R C-R

Apu also works for Affinity Publisher (not to be confused with the Simpson's character).

Make of this what you will: In the US & in several other countries Amazon Prime Video has added a limited number of commercials before & during TV shows & movies. Occasionally, there have been ones for Canva but from what I can tell there is no mention of Affinity, just the Canva web site.

I don't think much if anything has changed, version to version. It's still hit or miss as far as adding excessive nodes.

It's current implementation is known to be buggy.

Isn't the point, such as it is, to provide a small amount of comic relief in what is otherwise a topic that some have serious misgivings about?

You are living in a dream world if you think they will pay you for anything that you cannot establish legal ownership of. Again, please consult a lawyer if you do not understand why it is absurd of you to think they would do this.

Serif never paid endusers for any of the zillions of ideas they have submitted for improvements to any of the Affinity products, including ones they implemented. What makes you think it would be any different now that Canva owns them? It's a for-profit business, not a charity.

So then why exactly do you expect any company to pay you anything for something you have absolutely no ownership rights for? Do you have no business sense at all?

Because your idea of being paid for nothing more than a new product or tool suggestion is still just as absurd & laughable as it as been from the beginning.

Anybody can make a suggestion for a product but only someone living in a fantasy world would expect any company to pay them anything for that. If you do not understand why the idea is absurd, please contact a lawyer who specializes in intellectual property (IP) rights & ask for an explanation of what does & does not constitute IP.

As explained here, the definition of pixel is greatly dependent on the context so, absent of any qualifiers that statement would likely be incorrect more often than not.

So all the way to Plaid?

There is simply no reliable way to determine what any one idea is worth on its own, separate & apart from everything else. If you think otherwise please give an example of the "kind' of idea whose value somehow could be quantified independently of all else. But this is really much simpler than that: In no meaningful sense, legally or otherwise, is it possible to own an idea. Therefore it is neither real or intellectual property & cannot be sold, licensed, given away, etc.

There is absolutely no way you could know if what you suggested to them was an original idea that had not been suggested by someone else inside or outside the company, & no way for either you or them to know what if any monetary benefits would be derived solely from its implementation. But regardless, you are not doing any of the work needed to implement the idea, which is why your sportswear analogy is bogus.

IOW, the designer did all the work to produce the design, just like @pixelstuff said. So unless you did all the work to turn your idea into an actual product feature, why would you expect Canva to pay you anything for it?

First, they would never agree to that unless you could somehow prove the idea is an original one of yours that no one else has ever thought of. You & Canva would also both need to be prepared to defend any legal actions resulting from claims by others that the idea was something they thought of first. Second, how could Canva quantify how much money implementing that idea had made them? But more to the point, consider it akin to trying to copyright or patent an idea vs. copyrighting or patenting something substantive like a book or an invention. AFAIK, there is no legal precedent for anything like that.

Nor am I, which is why I said it seems buggy.

FWIW, my French to English translator Safari extension translates "Variante de police" as "Variants of policies." So I assumed it was the same label as what the Mac Character Viewer labels "Font Variation" in English.

Which has nothing to do with it. To my knowledge, no company pays for nothing more than ideas its customers have submitted.

"Where the stroke should be" is what I was calling the path of a vector object, so you sometimes get the same thing I am getting consistently. To apply the picked style to another vector object, I can either drag around it with the tool or click on its path, but if I click inside that object I get the same flash you do, so it seems buggy to me.

Please post an example file with this issue.

I could be wrong but I think one has to opt in for that.

Because software companies rarely if ever pay for nothing more than ideas about features users would like to see implemented.

??? This looks like a new, one post topic started by you, not a reply to an existing topic. So I am not sure @Demonskunk will see it.

I only tried loading it from an ellipse 'quick shape' or a simple closed shape made with the Pen Tool, both with no stroke or fill. With either object selected in the Layers panel so I could see the bounding box & path, I could click on the path to load the picker. I could not click anywhere else to get it to load. Attached is my Style Picker test.afphoto I used.