furtonb

Yup, I think we know that. If you have a selection (e.g. on a mask), and press option/command+backspace, like you would in PS, can you set this to ,,Fill selected area with Primary/Secondary colour"? I think most of us miss this.
(D,X, alt/cmd+backspace is so deep in my muscle memory, that this missing (or well hid) feature amost hurts!)

same here. I ended up with ID again, I only use Affinity Photo regularly by now, but for side projects mostly. it was a shame, because I enthusiastically managed to convince many people to jump to the Affinity package, whereas these feature omissions are rather offputting, once you have to start referencing stuff and keep track of them.
I check these threads from time to time, hopefully we'll get a notification that footnotes/endnotes are included in the next beta. this thread reminds me of the infamous "select same" one, so I accepted by now that my use case is not the target audience for serif.:)

Hello,
It has been a while since I visited this thread to see the progress on implementing footnotes and endnotes in Affinity Publisher. I'm very happy to hear there is some progress seemingly coming this year. In the meantime — and please don't take this the wrong way — the lack of these features in AP has forced me to use Adobe InDesign even more and given me a new appreciation of what ID can do. Before, it was really clunky and slow, but the latest updates to ID running on Apple Silicone make it a whole new experience that is actually... usable (at least for me.)
I still love the potential of Affinity Publisher (especially running on Apple Silicone) and look forward to the new updates.
Keep up the good work

Paul

You seem to be demonstrating here a surprising lack of consideration for the real-life situation of people.  When I upgraded, decades ago, from SuperCalc to Excel, I didn't imagine that there would be things that SuperCalc could do that Excel couldn't do, but I didn't have time to abandon other commitments, sit down and run tests on Excel.  Likewise, when I changed from LocoScript word processor on the Amstrad PCW 8256 to Word for Windows (as it was then called) on a PC, I couldn't down tools and test out Word.  Of course, both Excel and Word could do everything that the older programs did, and more, but it probably took me months to find that out.  I was too busy earning a living!

When I bought Affinity Publisher, it was because reviews praised it highly and there was a special offer, so I jumped (also with Affinity Photo).  Nothing I read said that Publisher couldn't handle footnotes.  The idea would have been preposterous, as if Excel couldn't add up numbers!

With any new software there is also a steep learning curve, which takes most people who also have other commitments many weeks, or even months.  When I started working on a book in Affinity Publisher and came to the first time that I needed to use a footnote, I assumed that it was a lack of knowledge on my part that meant I couldn't do it.  With most software, there is an easy answer. One just needs to find it.  It was inconceivable to me that Affinity Publisher did not support a basic function that I had been using in Word for decades.

So, come on Serif, this thread is so long because many people who believed the publicity and bought the program are so totally dissatisfied, frustrated and disillusioned that a program that promises so much cannot do a basic, routine operation.

This really does using Affinity Publisher for many forms of writing unusable.

Trevor

I bought it when it was on sale, but didn't need to use it until more than a couple weeks later.  But again, why would I bother with testing out every "feature" of a piece of software that I couldn't even imagine wouldn't exist??  It was billed as a cheaper alternative for the premier publishing software.  I wanted to start using more professional publishing software.  I had never used before, so I wouldn't have even known what to look for if I had tested it out.  Also, the constant stream of people asking so many useless questions like yours and the answers to them like mine are a big reason this thread is 37 pages long.

Seeing yet more responses.  Holy f***, why is it so hard for people to understand that there might be a feature you'd assume software can do?  For example, you'd expect a word processor to be able to capitalize letters.  Also, why is it so damn hard for people to understand you might not immediately spend weeks intensely using software you've purchased?  It's USELESS to be asking this crap NOW!!!  I HAVE the damn software.  I STILL want to be able to use it.  All I'm asking for is they implement something that seems like an exceptionally basic part of what publishing software should be able to do.  They've been saying they will get to it soon for three damn years.

True,
But I made presets I use within the Raw area. 

