fde101

Correct, and for good reason.  When judging color you are influenced by what surrounds that color.  A neutral gray appearance is optimal for a user interface because it minimizes the influence it has on color judgements.  Too high a contrast, or too much color in the user interface, and it becomes untrustworthy, making it hard to take seriously as a "professional" product in the design world.
In short, I would have a harder time taking the Affinity products (or any other design-oriented products) seriously if the interface had too much color in it, or if the contrast of the user interface were too high.
The default user interface has contrast which is just about right for the type of product that it is.
However, I do recognize that there are those using these products who may be working in situations or handling projects where color judgement is less critical or is already impaired by eyesight issues or similar, and who struggle due to that contrast.  Having a high contrast option to choose from in preferences would likely expand the software to more users who are in that situation and ease things for many who are in between.  For some types of design software (ex. video color grading software) it would be the equivalent of braille buttons on cars - if someone is blind they shouldn't be driving - so I can understand why it might be much less of a consideration in such cases, but that certainly isn't the case across the board for these particular applications, and making provision for these users as an option in preferences would not be unwelcome, so long as it does not compromise the product for those who don't need it.

The object styles in the Affinity products are unfortunately not "real" styles.  When you apply one its properties are copied to the object, I don't believe any connection is made back to the style.  If you modify the style the changes are not applied to the objects.
They are more like presets than styles.

As @Bryan Rieger pointed out, there are a variety of options out there and a big piece of this answer will depend heavily on the style of animation you are trying to create, where you plan to deploy it (video, web, UI feature, etc.), and how you want to work with it.
Other programs you might look at are Apple's Motion (video work) if you are on a Mac, or as a second option for hand-drawn cell-based animation on an iPad, there is also Callipeg, which has been around longer than Procreate Dreams.
For more cartoon-like 2D rigged animations there is also the free open-source Synfig Studio which may be applicable in some cases (and that one is cross-platform).
 
Note that this has been discussed before in many other threads, so searching the feature request forum for "animation" will net you many past discussions on this, and other recommendations were likely offered in those past threads as well.

This has come up a few times before, and Serif has consistently indicated (when they responded at all) that they had no intention of introducing 3D or animation support of any kind into the Affinity suite any time soon.
It wasn't quite so closed off that this opinion would never change, but it was close to that, and given how far behind they are on things that are much more applicable to what they had already said they wanted to do, I wouldn't advise holding your breath waiting for this.

As @Bryan Rieger pointed out, there are a variety of options out there and a big piece of this answer will depend heavily on the style of animation you are trying to create, where you plan to deploy it (video, web, UI feature, etc.), and how you want to work with it.
Other programs you might look at are Apple's Motion (video work) if you are on a Mac, or as a second option for hand-drawn cell-based animation on an iPad, there is also Callipeg, which has been around longer than Procreate Dreams.
For more cartoon-like 2D rigged animations there is also the free open-source Synfig Studio which may be applicable in some cases (and that one is cross-platform).
 
Note that this has been discussed before in many other threads, so searching the feature request forum for "animation" will net you many past discussions on this, and other recommendations were likely offered in those past threads as well.

No.
Create the frame(s) on the master page(s) and link to each other if needed. Create one spread using that master and insert the text into the frame(s) that were created on the master. A red triangle appears on the right edge of the last frame where the text would overflow. Hold down the SHIFT key and click on that triangle.   Publisher automatically creates enough additional pages to hold the overflowed content and links the frames together for you.

Not everyone is designing for print.  When working on elements targeting video, cinema, user interfaces, etc., it is more essential to work with a calibrated display and make judgements against that.
For typical video color grading work the "most correct" setup is a separate display showing only the content, without any user interface at all, and to manipulate controls on the user interface and make judgements on the separate display, but it is still necessary even when working that way to sometimes view things on the user interface display, meaning it must also be calibrated as much as possible, and anything that might throw off perception of color within the image minimized.
When using applications like the Affinity apps, that method of working is less of an option, as you directly manipulate the image within the user interface itself, so color judgements on the user interface display become even more critical.  You spend a lot of time looking at the design on that display, and if you spend enough time looking at something while working with it, you lose the ability to make accurate judgements about what you are seeing, as your eyes adjust to it and it "looks" right even when it is not.
Keeping the "first impression" as accurate as possible is very important.

