robinp

Imagine having an organisation of 1000 people. Likely working in teams, therefore needing linking rather than embedding. It would only take one person to accidentally embed rather than link and it will create an IT query: “why aren’t my images updating”. Imagine trying to make sure 1000 people continue to use the app properly (for the organisation) when it’s default is the wrong setting. It would be a nightmare. Happy for the setting to be sticky, but the default has to be linking.

As far as I’m concerned it is THE most important feature of DTP. It has been an option to embed images in other apps. I see no reason why it shouldn’t remain as an option. The starting point really has to be linked. I have no problem with embedding being an option. I have a massive problem with it being the default. Imagine a company of 50 or 100 or 1000 people who may all use publisher. They are working across a large network. Perhaps in different offices. You need the default behaviour to be linking in such an environment. You need it to be foolproof so that one user doesn’t start accidentally embedding instead of linking. I’m not sure why you consider linking to be complicated. It is a simple concept. DTP is not simple like sending an email, there are lots of complex aspects to it. Many of which I expect I will not ever understand. Linking isn’t one of them.

Yes. Agreed. I would argue that most people who want embedded artwork would probably be better off using pages. Not everyone, but most.

I think it is important that Publisher works in a similar way to other DTP apps in these fundamental concepts. Linking is probably the major reason many people use DTP apps over other solutions. It allows for many things, some are - Team working. People can be working on artwork while others work on the layout. Embedded files fundamentally do not allow this. - File sizes stay low. Very important on large, image heavy documents. - Linked to above, it allows for files to be opened and saved quickly with each save / version not taking up loads of space on a back up - Easy replacement of artwork. Not only can artwork be updated on the fly (by others) you can easily have placeholder artwork which then you just overwrite with final files when they are complete. This allows for a document to be storyboarded early. Quite simply a DTP app that isn’t fundamentally based around linked files is not targeting professional, team based production environments. Perhaps it might work for individuals, but not teams or more complex workflows.

It turns out it was opening in a position so that it was virtually off screen. Just one tiny corner of it was visible. Seems like a bit of a bug to me?

Now going through the files in Resource Manager and correcting the files. Twice now, I have managed to correct two placed / linked images. The third caused a crash both times. Going through slowly, file by file, and saving between I have now managed to put the correct images back. I'd say this is a pretty major bug. You can't have a DTP app replacing images with different files on its own. @Chris_K

I have a file with about 8 files that were linked. I had to edit the files so then went to Resource Manager (having finally located it... see other thread) to update them. Then exported to PDF. A weird error came up and it didn't manage to overwrite the previous export. Exported again with a new file name and then noticed that all the links were replaced with the same file. I'm not sure when this happened, but I assume it was part of the process of updating the links. When I updated the links, I selected all the ones showing as 'modified' and clicked 'update'. Unfortunately, I now need to go through re-Placing the files.

Similar but more serious problem. I cannot open Resource manager anymore. I select it from the Document menu. Focus shifts away from the main window but nothing then appears. If I check the Window menu, it lists the main document window and the resource manager. There is nothing I can do to find the resource manager. With reference to the original post here, I haven't been able to minimise the Resource Manager because it has never appeared. One thing that did occur, when placing an image immediately on opening this new beta, Publisher offered a new option to Link the file instead of Embed it. This is definitely good and progress in the right direction but I wonder if this is the cause of the problem in some way?

When it happened with me I was placing / working with a placed Designer file.

I'd just like to add another point to this. I have a document that has a large PDF document placed multiple times (different pages). The placed PDF is around 100MB. My Publisher file is now over 600MB and is taking over a minute to open [still waiting for it to open and I am at 5 minutes and counting]. This is nuts and this embedding method really is not a sustainable long term solution. I really think linking should be the default and embedding should be the exception. @Chris_K

Slight oversight, decimal places are needed. Updated version attached. @SillyWalk @mac_heibu calculating columns.numbers

I have found that it is impossible to apply a master to just a single page of a two page spread. Whichever way I have tried, Publisher applies the master to both pages. I have tried: Dragging and dropping (my preferred method) Right clicking on the page and choosing 'apply master' and choosing to apply the master to just the single page Are there other ways that I haven't tried? Is there a work around to this?

It’s the first beta. Are you kidding?

I think you’re taking my comment as being against criticism. It is not. That is entirely the point about a beta. We have to provide feedback. I was referring to the parts of your post which sounded like there was little hope or that the problems you’re expeirencing are by design. I think it is too early to reach those kinds of (negative) conclusions.

@MikeW Personally I think it is too early to be this negative about it. It is the first beta. I expect a lot will change before it is released. there are some things that it does which are light years ahead of InDesign. Things like the speed of scrolling at full ‘preview’ resolution ability to easily select individual pages of a placed PDF after being placed. Im sure there are other positives, as well as many negatives. Just saying let’s not write it off yet based on a first Beta.

If that is the trade off, I’d take it all day long. Honestly don’t give a toss about the traffic light controls in this context.

I agree 100%. I can’t see why a studio panel couldn’t be separated from the Studio panels as a separate floating window just as the other panels can be. I’d be happy if it had a more condensed layout too so that when you end up with hundreds of links it keeps the window size down and reduces scrolling.

See here too

See here too

I wouldn’t say it is clueless. People are testing Publisher to see (and hope) if it will work for them. Most are presumably currently using InDesign. Therefore, pointing out areas where ID does things better is very helpful feedback for the team making Publisher. Some features will be considered essential by some and not important by others. I think we all want Publisher to a) be as good as possible and b) be a success. Otherwise why are we here?

My reading of it is that @Barry_Edmiston has understood, he just disagrees with it being an important workflow regarding 'editing the original image'. He is saying that in the indesign workflow, this is exactly what happens. As for our workflow, there is almost never a reason we would want a version of an image to be unique to what is embedded within Publisher. Invariably you want to be able to reuse images in many different documents, perhaps many different Publisher files. You therefore need the original file to also be the one that is updated. Very occasionally you might want to do a mark up of an image specifically for a document. In that case, I can imagine embedding the image out of choice so that the marked up version only exists in the Publisher document, but this should be a positive choice to do it that way, not to default to being embedded.

I don't think it's possible currently. At least, I couldn't find a way.

I have shared a spreadsheet to calculate column widths:

I have shared the spreadsheet calculator here

What someone from Affinity has confirmed in another thread is that a preference for embedding vs linked will be set per document with the ability to override for individual items. To me this sounds perfect as long as the linked files don't result in these crazy file sizes. ps, I should have said, it wasn't 'clear to me' rather than 'it wasn't clear'. Sorry.