However, the Raw engine in not the strongest part of Affinity. (imho it's pretty weak) 
I use Nikon cameras and I'm able to use Nikon capture NX-D as a raw convertor where after I continue in Affinity photo with an uncompressed tiff. 
Since a while I also use Lightroom again because Nikon came with Nikon Studio NX which frustrated the workflow to external programs.
It cannot start an application anymore with the option to convert to Tiff and open the appplication with Tiff. 
You now need to export your file(s) and need to drag then in Affinity (or any other tool) yourself.  I don't understand this move from Nikon.
Within Lightroom you can choose how you want to start the external editor (with psd, dng, tiff, jpg etc)
Also, Lightroom is more clever with cropping. Using eg 3x4 in lightroom auto rotates the crop frame on a portrait of landscape.
Affintiy dropped this idea with their last versions and made it realy stupid again which no needs additional steps in te work flow.
(far from user friendly and for sure not intuïtieve). If the rotate button would have covered the full with if the frame was not touched, but you real need to adjust teh frame all the time.  And this way many of these kind of small things makes the workfow slower, despite the faster engine. And that's a pitty, because I really like Affinty Photo setup and access to many fucntions. Way better than Photoshop.

So I use Raw conversion external and continue for editing in Affinity.
Since I now had to buy Lighroom + Photoshop as a package, I also work again with Photoshop. Within Photoshop the Raw access is very well implemented (better than Affinity)
However despite Affinity is much faster and works somehow more intuïtieve than Photoshop, the color accuracy (working with x-rite colorchecker cards (=now from Calibrate)) is not implemented in Affinity.
A lot of users already ask for it for years, but it is still not there.

I could do my complete workflow with Affinity if there was a good Raw convertor and/or something like Lightroom or Nikon Capture NX-D from Affinity; but so far I still need to rely on those external tools to get a good raw converted start point. 

I often requested to update the RAW engine, but so also nothing happened. I've shown Affinty Raw image conversions which are really bad and which are not usable, but which are perfect with lighroom / Nikon Raw conversions, but no reaction and no updates here.

And in meantime Adobe was clever enough not selling Lightroom as a single package anymore but always in combination with Photoshop.
They hit the weak point of Affinity and once you buy lighroom anyway and have photoshop included, why would you use Affinity?

(Si sólo existieran las notas a pie de página.)
If it were only for the footnotes!
In many ways, Serif excites us with the quality of its Affinity suite. In other respects, Serif’s stubbornness in treating its customers as incapable of knowing what they need first or foremost, and its persistence in systematically ignoring customer reports of incongruous translations (instead of using a real specialist translator, their translation is the worst kind of Google translate) and their aberrant localization is staggering, to say the least.
The latest example has been reported many times over the past months: They decided to put a space in front of the apostrophe because in their regional language, the apostrophe is used for quotes. As a result, it is now impossible to write directly in the Affinity suite since the apostrophe is used in French and other languages only for elision, and is very common.
becomes
instead of
 

Sadly, I can readily empathise with those sentiments, particularly about intuitiveness, and the subtle difference between (a) how a user might think of approaching something, and (b) how software might make it possible to achieve it, if indeed it does at all. Everyone has his or her own individual experience and expectations of using software. For some people, no doubt Affinity Publisher meets their needs excellently. My own experience echoes MJWHM’s.
In my case, wanting to produce relatively uncomplicated documents, I came to Serif PagePlus, around 10 years ago, from Microsoft Publisher. In making that transition, I found the learning curve very steep and arduous, but in the end, it was worth it, because I found PagePlus so much richer in features and fine control over layout; and once you got used to it, it did feel reasonably intuitive.
So it was that I came to Affinity Publisher from PagePlus. I wish I could say the same things about my experience of that transition, but regrettably, I can’t.
I had expected a gentler and more gradual learning curve because the products were from the same company. But it has been neither particularly gentle nor particularly gradual, and much of the time it doesn’t seem worth continuing down the path, because to me, it seems so much more difficult or time-consuming to achieve what I want to do than it is in PagePlus.
I bought all three Affinity products because I wanted – and still want – to support a small, ambitious, innovative, British company, and also (of course) because I like the price and the purchase model, rather than a subscription model.
Affinity Photo is something I use frequently: I find it good value and effective, even if sometimes lacking something in intuitiveness. But for publications, I always still turn to PagePlus, and leave Affinity Publisher alone, gathering electronic dust. I do appreciate that this is a case of sticking to what you know rather than moving to a new place; but change can be good, if it makes life better. However, attempting to make the move from the predecessor to the newcomer doesn’t feel worthwhile, to me, for my purposes; not yet, anyway, and surely not for as long as footnotes and endnotes are missing.
How one fixes “intuitiveness” is an elusive concept, especially at this stage of the product’s development. But one continues to hope that fixing footnotes and endnotes, by making them available, might not be too far down the road, now.