Version 1 and version 2 are separate apps.  If you had purchased the version 1 app and no longer have it installed, you should be able to reinstall it from the purchases list on the App Store.
If you did not purchase it while it was still available, you won't be able to now.
 
All that being said, please search the bug report forum for the problems you are having and report them if no one else already has.  Otherwise they may not be fixed as quickly since they may go undiscovered if others are not experiencing and reporting them.

In addition to the questions @Alfred brought up, make sure you are looking in the list of applications you already purchased (check the "Not on this iPad" tab on the Apps page under your account), not trying to search the store.  A search of the store won't find the version 1 apps because they were withdrawn when the version 2 apps were released.

...wasting everyone's time and contributing to the frustration of the community when Serif completely ignores it, as they have essentially implied a few times would be their likely response to such a thing.
 
Resolve has run on Linux for a long time, even prior to BMD's limited support for it, as the dedicated hardware consoles used to be part of a turnkey system that was the *only* way to obtain Resolve (at very high price points), with software-only download versions for computers coming much later than that.  BMD has invested more heavily, from what I can tell, in providing macOS support than in providing Linux support, but they have made the previously turnkey-only Linux version of Resolve more widely available as a software-only download version, so they are keeping it up to some degree, though their distribution support is somewhat limited.
 
How so?  Adobe's software isn't available on Linux either.  If someone prioritizes the choice of using Linux over the applications, then they aren't using Adobe, so this can't be considered an alternative to Adobe.  If someone prioritizes the software over the operating system, and they are currently using Adobe software, then they aren't using Linux (at least not for that purpose), so they would not be in that "market".
 
They have already done this and determined that it is not yet there.
 
Even a beta version would require most of the development time that would go into a release version, so using one to "test the market" would be spending probably 90% of the effort that would be required to develop the final versions, meaning that they would already be committed to seeing it through, thus it would need to come after they would "test the market".
 
Agreed, and I would suggest this one be closed, as Serif has already done with several others which have recently been created.

...wasting everyone's time and contributing to the frustration of the community when Serif completely ignores it, as they have essentially implied a few times would be their likely response to such a thing.
 
Resolve has run on Linux for a long time, even prior to BMD's limited support for it, as the dedicated hardware consoles used to be part of a turnkey system that was the *only* way to obtain Resolve (at very high price points), with software-only download versions for computers coming much later than that.  BMD has invested more heavily, from what I can tell, in providing macOS support than in providing Linux support, but they have made the previously turnkey-only Linux version of Resolve more widely available as a software-only download version, so they are keeping it up to some degree, though their distribution support is somewhat limited.
 
How so?  Adobe's software isn't available on Linux either.  If someone prioritizes the choice of using Linux over the applications, then they aren't using Adobe, so this can't be considered an alternative to Adobe.  If someone prioritizes the software over the operating system, and they are currently using Adobe software, then they aren't using Linux (at least not for that purpose), so they would not be in that "market".
 
They have already done this and determined that it is not yet there.
 
Even a beta version would require most of the development time that would go into a release version, so using one to "test the market" would be spending probably 90% of the effort that would be required to develop the final versions, meaning that they would already be committed to seeing it through, thus it would need to come after they would "test the market".
 
Agreed, and I would suggest this one be closed, as Serif has already done with several others which have recently been created.

...wasting everyone's time and contributing to the frustration of the community when Serif completely ignores it, as they have essentially implied a few times would be their likely response to such a thing.
 
Resolve has run on Linux for a long time, even prior to BMD's limited support for it, as the dedicated hardware consoles used to be part of a turnkey system that was the *only* way to obtain Resolve (at very high price points), with software-only download versions for computers coming much later than that.  BMD has invested more heavily, from what I can tell, in providing macOS support than in providing Linux support, but they have made the previously turnkey-only Linux version of Resolve more widely available as a software-only download version, so they are keeping it up to some degree, though their distribution support is somewhat limited.
 
How so?  Adobe's software isn't available on Linux either.  If someone prioritizes the choice of using Linux over the applications, then they aren't using Adobe, so this can't be considered an alternative to Adobe.  If someone prioritizes the software over the operating system, and they are currently using Adobe software, then they aren't using Linux (at least not for that purpose), so they would not be in that "market".
 
