fde101

Thanks for the video @nitro912gr 

This behaviour was changed in 1.8 and is now expected behaviour.
If you have an object selected in an Artboard - then the Marquee tool will only select the contents of that Artboard. With no object selected you can select anything from any Artboard. If you disable 'Edit All Layers' (the paper stack icon - under your Layers Panel) - it will ALWAYS restrict your Marquee selection to the selected Artboard / object inside the Artboard.
Hehe that made me laugh that you strayed here @fde101 must have missed the warning signs and strayed from the path.

I see the same happening on 1.8.3 on the Mac.
Not sure if it is correct behavior or not, as I indicated earlier it doesn't really bother me either way.
Also not sure how I ended up on a Windows bug thread as I don't normally stray into this part of the forum, but in any case this apparently is not OS-specific.

There is a light color scheme available within Preferences, but I would suggest you try adjusting the "UI Gamma" setting first to see if you can find a better contrast level without going quite that far.
Neutral gray as the bulk of the interface is critical for professional applications that deal with image-related manipulation.  Having colorful elements in the UI can throw off the user's perception of the colors within the document itself and be the cause of errors in the results.

Agreed, that's why I didn't reply to that earlier until someone else jumped in with it.  I had thought of pointing out the same in my earlier reply but for some reason appear to have left it out.

The OP is a WebPlus user. As WebPlus only works on Windows, it’s unlikely (albeit not impossible) that she’s using a Mac.

I'm seeing the same behavior you are describing.
I rarely use artboards or organize my projects into layers in the manner you seem to be and if I did it would generally be for purposes of separating parts of it so limiting the selection to those parts would seem appropriate to me, so it had never really occurred to me to be bothered by this...  but that is how it is behaving.
Now that I am playing with it though, if I shift+click on objects that are in different artboards or layers it will select them together, but if I shift+click or command+click them in the layers panel it will not.  That bothers me a bit more than the behavior of the marquee.

... if this were only a page layout solution we were talking about.
However, as Publisher shares an engine with Photo and Designer and such behavior would be disruptive for common use cases in those applications, enforcing the presence of a frame for every image would cause  problems of its own.
Any given design choice is going to have ramifications like this, and by designing these applications with the common engine and file format, Serif has created something rather unique, and as a result there will always be some ways in which the applications will be different from the others.
In and of itself, that is not a bad thing (just different).

... if this were only a page layout solution we were talking about.
However, as Publisher shares an engine with Photo and Designer and such behavior would be disruptive for common use cases in those applications, enforcing the presence of a frame for every image would cause  problems of its own.
Any given design choice is going to have ramifications like this, and by designing these applications with the common engine and file format, Serif has created something rather unique, and as a result there will always be some ways in which the applications will be different from the others.
In and of itself, that is not a bad thing (just different).

Both versions of "Flip" (Document and Arrange) are available for assignment to keyboard shortcuts.  One less mouse movement and button press.
Kirk

To me the biggest selling point is not how cheap it is, but the fact that they are offering a tightly integrated and highly performant suite of creative software that does not require a subscription and which has an appropriate balance of usability with simplicity in its user interface design.
The low cost certainly doesn't hurt, but I would probably be using Adobe CS apps if they hadn't gone subscription only right after I bought the full CS 6 master collection - which then sat mostly unused because I didn't see the point in wasting time learning dead-end applications that I would no longer be able to get updates for.
That said, the notion of a "pro version" of these apps as has been suggested here is kind of silly.  It would create more work for them to maintain the additional products (more versions to build, document and keep track of), which I would expect would be likely to create more of a drain on their resources than the added income could hope to supplement.  I can tell you from software development projects I have been involved with, it is frequently the documentation and testing efforts that take MUCH more time than does the coding, and splintering off minor variations of the same product has the potential to almost double the testing efforts, while at the same time adding to documentation requirements, for relatively minor differences between the applications.
Developing applications like the ones in the Affinity suite requires specialized skills that not all developers have.  You can't expect that an arbitrary amount of available funds will mean that the developers needed to help work on these applications will magically become available.  Serif has already indicated several times on the forums that they were bringing new developers on board; it seems like they struggle more with being able to find people with the right skills for the application than they do with finding the funds to pay them.

