fde101

correct

Explained here: https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/publisher/studiolink/
 
The way I'm reading it, the intent of "StudioLink" is to allow access to photo and illustration tools from within a Publisher project - in other words, you are designing a publication (what Publisher itself is intended for) and need to create or manipulate vector artwork, so you can switch to the Designer persona within Publisher to work with vector artwork that is being used inside of a document that is still basically within the realm of what Publisher is ultimately designed for.
I don't see any indication that it was ever intended to replace using Photo separately for working with a photo as the end product  or using Designer separately for creating vector artwork as the end product.  If you are creating an illustration as the end product in its own right, it would still be best to do that in Designer rather than in Publisher - but if you are creating a book or similar product and need to create an illustration to use within the book you are working on, that is what StudioLink is for, and for that it is great.
 
The current Export Preview feature is really optimized for standalone art pieces and does not seem to be particularly optimal for a publication.  While adding it to Publisher would not be unwelcome, I don't believe it would be particularly helpful for the use cases that Publisher is intended for.  I think a better option for Publisher would be to add a separate persona for prepress setup and similar tasks such as color separations and imposition and that a more complete preview function should be included as part of that persona.  Yes, Publisher would benefit from an export preview, but to really be useful for its intended use cases it needs something a bit more sophisticated than what has been added to Photo and Designer in this round of betas.

Explained here: https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/publisher/studiolink/
 
The way I'm reading it, the intent of "StudioLink" is to allow access to photo and illustration tools from within a Publisher project - in other words, you are designing a publication (what Publisher itself is intended for) and need to create or manipulate vector artwork, so you can switch to the Designer persona within Publisher to work with vector artwork that is being used inside of a document that is still basically within the realm of what Publisher is ultimately designed for.
I don't see any indication that it was ever intended to replace using Photo separately for working with a photo as the end product  or using Designer separately for creating vector artwork as the end product.  If you are creating an illustration as the end product in its own right, it would still be best to do that in Designer rather than in Publisher - but if you are creating a book or similar product and need to create an illustration to use within the book you are working on, that is what StudioLink is for, and for that it is great.
 
The current Export Preview feature is really optimized for standalone art pieces and does not seem to be particularly optimal for a publication.  While adding it to Publisher would not be unwelcome, I don't believe it would be particularly helpful for the use cases that Publisher is intended for.  I think a better option for Publisher would be to add a separate persona for prepress setup and similar tasks such as color separations and imposition and that a more complete preview function should be included as part of that persona.  Yes, Publisher would benefit from an export preview, but to really be useful for its intended use cases it needs something a bit more sophisticated than what has been added to Photo and Designer in this round of betas.

It sits there and stares at you.

It is understandable to be disappointed that your expectations are not being met, and maybe even frustrated, being angry about it is something else entirely, and is neither justified nor appropriate.
It is very sad that we are not surprised by this anger.  It means that we have a very negative view of the character of the larger base of customers in general, which is quite unfortunate.
I think there have been a number of misreadings of others' posts and pointless replies to things that are going around in circles and ignoring what responses have already been there, and I don't think there is much left to be gained from the continuation of this thread...  not only has it descended into line noise, but I think the intended subject of the thread has itself been beaten to death already.
 
Let me summarize the on-topic posts of the thread:
 
"We need footnotes and endnotes!"
"So do we!"
...  "we are working on it and will release it when it is ready".
"We need footnotes and endnotes!"
"Why aren't we getting any answer to this?"
"There was an answer a few pages back!"
"We need footnotes and endnotes!"
"So do we!"
"Why aren't we getting any answer to this?"
"We need footnotes and endnotes!"
"So do we!"
"Why aren't we getting any answer to this?"
"There was an answer a few pages back!"
(continue to repeat in arbitrary combinations)
 
Does anyone actually have any new material to contribute that is on-topic?
If not, I recommend the thread be locked, as it seems to have run its course.

Thanks, I just dropped by to report the same.

Those sizes are not used in all countries. We don't use them in the USA for example.  While there is room for improvement, that is not it.