They have already done this and determined that it is not yet there.
 
Even a beta version would require most of the development time that would go into a release version, so using one to "test the market" would be spending probably 90% of the effort that would be required to develop the final versions, meaning that they would already be committed to seeing it through, thus it would need to come after they would "test the market".
 
Agreed, and I would suggest this one be closed, as Serif has already done with several others which have recently been created.

...wasting everyone's time and contributing to the frustration of the community when Serif completely ignores it, as they have essentially implied a few times would be their likely response to such a thing.
 
Resolve has run on Linux for a long time, even prior to BMD's limited support for it, as the dedicated hardware consoles used to be part of a turnkey system that was the *only* way to obtain Resolve (at very high price points), with software-only download versions for computers coming much later than that.  BMD has invested more heavily, from what I can tell, in providing macOS support than in providing Linux support, but they have made the previously turnkey-only Linux version of Resolve more widely available as a software-only download version, so they are keeping it up to some degree, though their distribution support is somewhat limited.
 
How so?  Adobe's software isn't available on Linux either.  If someone prioritizes the choice of using Linux over the applications, then they aren't using Adobe, so this can't be considered an alternative to Adobe.  If someone prioritizes the software over the operating system, and they are currently using Adobe software, then they aren't using Linux (at least not for that purpose), so they would not be in that "market".
 
They have already done this and determined that it is not yet there.
 
Even a beta version would require most of the development time that would go into a release version, so using one to "test the market" would be spending probably 90% of the effort that would be required to develop the final versions, meaning that they would already be committed to seeing it through, thus it would need to come after they would "test the market".
 
Agreed, and I would suggest this one be closed, as Serif has already done with several others which have recently been created.

...wasting everyone's time and contributing to the frustration of the community when Serif completely ignores it, as they have essentially implied a few times would be their likely response to such a thing.
 
Resolve has run on Linux for a long time, even prior to BMD's limited support for it, as the dedicated hardware consoles used to be part of a turnkey system that was the *only* way to obtain Resolve (at very high price points), with software-only download versions for computers coming much later than that.  BMD has invested more heavily, from what I can tell, in providing macOS support than in providing Linux support, but they have made the previously turnkey-only Linux version of Resolve more widely available as a software-only download version, so they are keeping it up to some degree, though their distribution support is somewhat limited.
 
How so?  Adobe's software isn't available on Linux either.  If someone prioritizes the choice of using Linux over the applications, then they aren't using Adobe, so this can't be considered an alternative to Adobe.  If someone prioritizes the software over the operating system, and they are currently using Adobe software, then they aren't using Linux (at least not for that purpose), so they would not be in that "market".
 
They have already done this and determined that it is not yet there.
 
Even a beta version would require most of the development time that would go into a release version, so using one to "test the market" would be spending probably 90% of the effort that would be required to develop the final versions, meaning that they would already be committed to seeing it through, thus it would need to come after they would "test the market".
 
Agreed, and I would suggest this one be closed, as Serif has already done with several others which have recently been created.

...wasting everyone's time and contributing to the frustration of the community when Serif completely ignores it, as they have essentially implied a few times would be their likely response to such a thing.
 
Resolve has run on Linux for a long time, even prior to BMD's limited support for it, as the dedicated hardware consoles used to be part of a turnkey system that was the *only* way to obtain Resolve (at very high price points), with software-only download versions for computers coming much later than that.  BMD has invested more heavily, from what I can tell, in providing macOS support than in providing Linux support, but they have made the previously turnkey-only Linux version of Resolve more widely available as a software-only download version, so they are keeping it up to some degree, though their distribution support is somewhat limited.
 
How so?  Adobe's software isn't available on Linux either.  If someone prioritizes the choice of using Linux over the applications, then they aren't using Adobe, so this can't be considered an alternative to Adobe.  If someone prioritizes the software over the operating system, and they are currently using Adobe software, then they aren't using Linux (at least not for that purpose), so they would not be in that "market".
 
They have already done this and determined that it is not yet there.
 
