fde101

No, this 12 is coincidence. The 12 was typed manually with "Pages Range" selected, then switching back to "All Pages" maintained the 12 and grayed it out.
Note: above the data merge node contains 4 of 10 records and is placed on 1 page. So its obvious that 3 (2.5) pages will needed for output.
It would even be worse if the app would round the total record number (10 > 12) to virtually fill a layout (for what purpose?) and use that calculation for a rounded total page number in your assumed way. – Maybe the new data merge feature is too complex to argue theoretically without experimenting

I don't think that is what is going on here.
The ability to export IDML is quite desirable whether you are interfacing with InDesign or not.
The main benefit is that IDML is an open format which can be imported into a number of other publishing apps - QuarkXPress for example, not just InDesign - so it provides a way to transport documents into another app at some point in the future if that need arises, giving a better starting point than simply using PDF or the like.
 
The main argument I've seen is that it is not reasonable to assume that IDML export will provide clients with a usable document straight into one app when the design was produced with another.  An IDML file produced by Publisher may not give you exactly the same layout when opened in InDesign or QuarkXPress - text might flow differently for example - so treating it as an interchange format for completed work being transferred across apps is inappropriate no matter how well Serif might implement the format itself.
 
So it would be good to complete the circle of moving projects between apps but it must then be treated as an intermediate transfer format, not a final project transfer format.  The documents will require some clean-up and adjustment when the app changes, and that is something the client should not be expected to do.

Thanks James. Never occurred to me trying with a mask but it still feels a bit unintuitive/hackish?

I don't think that is what is going on here.
The ability to export IDML is quite desirable whether you are interfacing with InDesign or not.
The main benefit is that IDML is an open format which can be imported into a number of other publishing apps - QuarkXPress for example, not just InDesign - so it provides a way to transport documents into another app at some point in the future if that need arises, giving a better starting point than simply using PDF or the like.
 
The main argument I've seen is that it is not reasonable to assume that IDML export will provide clients with a usable document straight into one app when the design was produced with another.  An IDML file produced by Publisher may not give you exactly the same layout when opened in InDesign or QuarkXPress - text might flow differently for example - so treating it as an interchange format for completed work being transferred across apps is inappropriate no matter how well Serif might implement the format itself.
 
So it would be good to complete the circle of moving projects between apps but it must then be treated as an intermediate transfer format, not a final project transfer format.  The documents will require some clean-up and adjustment when the app changes, and that is something the client should not be expected to do.

In what way would that function actually "expand" the appearance?  The appearance is not changing - it is not getting larger, for example.
 
Should probably be thought of as shorthand for "bake in appearance"...  you are taking the appearance resulting from the tool and making it part of the underlying curve of the object.
 
I personally think the terminology Serif is using for that makes a lot more sense than what Adobe is using.

Grab does add one option to the built-in shortcuts prior to Mojave: the option to take a timed screenshot (screenshot after a delay).
In Mojave the Command+Option+5 option was added which provides this feature as well as video recording (which in earlier versions of macOS can be done using QuickTime Player - and yes it seems strange to use "player" to capture video) over the offerings in prior versions.

No Mac version, thus worthless.

From one perspective I almost want to agree that this makes more sense as an application setting rather than a document setting...
But then I think that the colors that work well against white paper might not work well against a black background, and making this a document-level setting allows them to be adjusted for documents with different colored backgrounds?
Maybe an application-level setting with an option to override the setting in a given document?

The Command+Shift+3 shortcut predates MacOS X - it has been around apparently since System 2.0 in the mid-1980s: https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/4140/where-does-command-shift-3-or-command-shift-4-for-taking-screen-captures-origi
There are a few other related shortcuts that can be used to grab individual windows or portions of the screen, etc: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201361

From one perspective I almost want to agree that this makes more sense as an application setting rather than a document setting...
But then I think that the colors that work well against white paper might not work well against a black background, and making this a document-level setting allows them to be adjusted for documents with different colored backgrounds?
Maybe an application-level setting with an option to override the setting in a given document?

You're right. No rocket science. However - many of the issues can be defined so differently that it is hard to find them. I call it "free transform", you may call it "perspective deformation", another one "3D distortion".... endless...
However: we can shorten this: it is as it is, let's work with it! Give my best to guess the right topic.

I'm not seeing it under High Sierra either, but I do note that your screenshot is using the dark interface while his is on the light interface.

Seems the same in both to me – what's the difference between them?

Yes, those are proprietary file formats which are not publicly documented and change from release to release so they would be a moving target of reverse-engineering that is not likely worth Serif's time to unravel.

Curious that the icon hasn't received its rounded corners yet.
You should really consider using some other geometric shape to make the icons more distinctive rather than blending in so carefully...   triangles maybe?  😎

Curious that the icon hasn't received its rounded corners yet.
You should really consider using some other geometric shape to make the icons more distinctive rather than blending in so carefully...   triangles maybe?  😎

I'm locking this thread as it's getting off-topic/personal and it's already served its purpose as feedback/suggestion to implement full Photoshop plugin support.

I for one will not "subscribe" to software regardless of the price or function.
I might subscribe to something that is legitimately a service, such as a site hosting video content that gets added to frequently (Hulu, Netflix, etc.), to a utility (cell phone service, etc.), insurance or the like, but software categorically does not fit that model and should not be paid for that way.  Period, end of story.
Quark is doing something a bit different in that they are offering a subscription to an update service, in which the software is licensed perpetually but you effectively pre-pay to get all of the upgrades released over a period of time.  Something like that I am willing to accept as well within reason.
Adobe lost me as a potential customer when they dropped the option of a perpetual license.

Tools are on the toolbar on the left.
Properties of tools (such as the type of gradient) are in the context toolbar at the top of the window.
That is consistent and appropriate.

Hi, welcome to the forums!
You should be very careful about using your email address as a screen name or otherwise making it accessible on a public forum as it invites spammers.
Please consider changing that.

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.

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.

Serif has already considered and implemented assigning shortcuts to things that are not in menus.The Tools, Node Tool, Pen Tool, Text Input, and Miscellaneous sections within the keyboard shortcuts are additional shortcut options that are not part of the menus. With that framework already in place, I think additional suggestions such as in this thread could fit in easily.

Cool tool that would belong in the tool box
of ADesigner and not APhoto… IYAM!