It is understandable to be disappointed that your expectations are not being met, and maybe even frustrated, being angry about it is something else entirely, and is neither justified nor appropriate.
It is very sad that we are not surprised by this anger.  It means that we have a very negative view of the character of the larger base of customers in general, which is quite unfortunate.
I think there have been a number of misreadings of others' posts and pointless replies to things that are going around in circles and ignoring what responses have already been there, and I don't think there is much left to be gained from the continuation of this thread...  not only has it descended into line noise, but I think the intended subject of the thread has itself been beaten to death already.
 
Let me summarize the on-topic posts of the thread:
 
"We need footnotes and endnotes!"
"So do we!"
...  "we are working on it and will release it when it is ready".
"We need footnotes and endnotes!"
"Why aren't we getting any answer to this?"
"There was an answer a few pages back!"
"We need footnotes and endnotes!"
"So do we!"
"Why aren't we getting any answer to this?"
"We need footnotes and endnotes!"
"So do we!"
"Why aren't we getting any answer to this?"
"There was an answer a few pages back!"
(continue to repeat in arbitrary combinations)
 
Does anyone actually have any new material to contribute that is on-topic?
If not, I recommend the thread be locked, as it seems to have run its course.

It is understandable to be disappointed that your expectations are not being met, and maybe even frustrated, being angry about it is something else entirely, and is neither justified nor appropriate.
It is very sad that we are not surprised by this anger.  It means that we have a very negative view of the character of the larger base of customers in general, which is quite unfortunate.
I think there have been a number of misreadings of others' posts and pointless replies to things that are going around in circles and ignoring what responses have already been there, and I don't think there is much left to be gained from the continuation of this thread...  not only has it descended into line noise, but I think the intended subject of the thread has itself been beaten to death already.
 
Let me summarize the on-topic posts of the thread:
 
"We need footnotes and endnotes!"
"So do we!"
...  "we are working on it and will release it when it is ready".
"We need footnotes and endnotes!"
"Why aren't we getting any answer to this?"
"There was an answer a few pages back!"
"We need footnotes and endnotes!"
"So do we!"
"Why aren't we getting any answer to this?"
"We need footnotes and endnotes!"
"So do we!"
"Why aren't we getting any answer to this?"
"There was an answer a few pages back!"
(continue to repeat in arbitrary combinations)
 
Does anyone actually have any new material to contribute that is on-topic?
If not, I recommend the thread be locked, as it seems to have run its course.

This sounds like a better fit for Designer using artboards (which can be named) as you can also use symbols to keep the common elements in sync

I'm astonished at the level of aggressiveness, hostility, and complaint toward Serif because Affinity Publisher doesn't have footnotes. It all seems quite misplaced to me. Here are possible alternative scenarios:
* Serif withdraws Publisher from the market until footnotes/endnotes are ready.
* Serif raises the price of Publisher to match Adobe's products, and with that extra revenue (assuming anyone paid the fees) hired more programmers to get footnotes done more quickly.
* Serif puts a huge, red-letter note on AF's web page that says: "AF Doesn't Have Footnotes! Be Warned!"
I don't like any of those scenarios. I'm very grateful that Serif has:
* Produced a relatively fine and useful product for only $49. Wow.  I'm a programmer, and I'm used to complexity, and I find AF refreshingly easy to use. I just published one book with it, and I'll be publishing my second one in a week or two.
One very large improvement from PagePlus (with which I published a book as well) is automatic section heads. With PagePlus I had to create separate master pages for section heads and it was an annoyance.
And yes, I want footnotes (and especially endnotes) too. But there are some workarounds. I posted one in this forum, to wit: produce your endnotes in a word processor, and paste the text into AF. Yes, it would require hand editing of any additional endnote changes, but at least endnotes can be done this way. I'm planning on that, if AF doesn't have them by the time I need them.
=> So, here we are, with Affinity Publisher quite useful to many, at a Very Good Price Point. Yay! Go Serif! I'm GRATEFUL.
And then we have what seems like an endless stream of people who:
a) don't read the forum posts that demonstrate that the footnote issue has been reported ad nauseum and thus, Serif is *working on the issue*, and
b) attack Serif for daring to publish a product without a feature they want, without making some type of huge headline on their web page that screams "Don't buy this if you need footnotes! Our product isn't professional!"
Frankly, it's ridiculous. Get over it. Don't buy the product if you don't like it. Don't use it if you don't like it. Read up about the product before you invest $49 and any time in it. It's a no-brainer. Some products don't fit our needs. C'est la vie.
We all have the freedom to enjoy AF or not.
What's the point in endlessly complaining and attacking Serif for an issue that's already noted and is being worked on?
Does it make a complainer feel better? For the rest of us, it's boring and irritating.
So, thank you Serif for what you've done and are doing! Ignore the noise and know that a lot of us are grateful for your work.
Peter Falkenberg Brown
 