Even a beta version would require most of the development time that would go into a release version, so using one to "test the market" would be spending probably 90% of the effort that would be required to develop the final versions, meaning that they would already be committed to seeing it through, thus it would need to come after they would "test the market".
 
Agreed, and I would suggest this one be closed, as Serif has already done with several others which have recently been created.

When you are requesting a feature, why are you using the digital equivalent of invisible ink?
I can't read that text unless I select it - the contrast is too poor with the dark gray text against the black background.
I'm guessing you might be forcing a custom color scheme of some sort in your browser and don't notice it, but the colors you are using make it unreadable for those of us with the normal forum settings.

Hi @fde101
Can confirm this is unexpected behaviour and an issue logged internally, I've bumped the existing issue with your report.

I can't find any reference to this change in the list of changes that was provided for the 2.6 beta.
Did I miss it, or was it missed when producing the list?
It would probably have been tested a bit more carefully by the beta testers if they had been aware that a change had been made, but as it does not appear to have been listed, it is not the kind of thing that many users would have immediately caught on to and identified the problems with it.

Yes, but it was phrased about the bug relating to pixel selections, but all selections are now snapped
 
 

This is hardly unique to Serif.
Most companies license 3rd-party technologies to use in their major software packages, and they all impose limitations of various kinds on what can be accomplished.

That was something which I forgot to add to my earlier post, thanks for mentioning it; I’ve fixed my earlier post now.

I watched that project for a while and I don't believe it was ever completed.  It was a perpetual work in progress until everyone finally gave up on it.
 
 
EDIT: http://www.xaraxtreme.org
Note that the porting was "almost complete" as of the latest update in 2008...

I just checked QuarkXPress and VectorStyler, neither of them behaves in the way the OP is describing.
The ESC key clears the selection, but does not change tools.
That is the behavior I would expect.  Changing tools is not a "normal" function of the ESC key in professional software.

I just checked QuarkXPress and VectorStyler, neither of them behaves in the way the OP is describing.
The ESC key clears the selection, but does not change tools.
That is the behavior I would expect.  Changing tools is not a "normal" function of the ESC key in professional software.

Blender is a great example of a program doing a terrible thing.
It is ignoring all OS conventions and rolling its own user interface, making it inconsistent with EVERY operating system it runs on.
 
The only legitimate reason it could possibly provide for that is to ensure neutral grays for more accurate color judgement.  That is the only reason that I would give it credit for, as most operating systems are lacking in providing for this requirement.  I consider that a flaw of the operating systems which should be addressed so that applications with critical color judgement requirements can inform the OS as part of an application manifest or an API call and the OS would provide an appropriate neutral gray appearance which is otherwise consistent with the rest of the environment.
 
Other reasoning I have encountered is generally misguided.  In particular, many developers cite a desire to keep the application consistent between operating systems.  The problem is that a user of a computer is likely to use multiple applications, and it is more important that they be consistent with each other than that they consistent across operating systems - someone sitting at one computer and trying to use four different applications will find things that work four different ways and trying to juggle them while switching back and forth is not a good thing.
 
Don't get me wrong, I have blender installed all over the place and use it from time to time myself - it is a great program in terms of the functionality it offers - but the situation with the user interface is something that should not be emulated, except by video games and other immersive environments.
 
The use of configurable panels to lay out controls appropriately for the task is definitely a good thing.  This is one area where Apple is making a misguided recommendation to avoid this.  It makes some degree of sense for consumer-level applications to limit options to some degree, as more casual users may easily get lost wondering where something disappeared to when the visibility and positions of panels are easily changed, but for many professional applications they are largely a requirement.
This does not provide an excuse for the controls placed on those panels to defy OS conventions, including scaling.  Other than the neutral gray issue, there is nothing that would prevent normal OS-provided controls from working in place of the highly custom ones Blender provides.
 
It would be better to design the app in such a way that this is not necessary, but if it is going to provide a global scaling feature, that is certainly the least problematic way to do it.
 
Yes, that is how things are.  It is NOT how things should be.  I think we are arguing two sides of a coin: I am indicating how I believe things should be, you are anchored in the messy situation of the unfortunate way things are (but should not be).
Different UI frameworks would be fine as long as they all ultimately followed the conventions established by the underlying OS rather than bypassing them.