I have the impression of having bought a Rolls-Royce where everything is really magnificent except that one would have forgotten to put the pedals at the bottom of the page, oops, of the driver’s cabin, and whose steering wheel does not allow turning left yet. Of course, we can make a cable system to compensate for the pedals, and make an almost complete turn to go left, but I still have the impression, I don’t know why, of a serious lack somewhere.
😁
More seriously, I deplore in order:
The impossibility of changing the shameful and so unprofessional French translation of the suite. A workbook that does not exist in French, but only in English and German. The absence of page notes. Seven hundred and fifty-three footnotes in the current book. A horror in the current version of Affinity Publisher. The lack of management of typographical spaces. Each publishing company uses its own typographical spacing settings. The impossibility of using most font formats. The impossibility of using a professional spelling correction tool. No relevant management of custom dictionaries. Adding, for example, one demonym Dounjou, plural Dounjoux and automatically obtaining the inhabitants Dounjou, Dounjoux, Dounjou, Dounjoux and the adjectives dounjou, donjoux, dounjolle, dounjolles, with lists full of words (fantasy book), is terribly lacking. The lack of reference management (APA, Chicago, Personal, etc.).

This would actually make a great Youtube video. A presenter with a straight face going thru a painstakingly detailed tutorial of how this is done step by step.  

You are indeed right.  I write academic articles and books, and there are normally footnotes on every page.  As I revise articles, the need for further footnotes arises, and WORD automatically re-numbers all subsequent footnotes both in the text and in the footnote area.

When I export from WORD to Publisher, all footnotes are ignored by Publisher and I have to put them in manually.  This involves more than adding superscript numerals in the text.  I then have to move the bottom of the text frame up and put a new frame beneath it for the footnotes, guessing the height needed and adjusting each text frame as I add the footnotes.  At least, that is the way that I have done it so far.

Then, in a later check of the text, I find that I need to add a footnote on an earlier page, and the whole chore starts again, as I have to renumber all subsequent footnotes manually both in the text and in the footnotes.  The automatic text flow (in the main body of the text) moves text to subsequent pages when I reduce the the size of the box for the main text, but this may push a line near the bottom of the page with a footnote onto the next page, with the results rippling through the document.  Of course, my footnote remains on the original page in the footnote text box where I placed it, so I have to move it manually to the next page, adjusting the height of the text box on that page to allow for the extra footnote - which can cause the problem to be repeated on a subsequent page or pages!

The chance of ending up with an error (a text note later in the chapter on the wrong page) is very high, and the time input required to do all these corrections manually can also be enormous.

I hope that someone at Affinity is reading these posts!

I agree.
I was about to buy Publisher (and Photo) a little over 60 minutes ago, and to get into using it instead of InDesign for book publishing. Thankfully (and sadly) I stumbled upon a comment about its lack of support for endnotes and footnotes, and for ePub export. That was whilst searching for InDesign / Publisher comparisons online. As many of those comparisons were from 2018 to 2020, I figured, "Oh, that was then ... surely by now they have implemented such a fundamental and critical feature ...".
In my attempt to prove that assumption right, I found this 30 page thread we're having this discussion on. Like many other publishers, I won't be buying Publisher for now. That likely means I won't be buying Affinity Photo either, as I need tight integration between the apps I am using for photo manipulation and desktop publishing (current PS and InD). Without footnotes and endnotes Affinity has basically cut out the entire book publishing industry. This nearly 3 year old 30 page forum thread seems to be testament to a possible lack of wisdom in that regard. But I guess they have their reasons.

Looking through this topic, we can see that people have been begging for footnotes and endnotes for 3 years now. I absolutely love Publisher, but like many people cannot abandon InDesign or QuarkXpress until Serif provides really basic, essential features for desktop publishing. It seems there is a lot of concentration on magazine-y stuff with lots of clever Designer & Photo integration, BUT that's not nearly as important to many of us as essential DTP features like footnotes. 
Cross-referencing could use a serious boost too. I often want to refer to an example by number. Sometimes that number will change if I add in a new, preceding example. In Quark, I can update the cross-reference to that example. In Publisher I can't even (as far as I can see) cross-reference specific text – though I can link to an anchor, but that's not the same nor as useful for my purposes.
It's been a long, long, long time Serif. We love the program but you're making it too hard to complete the transition from InDesign/QuarkXpress.  You're at risk of losing your market edge with this really slow response to basic, essential DTP features. Even the $80 Mellel app that I wrote my PhD in has had such features as long as I've known it (going back to 2005). 
Drop the glitzy graphics stuff (which I bet of lot of us might not be using) for a while, and quickly catch up with the features your dedicated, but exasperated, customers are asking for.

