” and that they “may be appropriate when they are short and actively maintained by a user”.

For example into Pixel Persona 😉

Two results encountered when moving a node close to another:

Using its demo Pen Tool, I drew this by dragging out three 'nodes':

Of course, you can't get that shape from three conventional nodes (2 segments). Look closely and notice that the solid and dotted handles of the green node are not parallel. The solid handle is not tangent to the segment that one assumes it controls; the dotted handle is. I understand; this is intended to be a new and innovative interface. But is it intuitive?
Tracing over it, try to draw it in Affinity (or most any other mainstream drawing program) by placing three nodes and their curve handles as indicated above, and you get this (blue path):

The stated use-case is ensuring curve smoothness when drawing font glyphs. That's all good and noble, but the auto-constraints advantageous in that context are not necessarily also desirable in general illustration. It seems to me that a more general implementation of this would need the auto behaviors to be momentarily switchable while in the process of drawing a path; not always active. How cleanly that could be implemented without increasing overall UI complexity and confusion is yet to be seen.
Consider, for example, Inkscape's Spiro Mode feature. It, too, was designed to 'ensure smooth [circular] curves' as you draw with it. You put the Pen Tool into a distinct 'mode' to use it:

As you use it, the interface makes it look like this path has two nodes. But clearly, that shape cannot be drawn with a single cubic Bezier curve (one segment). DoubleClick it while still in Spiro Mode and you see this:

Now we see what looks like 5 nodes. But look at their direction handles. This isn't very intuitive either, is it? The user has no idea where those nodes are actually being created while drawing the original two nodes. Convert it to a regular path, and you get this:

Now we see that it's 17 conventional Bezier curves (segments). Not anything particularly elegant and supple to work with if I need to modify it.
Again, I'm not dismissing it, and yes, I understand it's a work-in-progress. But just based on what I can discern from the demo as-is, I don't see anything particularly ground-breaking here. Dinking around with its Pen tool, though, hindrances are imposed on moves that I commonly make for purpose. In general, I don't like features that try to 'read my mind' in anticipation of my intention; they tend to get it wrong more often than right. It's kind of like auto-tracing in that regard. It's an algorithm placing the actual nodes, not me.
But wait! Isn't it an algorithm that's plotting the curves that I specify by placing nodes in the conventional Bezier interface? Yes, but consider:
Someone uses this interface in designing font glyphs (it's stated target). Using the resulting font, I set some type in any mainstream Bezier-based drawing program, and then convert it to paths, intending to modify the outlines for a logotype. Whatever is going on 'behind the curtain' of this interface, the curves have to be interpreted to curves possible in my drawing program. If you've ever done that with TrueType fonts (which use quadratic Beziers) instead of Type 1 fonts (which use cubic Beziers just like your drawing program), then you know what kind of a mess I'm talking about; far more segments than one should have to deal with for elegant and tidy curve modifications. My guess is, this would be worse.
FontLab expended serious effort toward Bezier interface innovation prior to release of its current version. It probably has the highest stake in the stated context. But the type designer using it is still looking at the nodes, handles, and curves that I'm going to get when I set some type and convert it to paths. I consider that a necessity.
JET

I'm a life-long motorcycle guy. One of the things I've always admired about Honda is the way it has historically created its own demand for the things it builds. Another little company known for that is Apple.
Suppose I create an identity package for Acme Coyote Co. It includes a logotype and several stylistically matching related dingbat graphics such as explosion bursts, dust devils, a road-runner's footprint, etc. In CorelDRAW I do not "still have to create fonts separately outside of the logo design." I can export those individual graphics directly from CorelDRAW into specific character slots in a font file that I name "AcmeFont". I can include that font file on the CD that contains all the other images, documents, graphics that comprise the project. The client can load that font on his or his secretary's computer and they can 'type' a logo with one keystroke anywhere they want in any office application they are using. I don't have to buy or use a separate font creation application for doing that.
Here's an example. The glyphs were drawn in FreeHand and pasted into key slots in Fontographer. But the whole thing could have been drawn in CorelDRAW and directly exported as a ready-to-use font file because there's no need for kerning pairs or other esoteric settings that would be needed for, say, body text fonts:

There's a lot of things worth implementing in mainstream drawing programs that conventional wisdom does not presently consider 'high demand'. Not to hijack this thread from its topic, but just by way of example:
Currently, my foremost desire for Affinity Designer is the ability to rotate a bounding box relative to its content. Why? Because Affinity designer is one of those programs determined to make on-page transformations dependent upon infernal bounding boxes instead of providing transform tools. Why the assumption that if I need to disproportionately scale a selection, I only need to do that in the two perpendicular directions of its bounding box? I very often need to scale a selection while in its current rotational orientation in a diagonal direction that does not correspond to the bounding box handles. So why can't at least one of the ridiculously redundant five rotation handles on its bounding box (the silly lollypop handle being the obvious candidate) allow me, with the press a modifier key, to freely rotate the bounding box about its content in order to thereby orient the scale handles to the direction in which I need to scale the selection?
I've never heard anyone else ask for that, either. That doesn't mean countless others wouldn't find it invaluable, too, once delivered.
JET

I'm a life-long motorcycle guy. One of the things I've always admired about Honda is the way it has historically created its own demand for the things it builds. Another little company known for that is Apple.
Suppose I create an identity package for Acme Coyote Co. It includes a logotype and several stylistically matching related dingbat graphics such as explosion bursts, dust devils, a road-runner's footprint, etc. In CorelDRAW I do not "still have to create fonts separately outside of the logo design." I can export those individual graphics directly from CorelDRAW into specific character slots in a font file that I name "AcmeFont". I can include that font file on the CD that contains all the other images, documents, graphics that comprise the project. The client can load that font on his or his secretary's computer and they can 'type' a logo with one keystroke anywhere they want in any office application they are using. I don't have to buy or use a separate font creation application for doing that.
Here's an example. The glyphs were drawn in FreeHand and pasted into key slots in Fontographer. But the whole thing could have been drawn in CorelDRAW and directly exported as a ready-to-use font file because there's no need for kerning pairs or other esoteric settings that would be needed for, say, body text fonts:

There's a lot of things worth implementing in mainstream drawing programs that conventional wisdom does not presently consider 'high demand'. Not to hijack this thread from its topic, but just by way of example:
Currently, my foremost desire for Affinity Designer is the ability to rotate a bounding box relative to its content. Why? Because Affinity designer is one of those programs determined to make on-page transformations dependent upon infernal bounding boxes instead of providing transform tools. Why the assumption that if I need to disproportionately scale a selection, I only need to do that in the two perpendicular directions of its bounding box? I very often need to scale a selection while in its current rotational orientation in a diagonal direction that does not correspond to the bounding box handles. So why can't at least one of the ridiculously redundant five rotation handles on its bounding box (the silly lollypop handle being the obvious candidate) allow me, with the press a modifier key, to freely rotate the bounding box about its content in order to thereby orient the scale handles to the direction in which I need to scale the selection?
I've never heard anyone else ask for that, either. That doesn't mean countless others wouldn't find it invaluable, too, once delivered.
JET

I'm a life-long motorcycle guy. One of the things I've always admired about Honda is the way it has historically created its own demand for the things it builds. Another little company known for that is Apple.
Suppose I create an identity package for Acme Coyote Co. It includes a logotype and several stylistically matching related dingbat graphics such as explosion bursts, dust devils, a road-runner's footprint, etc. In CorelDRAW I do not "still have to create fonts separately outside of the logo design." I can export those individual graphics directly from CorelDRAW into specific character slots in a font file that I name "AcmeFont". I can include that font file on the CD that contains all the other images, documents, graphics that comprise the project. The client can load that font on his or his secretary's computer and they can 'type' a logo with one keystroke anywhere they want in any office application they are using. I don't have to buy or use a separate font creation application for doing that.
Here's an example. The glyphs were drawn in FreeHand and pasted into key slots in Fontographer. But the whole thing could have been drawn in CorelDRAW and directly exported as a ready-to-use font file because there's no need for kerning pairs or other esoteric settings that would be needed for, say, body text fonts:

There's a lot of things worth implementing in mainstream drawing programs that conventional wisdom does not presently consider 'high demand'. Not to hijack this thread from its topic, but just by way of example:
Currently, my foremost desire for Affinity Designer is the ability to rotate a bounding box relative to its content. Why? Because Affinity designer is one of those programs determined to make on-page transformations dependent upon infernal bounding boxes instead of providing transform tools. Why the assumption that if I need to disproportionately scale a selection, I only need to do that in the two perpendicular directions of its bounding box? I very often need to scale a selection while in its current rotational orientation in a diagonal direction that does not correspond to the bounding box handles. So why can't at least one of the ridiculously redundant five rotation handles on its bounding box (the silly lollypop handle being the obvious candidate) allow me, with the press a modifier key, to freely rotate the bounding box about its content in order to thereby orient the scale handles to the direction in which I need to scale the selection?
I've never heard anyone else ask for that, either. That doesn't mean countless others wouldn't find it invaluable, too, once delivered.
JET

It's still there. Type 1 format, too. Screenshot of CorelDRAW 2020's export dialog:

Even though Fontographer 1.0 was actually my very first exposure to Bezier-based drawing, I've always applauded Corel's inclusion of this. It can be a wonderful thing to have in a drawing program; not necessarily for full-blown typographic fonts, but for monospaced 'clipart' fonts. It's always been quite common for the actual glyphs of fonts to be drawn in mainstream Bezier-based drawing programs, even when the font file itself is built in a full-blown font program. So, like Corel, why not provide bare-bones basic exports for a couple of formats?
Like Alfred, I wouldn't make it a priority for Affinity, with so many other far more immediately important things still under development. But having said that, the fact that actual typographic font design is quite involved does not render it inappropriate for a mainstream general-purpose Bezier drawing program to provide a couple of basic font file format exports. (One thing that comes to mind is that it could be a boon to embroidery hobbyists.)
It can still be a very handy way to provide a company with cross-platform, accurate, scalable vector graphics requiring no real learning curve to empower office workers to insert identity marks into internal and external documents or databases. Many of the identity packages I've built for clients have included custom standalone fonts or modified copies of their style guide font with their logos (when appropriate)—and often additional secondary elements designed to go along with them (custom bullets, etc.)—for just that purpose.
One of my very first vector-drawing projects was the creation of a PostScript font that served to automate the creation of data-driven diagrams in a Hypercard stack for configuring the body sections and seating plans for school buses. The live profile drawing of the bus was actually alpha-numeric characters of a calculation performed on entered variables, merely displayed in the special font. The drawing auto-updated as the myriad of order parameters were entered.
On the one hand, one can argue that open SVG makes vector spot graphics more available to office applications, database programs, etc. On the other hand, that's still more tedious for an office worker than simply typing a particular character in the font that the Marketing department has specified as the company's standard. We're still waiting for SVG fonts to become mainstream and for a font format to support open paths (so-called 'single stroke' fonts). So exporting font formats is still arguably as appropriate for Bezier-based drawing programs as even before.
So, no, I'm not saying drawing programs should be full-blown font creation applications. Quality font creation, and the applications built to facilitate it, continue due to a relatively tiny community of dedicated and highly skilled typographers who are worthy of support from professional illustrators and designers. One of the nice things about having a copy of Fontographer or FontLab is that you don't find it time to upgrade every few months. Another is that FontLab now has some of the most innovative ideas in vector path interface design. Any serious vector-based illustrator can derive a lot of delightfully 'new wrinkle' thinking from just dinking around in it. Any illustrator or designer particularly interested in typography should consider it a matter of professionalism to at least have a working knowledge of such things as kerning and why font glyphs are sized by measures relative to their em squares, not by the numbers you key into the illustration or design program. Font design programs enable you to 'see and touch' such principles, even if you have only infrequent need to build or modify fonts.
Altsys Fontographer was part of the deal when Macromedia acquired Aldus. Fontographer became one of the applications bundled with FreeHand Graphics Studio. When Adobe acquired Macromedia, Fontographer was saved by its being acquired by FontLab. Fontographer 5 is still sold by FontLab today for $259.
JET
 