To me the biggest selling point is not how cheap it is, but the fact that they are offering a tightly integrated and highly performant suite of creative software that does not require a subscription and which has an appropriate balance of usability with simplicity in its user interface design.
The low cost certainly doesn't hurt, but I would probably be using Adobe CS apps if they hadn't gone subscription only right after I bought the full CS 6 master collection - which then sat mostly unused because I didn't see the point in wasting time learning dead-end applications that I would no longer be able to get updates for.
That said, the notion of a "pro version" of these apps as has been suggested here is kind of silly.  It would create more work for them to maintain the additional products (more versions to build, document and keep track of), which I would expect would be likely to create more of a drain on their resources than the added income could hope to supplement.  I can tell you from software development projects I have been involved with, it is frequently the documentation and testing efforts that take MUCH more time than does the coding, and splintering off minor variations of the same product has the potential to almost double the testing efforts, while at the same time adding to documentation requirements, for relatively minor differences between the applications.
Developing applications like the ones in the Affinity suite requires specialized skills that not all developers have.  You can't expect that an arbitrary amount of available funds will mean that the developers needed to help work on these applications will magically become available.  Serif has already indicated several times on the forums that they were bringing new developers on board; it seems like they struggle more with being able to find people with the right skills for the application than they do with finding the funds to pay them.

Bingo.
We are already using the pro versions, it is just taking them longer to polish them than some people have patience for.

Bingo.
We are already using the pro versions, it is just taking them longer to polish them than some people have patience for.

Bingo.
We are already using the pro versions, it is just taking them longer to polish them than some people have patience for.

Bingo.
We are already using the pro versions, it is just taking them longer to polish them than some people have patience for.

To scale font sizes, use artistic text instead of frame text.
Scaling the stroke is controlled by the "Scale with object" checkbox in the Stroke panel.
Scaling of FX is controlled by the "Scale with Object" checkbox in the "Layer Effects" window that opens when you click the "fx" button on the Layers panel.
To prevent scaling of corners for a rounded rectangle object, turn on "Absolute sizes" while the shape is selected (it is on the context toolbar).
To scale corners created using the corner tool, bake them into the shape by converting to curves.

They don't normally respond to them but they do read them.
That has been repeated numerous times throughout the forums, along with explanations.

The best way to fix this is with an incredibly expensive, little-known, high-tech device called a tripod.
The second best is to use a camera with in-body image stabilization.
In some cases adding more light to a scene and increasing the shutter speed can also make a difference, though I will grant that this one is not always practical.
All of these options contribute to solving this problem at the time of capture, without the guesswork that software might need to do later on, and will give much better results than trying to mask this issue after the fact.

Everybody has a favorite scripting language, Frank.  But no scripting language is everybody's favorite.
In practice, the Affinity document/object API and its binding to the scripting language is going to be far more significant than the language itself.  An incomplete, poorly organized and badly documented API/DOM will be agony to use in any scripting language.  Conversely, a comprehensive, modular and well-documented API/DOM will be easy to use in any scripting language.  We don't need Serif to give us Python, or Lua, or Perl, or ECMAScript, or FORTH, etc.  We need them to give us an API.

To scale font sizes, use artistic text instead of frame text.
Scaling the stroke is controlled by the "Scale with object" checkbox in the Stroke panel.
Scaling of FX is controlled by the "Scale with Object" checkbox in the "Layer Effects" window that opens when you click the "fx" button on the Layers panel.
To prevent scaling of corners for a rounded rectangle object, turn on "Absolute sizes" while the shape is selected (it is on the context toolbar).
To scale corners created using the corner tool, bake them into the shape by converting to curves.

Set a fill color so that the FX work, then set the fill opacity to 0 at the bottom of the Layer Effects window, which makes that fill color disappear but leaves the FX in place.

If you are working on something as structured as a book, your fonts should really only be set within text styles.  Text styles are presumably imported via the IDML process, and you can change the fonts once in the styles to have them applied throughout the document.
If you applied them as "local formatting" (or whatever InDesign calls that, not even sure offhand) then in effect you created a lot of extra work for yourself for doing this conversion.

Hi @Saud, welcome to the forums!
This has come up MANY times in the past on the forums.  Scanning from within Affinity Photo is already supported on the Mac.  Indications from Serif have been that because the Affinity apps are 64-bit only and the scanning frameworks on Windows are either missing or very difficult to work with from 64-bit apps it is unlikely to be supported on Windows for the near future.