A professional software setup is configured sans Serif.

Serif, the thing you are doing is a questionable if not outright immoral marketing strategy - irrespective of whether it is conscious or not. 
With each passing month your hype of 'professional DTP' lures more and more new professionals into this end/footnote trap. They go through their different frustration phases but it seems practical to think that since the software was affordable I might use it for something else than end/footnote work. But this does not make go away the fact that the software does not deliver the thing it was originally bought for. Hence, people are forced to go back to Indesign subscription while having already paid copy of Apub sitting useless on their computer.
In my opinion, the longer you keep doing this the more it begins to resemble cheating.

I would love to see footnotes very soon. However, it is sadly normal that footnotes are implemented rather late in DTP applications: QuarkXPress seems to have introduced them only in their 2015 Version, almost 30 years after its launch. Adobe InDesign  gained to support footnotes in CS2. InDesign not have a proper endnote feature up until CC2018.
So, while it is frustrating that the feature is lacking and while many understandably need this feature for projects, it is not unusual to see them not included in the essential feature set for a DTP software’s launch and first years versions, even. The prototypical use case for DTP software seems to be magazines or posters, for which other features are more essential.
Highly structured documents (which is also what I  would love to use Publisher for) seem to be a tricky market, being under pressure by quite decent word processors as well as proprietary typesetting environments and LaTeX.

Is it possible that Serif are holding back this feature until v2.0 is ready? If so, then that is extremely pernicious.
Let me reiterate: implementing endnotes is not difficult. It's really just collating all the footnotes into a table, creating a space at the end of the chapter, or book, and plonking the table there. Simples. Footnotes are a little trickier as this requires creating space for each page and juggling the content to accommodate them, but it still is not rocket science.
The fact that the endnotes and/or footnotes do not even feature in a beta-test is dispiriting to say the least. That Serif cannot confirm one way or the other if/when it is appearing, equally so.
Given the amount of comments this feature alone has generated (90% uncomplimentary - being generous here) just shows the disappointment being experienced by users. I agree with previous comments: DTP without end/footnotes is not DTP.

I cannot see to which particular 'lots' you are referring, but put that aside.
Your own post is perhaps the result of so-called flaming. You may wish, for example, to edit out the casual racism, which adds nothing to a reasoned discussion.
The suggestion that people should not be 'bitching here' (also unnecessarily abusive) perhaps fails to accept the fundamental logic of the forum concept. They exist precisely so that people can express their views and in a forum provided by a service supplier this is in order to allow that supplier to feel the needs of his/her users. Some may not feel the need to use such elements as footnotes and/or endnotes, but clearly others do. I am not 'bitching here' because I have nothing better to do with my time. I have been using Serif products for so long that I cannot find the earliest use - certainly well before 2007 .
I am concerned that a firm, for which I have had nothing but admiration hitherto, has released into the market functional but half-baked products. I could accept that if they were still clearly identified as beta products, and the products they are intended to replace were still made available and supported. Perhaps the necessary expertise has been lost.
I want Serif to be effective and receptive to the needs of its existing user base as well as moving onwards and upwards. I want to be able to use Affinity products with the ease that I use their predecessors but this is not yet possible. 
And as the title for this particular thread is specifically about Footnotes/Endnotes, this is the right (and intended) place to push for action, surely? It was May when I first joined in: around the same time we were assured "Serif are currently in the process of implementing this. It needs to be done carefully, not just thrown in, and we do always have the issue of programming resources." Seven months is quite a long wait. My immediate requirement is ended, but for others it is ongoing.
And that is not to mention the question of finding a way to import PagePlus files .... And no, importing PDFs is not the answer before anyone suggests it. But this is not the place for that discussion.

Is not limited, but certainly the publishing professional industry includes books and sholarly and academic works.
If Apub is released as a professional DTP software (From Serif website: "Affinity Publisher is the next generation of professional publishing software"), it can't fail to handle functions like footnotes/endnotes.