It's still there. Type 1 format, too. Screenshot of CorelDRAW 2020's export dialog:

Even though Fontographer 1.0 was actually my very first exposure to Bezier-based drawing, I've always applauded Corel's inclusion of this. It can be a wonderful thing to have in a drawing program; not necessarily for full-blown typographic fonts, but for monospaced 'clipart' fonts. It's always been quite common for the actual glyphs of fonts to be drawn in mainstream Bezier-based drawing programs, even when the font file itself is built in a full-blown font program. So, like Corel, why not provide bare-bones basic exports for a couple of formats?
Like Alfred, I wouldn't make it a priority for Affinity, with so many other far more immediately important things still under development. But having said that, the fact that actual typographic font design is quite involved does not render it inappropriate for a mainstream general-purpose Bezier drawing program to provide a couple of basic font file format exports. (One thing that comes to mind is that it could be a boon to embroidery hobbyists.)
It can still be a very handy way to provide a company with cross-platform, accurate, scalable vector graphics requiring no real learning curve to empower office workers to insert identity marks into internal and external documents or databases. Many of the identity packages I've built for clients have included custom standalone fonts or modified copies of their style guide font with their logos (when appropriate)—and often additional secondary elements designed to go along with them (custom bullets, etc.)—for just that purpose.
One of my very first vector-drawing projects was the creation of a PostScript font that served to automate the creation of data-driven diagrams in a Hypercard stack for configuring the body sections and seating plans for school buses. The live profile drawing of the bus was actually alpha-numeric characters of a calculation performed on entered variables, merely displayed in the special font. The drawing auto-updated as the myriad of order parameters were entered.
On the one hand, one can argue that open SVG makes vector spot graphics more available to office applications, database programs, etc. On the other hand, that's still more tedious for an office worker than simply typing a particular character in the font that the Marketing department has specified as the company's standard. We're still waiting for SVG fonts to become mainstream and for a font format to support open paths (so-called 'single stroke' fonts). So exporting font formats is still arguably as appropriate for Bezier-based drawing programs as even before.
So, no, I'm not saying drawing programs should be full-blown font creation applications. Quality font creation, and the applications built to facilitate it, continue due to a relatively tiny community of dedicated and highly skilled typographers who are worthy of support from professional illustrators and designers. One of the nice things about having a copy of Fontographer or FontLab is that you don't find it time to upgrade every few months. Another is that FontLab now has some of the most innovative ideas in vector path interface design. Any serious vector-based illustrator can derive a lot of delightfully 'new wrinkle' thinking from just dinking around in it. Any illustrator or designer particularly interested in typography should consider it a matter of professionalism to at least have a working knowledge of such things as kerning and why font glyphs are sized by measures relative to their em squares, not by the numbers you key into the illustration or design program. Font design programs enable you to 'see and touch' such principles, even if you have only infrequent need to build or modify fonts.
Altsys Fontographer was part of the deal when Macromedia acquired Aldus. Fontographer became one of the applications bundled with FreeHand Graphics Studio. When Adobe acquired Macromedia, Fontographer was saved by its being acquired by FontLab. Fontographer 5 is still sold by FontLab today for $259.
JET
 

It was possible to export to TTF way back in the days of CorelDRAW! 3.0, but I think anything more than that is beyond the scope of a general purpose vector app like Affinity Designer. A modern font creation app needs to be able not only to deal with adjustable sidebearings and glyph mapping, but also to allow scripting for full control of a huge range of OpenType features. Given that the current incarnations of the Affinity apps can’t handle right-to-left Arabic and Hebrew text or left-to-right OpenType Indic scripts, I can’t imagine even simple TTF export being high on the developers’ priority list.