It is kind of curious how many requests on this forum are for functionality that belongs to non-destructive editing tools (such as this particular request).  Affinity Photo is by nature a destructive editing tool, so the "original" photo is lost after it is edited, making this feature request contrary to the nature of the software.
As per your suggestion, you could pull the data via the history/undo/snapshots mechanism, but that too will only go so far back as history exists, which means that unless the user has the option enabled to save history in the document file (making the document file that much larger in the process), the data will only exist back to where the document was most recently opened.
What might work out a bit better would be a feature to compare the image with a selected snapshot, or possibly with the oldest available historic version of the image, either by flipping the entire view between the historic version and the current one by splitting the display with a movable divider, similar to the one currently available in the Develop persona.

"Please please please...." - a very useful topic name.

If you are importing Illustrator files into Designer, then it is possible that even if the metadata panel were made available it would not contain any useful information.  Illustrator documents contain an embedded PDF stream which is what is actually imported by the Affinity products, so unless the metadata is included in the PDF stream (I don't have any here to try to check) then it would be invisible to Designer anyway (or to Photo or Publisher for that matter).
I do note that the author at least does sync between the Metadata panel in Photo and the Fields panel in Publisher...

Yes, if items are on a master spread, you can edit them on the master, which would then impact multiple spreads, but if the time was taken to set these items up on a master, then global color swatches should have been used as well, which would eliminate most reasons to use the "select same" features in the first place, as well as impacting objects across spreads whether they were on a master or not.
Most people who have use cases for this functionality seem to be working with imported documents that do not have the benefit of global colors, so I am working under the assumption that the objects @Meztli is concerned about are most likely not on a master spread.

There is currently no mechanism for maintaining a selection across multiple spreads in Publisher (switching to another spread clears the selection), so I suspect that adding this functionality would be enough of an effort to be a feature request in its own right.
The "Select Same" feature is not available in the Publisher persona, but it is available in the Designer persona when accessed through Publisher in the beta - but it only works at the level of the current spread; it works for both the left and the right pages of the spread (assuming you are in facing pages mode), but it does not work across multiple spreads.

Chroma keying can be a complex task due to issues with spill and the like, which a simple color range selection tool is not sufficient to address.
There are dedicated tools for this which can easily cost real money.  Most of them are focused on video work, but there are a few around for stills work as well.
So far I have mostly been interested in doing this with video so other than observing that they exist I haven't really delved into the particulars of the ones that are offered for stills.

The panel can be made available with View > Studio > Links.

There should be a drop-down in the context toolbar for the cat tool to select a breed, too.

There should be a drop-down in the context toolbar for the cat tool to select a breed, too.

You can actually link different properties to different objects - link the fill color of object A to object B but link the stroke width of object A to object C - and you can do it after the objects have been created if you are a bit clever about it (currently you need to duplicate linked to get to the panel, but then you can re-link to arbitrary existing objects and get rid of the initial dupe).

Not so sure that would be a great thing in the end.  Aperture and Shake were both amazing products and were dropped from the product line, though Aperture had no legitimate equivalent on the market that could match it (and still does not in many ways).  Color was a legitimate color correction program that was supposedly "merged" into FCPX (yeah right).  iMovie used to be a good product, and the UI in GarageBand made sense at one time...
Apple does make a few great apps, and they make some of the best platforms for end users, but they have also made some highly questionable changes to their apps and even cancelled some outright that had bright futures ahead of them.
 
How is that a bad thing?  
I don't see an issue with telling people that if they want to use the best software they need to use the best computers...
 

Why did we need yet another thread on this?
There have been plenty of existing ones you could have added comments to instead.
Note also that this is a Windows-specific concern and is related to the fact that there are only three modifier keys available on Windows as opposed to four on the Mac (where this does get a modifier key instead of the mouse button gymnastics).

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.