In which parallel world do you live? These words are very similar to the denial of an obese president of a distant banana republic close to Canada who claims for months, even before the elections, to have been re-elected despite the difference of 6 million voters for his opponent and 306 electors against 232.
Publisher is very promising and has seen many new features appear since its public launch. I don't regret buying the whole suite. Nevertheless, it still shamefully lacks the indispensable and necessary functionalities for such a product. You seem to have forgotten that DTP software is intended for the printing industry. Printing is essentially books and posters (and similar). It is inadmissible that we still can't find :
the management of footnotes and similary, the management of all kinds of fonts delivered free of charge by Microsoft and Apple, the correct conversion of an Affinity file into an Adobe File which is THE software used by all printers, the opening of the necessary information to companies manufacturing extensions, the management of spaces relating to punctuation (how can you suffice it to believe that only the English typography exists and in addition only to the one you have chosen exists), the complete index management, a translation made by real professionals and not this horror, Etc. Because of your delay, I was forced, and many other buyers like me, to delay and then finally transfer projects with your software to another less exciting, Adobe, but more respectful of its clients.
Who could have imagined such blindness on your part?

I personally thought exactly the same thing - I would love to see a release where NO new features are added, but LOTS of little things are improved. Kind of a "major maintenance release". I'm guessing this would make a lot of existing customers very happy.
I still love Affinity Photo and Designer, but still can't get my head around why new features are continually added, whilst some basic glaring omissions are passed by..

Agreed. JPEG export preview is essential. At the very least, it's logical.
The cutting edge features I vaguely refer to are things like live vector brush strokes, advanced slice exporting, scalable objects, live shapes, live corners... things like this. Nice to have, good to brag about, but not essential.
The problem is this... we buy the app for these features that stand out in a comparesson chart against Illustrator, but then we find out that Designer only plays lip service to the basics. eg: Affinity's apps are part of a very small groups of designer apps that support a CMYK work flow which is essential to print designers. Working in RGB with the option to export as a CMYK PDF is not the same (see Pixelmator for this issue). However, when you actually start working in Designer, you quickly learn that while its color management/workflow is is genuine, it's not mature and robust.
Affinity apps remain on my computer more as novelties than my primary work tools because of this. I support Affinity because I'm hopeful of a future, but right now, I just can't let Adobe go.
 

I purchased Designer and Photo years ago but I just couldn't replace Illustrator & Photoshop because of a few missing features that are just workflow basics. I've moved to the Windows platform and just downloaded new trial versions of them to give them another chance, and these problems persist. Most of them relate to features that prevent the user from making critical, unprofessional mistakes like inconsistent color use across multiple documents. If you are deigning a flyer, a business card and a name badge, you can't have variations between them. These are a few [very] minor omissions that I am missing that risks me making amateurish mistakes:
- Global swatches don't carry to another document when copy-n-pasting a logo from one document to another (same as in Publisher)
- Swatches not carrying over to the new document also means that overprint setting are lost because overprint is defined in the swatch, not in the object.
- I can't tell what color mode I'm working in. If my mode is RGB for a flyer, I need something to shout out at me, or at least give me a clue that my print job is going to be disaster. A simple RGB/CMYK icon would suffice. Even Photo displays its color mode in the document's header, but Designer [where it's more important] doesn't.
- The colour picker only picks up RGB/CMYK values, not a global swatch. Even if I've pasted a logo into a new document and it's displaying a global color, the eyedropper doesn't read it as a global color so I can't even reliably copy colors from my source logo. 
- To duplicate an object by dragging it, I have to press the Alt key before I select the object, not during the drag. Most of the time, I need to be certain I have selected the correct object before I duplicate it, however, now I have to duplicate something and then find out if I selected correctly. I don't know how many times I have moved items I want to duplicate and duplicated items I didn't want to duplicate because of this. An application is not fast to work in if I'm constantly undoing my actions.
- Changing the colors of margins & guides. If I design a blue brochure, my margins and guides disappear. I need to make them red or yellow or anything. I don't expect to be able to mix my own colors, but a dozen pre-mixed swatches to choose from would solve this problem. (apart from working in wireframe mode)
- Connecting the selected transform corner in the transform palette to the free transform with the move tool. It's very strange that I can select a corner in the transform palette, but then I always rotate around the center. I have to manually type rotation values in degrees to get the rotation around a corner. Why the disconnect? This disconnect is similar to the disconnect I experience between the swatches, color mixer and eye dropper.
- Previewing at export. Even in Photo, I can't see the effect of the level of JPEG compression being applied to my exported files (neither in Designer nor Photo). I have to export a file half a dozen times until I hit upon that sweet spot of small file size to barely noticable quality loss. Even the open source GIMP does this with a live preview at export. I can do awesome professional work, and then break it all with a poor export... and not even realise it.
- Proofing colors. I really need to be able to see how my colors will separate before I save my PDF. If I've accidentally worked in RGB, this will reveal my mistake as I go to repro. Overprinting and knockout will also be a disaster if not picked up in time. (Who here hasn't experienced the dreaded white text set to overprint and wondered where all your text went?). This feature alone forces me to keep a professional, licensed copy of Adobe Acrobat around to preview color separations. In my final repro file, I have to know if my spot colors are still spots and if I'm printing fine black text as 100% black, or a full color breakdown that will turn my single color print job into a full color one. Previewing the separations (or channels in your photo editor) points out my potential errors.
- Overprinting settings. The previous point leads straight into this one. Why is over printing set in the swatch and not the object? If I want some small paragraph text to over print, but large display text to knockout, I have to make 2 identical black swatches to do this. Why can't I specify this on an object-by-object basis? I guess "Multiply" does the same thing and works as a work-around, but you're targeting print designers, and use the term overprint yourselves so why the strange and risky implementation.
- Snapping to "round" values. When manually selecting a color in CMYK, we are inevitably creating a color using round number values from a color chart. It's slow and frustrating trying to select exactly 50% in a slider as it hops from 49 to 51 and back again while we search for that perfect pixel placement. How about snapping to increments of 5% by holding down the shift key? Your snapping features are awesomely powerful, but only in the document. Why not extend this into the sliders and the rest of the application? (Admittedly, I don't know any other application that does this, but it makes sense and would be welcome.)
 
