fde101

The same one I do, apparently.
 
There are plenty of use cases for Publisher which do not require footnotes.  The publishing industry is not limited to the creation of books and scholarly works.
 
Consider just for starters:
Calendars Advertisements Church bulletins Product brochures (some have footnotes, many do not) Most works of fiction that I have seen do not have footnotes  
This is not a publishing task but a font management task best suited to a dedicated application.
 
This is hopefully a temporary situation.  Printers should not need InDesign files - they should only need the PDFs, which Publisher already does.
 
I'm assuming by this that you are looking for a plugin or scripting API?  That is currently missing but is being discussed already on another thread.  It is not relevant to many users who are working solo/independent or in a smaller business (as opposed to corporate) setting.

I don't think you will get it down to "none" without losing functionality as the thumbnail is used as a drop target when rearranging layers to indicate that it should be a mask instead of a normal child.  Instead it may be that the thumbnail could be the same height as the text if that is all you need to have it present for.

-

There are existing discussion  threads for both of these topics.
JET

The stock panel is nice but I often face difficulty judging the photo in smaller size. 

For one thing, the ability to connect a single node in multiple places - for example, using one mask node as the mask for multiple other nodes, so that updating the mask in one place gets applied in several places.

https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/forum/52-feature-requests-suggestions/

Whoever is doing that is violating forum guidelines:
https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/forum/52-feature-requests-suggestions/

You an kind of work around this using artboards:
Select the artboard tool, set the popup on the context toolbar to "Selection" and click "Insert Artboard".
That will give you an artboard perfectly matched to the selection.

This runs contrary to the design of the application.  Affinity Photo is by nature a destructive photo editor.  It does have some non-destructive capabilities, and extending this to some degree into the Develop persona has been discussed in other threads (suggest searching for and adding your comments to the existing thread if you have something to add), but the program as a whole will never be 100% non-destructive.
 
This can bloat file sizes, particularly for larger and more complex projects.  I think there should be a preference as to whether or not this should be enabled by default for new documents, as some will want it and others will not, depending on how they work.
 
Other people are complaining that it doesn't really crop, but want it to destructively crop the canvas when they use it.  This again is a function of different people working in different ways, and the current crop tool is likely most appropriate for Affinity Photo.  You can still use a shape as a mask to gain the effect of cropping an individual layer.
Also, the concept of cropping a layer is kind of foreign to the develop persona anyway as it only ever operates on a single layer.
 
Wrong tool for the job.  This feature is not ordinarily needed in a photo editor and is a very reasonable feature to have left out to help differentiate the products.
If you have both applications and you really want that capability, you should be able to bring a "vector layer" (not really what they are but whatever) from Designer (or Publisher) into Photo and store it as an asset so that you can drop it onto other documents later on.

As the Affinity series apps primary target professional users and those who aspire to be such, this seems entirely appropriate.
 
Just about anything that is worthwhile for pros is going to seem complicated to a "noob" - the secret is to take the time to learn.
 
 
That said, this request amounts to "make it easier" - but there is no specific indication of specifically what it is that you currently find to be difficult / unintuitive...  can you be more specific about what it is that you are having trouble with?

One complication is that both control and command already have assigned functions for this tool.  There are no modifiers left to use for this.
However, as the function assigned to the command key only has an effect when the user drags from within the selection, it could be made to do this when the mouse is not over an existing selection when starting the drag, and retain its current behavior when the mouse is over an existing selection.
This might still leave Windows users out in the cold, as the same could not be done as readily with the current control key behavior...  I'm not sure how things are mapped on Windows so not sure how this would align with what is currently in use there.

Agreed...  and same goes with pattern layers.
 
You can use the color panel or the swatches panel for this.  Most users are likely to have one of those visible already.
Suggest instead that double-clicking on the layer in the Layers panel should pop up a color picker.

or a global color in a swatch, which would not be present in the popup color picker provided by the OS...

I believe they are referring to having fixed this:
 
The pattern layers are for raster patterns, and the layer you show as a child is a vector object.  It would be nice to see it repeated as well, but sadly I don't believe that is what they had in mind.

Definitely.  Particularly if they then also export as vector.
 
Probably not worth trying to rush into this beta so much, but as a future enhancement, it might also be interesting to be able to either horizontally or vertically offset each row/column of the pattern:
 

The Adjustments list that pops up lets you select 1 adjustment, and then gives you a dialog where you can set the adjustment options and create a new layer in your document.
The Layer Effects list that pops up lets you select 1 or more adjustments, and set their options, and everything you select applies to the current layer. It could be argued that the Layer Effects version is more efficient and modern, because you don't need to keep going back to the icon to select another effect, as you have to do with the Adjustments.
On the other hand, given the differences in what they do, I think the difference in behavior is appropriate. Neither would work as well if it had the interface of the other.
 

For one thing, the ability to connect a single node in multiple places - for example, using one mask node as the mask for multiple other nodes, so that updating the mask in one place gets applied in several places.

Aftemplate,
I have nearly implemented the "node mode" feature a few times now - never actually got round to doing it - I imagine it will happen at some point (although not for 1.9!).
It would be interesting to hear what people would expect from a feature like that..
Thanks,
A

Yes, that would be useful. I think being able to nest any type of object would be useful for non-destructive creation. Please do it

Hi,
Repeating child vector objects could become a thing if people think it's useful? I nearly put a toggle in for it yesterday then had second thoughts (exporting these to a vector target will rasterise them, of course).
Hope this helps,
A

hey ive been using affinity designer to make these artworks , i use the symmetry tool a lot , i really wish you could increase the maximum symmetry count so i can make better artwork 

As a creator of hex maps, I have tried to make the triangle grids work for lining up hexes, but the snapping ability of the triangles to line up hexes is clumsy and I must manually eyeball lining up the next vertical column of hexes to nest against the other columns of hexes. I have been able to re-import previously created hex grids that I spent hours lining up perfectly, then locking that group. But it would be fantastically useful if hexes could be an option in the grid and axis manager tool of Affinity Designer.

They said their plan was to make VS about 100 dollars, no subscription, with free updates for a year. Then you'd buy it again when needed

For that it either needs to be done manually or using a yet-to-be-developed "AI Balancing" mode.  Still would seem preferable to just one or the other?