Basic features that are even in open source software seem to be missing. We waited for years to get arrow heads. You claimed it was because you wanted to get it awesome, but they are no more powerful/different to anything else out there on the market. I suspect we only got them when Publisher was released. Did we have to wait for a whole new app to be leased to get arrow heads? Now we sit with other missing basic, common features like:
- Blend/Interpolate
- Stroke drawing tools like a grid tool and a straight line tool. These are enormous time savers.
- Tabs. (I understand you want to protect Publisher by keeping high end text features like hyphenation, drop-caps and text wrap out of Designer, but this feels like a very basic feature compared to your range of kerning, alignment and Opentype features already here from day one)
 
I understand that everyone's needs are different and you can't satisfy everyone, but you are targeting print designers as well and illustrators and web designers, and  these are all features every professional expects and is surprising that they're not here. You give us features that most professionals just leave on the defaults because few of us even understand them (like color profiles and LUTs), but then drop the ball by not pasting a global swatch from one document to another.
It's confusing and just doesn't make me feel confident in the files I send to print.
Please can you look at these issues before adding new features. I understand that new features are needed to sell products, but a lot of us early adopters are just wondering where the small tweaks and refinements are.
It seems that your development team needs to consult with an old school designer or printer to get these fundamentals right. It feels like you've only got young designers who have grown up with an RGB workflow and have never had to bang out 6 flyers in an afternoon and send them to print with the job being rejected.
 
 

Hi, 
Writing any kind of text without knowing how long that actually is in a digital environment is really making my head spin.
I'm writing a thesis now and that would become really helpful, if I knew how many characters I'm at. I've written the plain text elsewhere, but since I've started formatting the thing, I'm adding and reducing stuff in Publisher - silly me thought it would be a good idea - now I'm wasting a lot of time to copy and paste.:(
Could it be added as a feature request? I haven't seen anyone replying from Serif. @MEB?
A total count would be really nice to have (sentences, words, characters with or w/o spaces), ideally I imagine a small interface with all the text styles, where you can tick a checkbox to include a certain style in the count or not (similar to the TOC interface).
 

Yeah, I know they are not replying very actively to feature requests - I've bumped @MEB just to get some reply on this thread someday in the future.
I am a happy user of Affinity Photo, but features like this make Publisher essentially unbearable to use for strict deadlines.
As Designer was essentially unusable in my workflow due to the lack of "Select Same" feature (I only tested it in the last Beta, but I don't have Designer in my workflow at all right now), Publisher is a serious headache for editing large text based documents without knowing how long that thing actually is (in total, selection or paragraph or section-wise) - not to mention doing something remotely scientific, as stating your sources in an ordered fashion, a.k.a. footnotes or endnotes. I guess I'm just a minority who really needs a few of the most requested features based on user reply - I guess knowing how long a document is can wait a few years down the road.
Yes, I know that Affinity Publisher is a new product (which I like for casual use - like a few pages of marketing brochures or my portfolio), and they cannot respond on developed features due to company policies and blah blah blah...
(Going to get 2 months of ID sub due to these, ffs really)