robinp

I actually think this raises an interesting point. There seems to be a desire by Serif to dictate the way people work by shunning conventions and variations on tools or safeguards against certain user behaviours (refer to debates on Linking vs Embedding in Publisher). I imagine when you're developing an app it is easy to find yourself in a bubble and a 'my way or the highway' approach seems reasonable. Using a computer is like learning a language. Certain keys do certain things and certain tools do certain things. If every app took this approach of shunning conventions we'd never know what does what. Imagine arbitrarily deciding that instead of CMD+C for Copy that it was Option+K. It would drive everyone nuts and you'd never do it. I'm going to leave it here, but please have a bit more awareness for those of us that have to use 10+ apps to get our job done. Conventions are there because they make life easier. Each time one is broken you have to remember each time you jump from one app to another. It is really irritating and each time it happens it gives a bad impression of the app that has broken the convention. We do not all exist in a bubble where we only use Affinity apps.

That would be fine by me. Every... bloody... time I use Affinity apps I find the Option arrangement irksome. And I use them most days.

One tool being very very slightly better vs breaking a rock solid convention. I use the pen tool maybe 10% of the sessions when I'm working in these apps so maybe I'm unusual. I generally do photo / image adjustments in Photo and Publisher layouts. I'll use designer when (if ever) it has the select by colour / stroke etc feature. So maybe my priorities are biased, but it would seem much better to forgo a very slight improvement on one tool for usability across all apps by conforming to a standard.

No, I did. And I while I think considering which fingers are usable etc is good, I think it is mostly an over elaborate thought process that has resulted in the most basic thing being sidelined. Even with your explanation, you've stated that the index finger and thumb are both good at independent actions, so even if someone were to have fingers ready to go hovering over each button, the difference in usability is tiny between CMD and Option. Compared to going contrary to probably the most consistently followed drag modifier action there is.

As I mentioned earlier, historically Option provided a variation or alternative feature of the current tool. Hence copying while dragging rather than simply moving. Different objects and tools would have different alternative behaviours. I really don't see how or why this is so difficult to understand. I'm basically saying that you take the current behaviours of Option and CMD and swap them. You might also stop CMD from copying so that a single key does drag-copy.

I agree, the to a certain extent the horse has already bolted. All that muscle memory that would need reprogramming. The best solution I can think of now would be to be able to set them up as you want in preferences.

No, I'm not saying that Option can't do other things as well. I'm saying that it shouldn't be compromised when using it for drag copy like it is now. Obviously, there are potential scenarios where you want to control snapping at the same time as drag copy, so being able to control snapping independently makes sense.

Yes you did explain a linear thought process that started with one tool in one app. And as a result you've borked the whole suite. You haven't explained why Option / Alt couldn't do the same job on the pen tool which would free up CMD for the snapping control. That would then allow Option to remain as it always is on basically every other app and be copy.

Or perhaps the decision making was illogical / flawed? It certainly seems that way.

Yes, but you said 'always' in the context of comparing with Option for copy. As in you were implying that Shift is always a standard where as Option is less so. To which I disagree and provided examples. Rhino and Microstation are definitely creative apps. Option always copies in Adobe apps. It seems a bit of a muddled logic here.

Yes, and I'm saying it doesn't make sense.

I see. Now I understand. I guess it comes back to Windows having 1 less modifier key.

Yeah, to me that's the difference between 'save as' and 'export'. You expect export to lose functionality but hopefully retain all the data. Save as would imply you could open it up and start working on it again as you were before.

Sure, OK, I guess Rhino and Microstation have a different model of interaction where you click to select and move is an explicit command. My point still stands though, that Shift is not 'always' controlling constraints. However, it still doesn't make sense to me why CMD wasn't given the snap control and Option/Alt left alone as a copy modifier.

I'm aware of that, I was just trying to make sense of @Mithferion's point

But if you're dragging an object around you aren't using the Pen tool and vice versa. Why not use Option for this? The history of the Option key is that it provides alternative functionality within a given tool, hence the name of Option or Alt. To me, it is less fixed than Option is for copy. Look at Rhino, they use tab to toggle this. Microstation uses return to toggle constraints. So actually, in the apps that I (and many others) use, the majority of the creative time I spend in apps is using other keys for this. Personally, I actually really like the rhino solution of using tab and that it toggles on and off rather than having to hold the key down.

Reading between the lines here, I take it that the behaviour was settled upon because of standardisation with Windows? If so, I'm sorry but that's really dumb. People tend to use either Mac or Windows. It is much more important that the app is consistent with other apps on a given platform.

@Ben I must admit I'm not familiar with the nitty gritty of apples HIG but is it not as much about convention? When we press the keyboard key with an 'A' you expect to get an 'A' or 'a'. When basically every app does something a certain way it is jarring to go contrary to it. I've just gone through every app I have in my dock. Apart from apps like Toggl, address book, sonos and WhatsApp, they all conform to the standard behaviour for option. Maybe you can explain it, but what I don't understand is why the disable snapping behaviour was not given to CMD which typically does not have a modifier function when dragging, rather than making them both kind of do the something similar in terms of copying, but awkwardly doubling up the disable snaps with Option. I'm sure there must be a really watertight logic as to why this confusing outcome was arrived at?

+1 for this and for import as well. Ideally DWG too.

There must be a vaguely pyramidal distribution of people with those who don't ever need apps like this at the bottom (the widest part of the pyramid) to those specialists who use them all the time. Somewhere in the middle, there is a large chunk of people that need these apps some of the time. Because they dip in and out, they aren't going to remember all the complex menu options or key-combos. Which brings us back squarely to the topic. Ghosted originals would be great for those who dip in and out. Complex key combos / modifiers, especially non-standard ones (looking at you CMD for copy) are not.

Thank you, but just in the interests of balance, I'm sure you don't know whether I am a man or woman. And I'm happy with that ambiguity . Let's stick to gender neutrality unless it's absolutely necessary or relevant

I suppose what I'm actually arguing is almost the opposite. That those who are creating content in Adobe or Affinity apps 90% of the time will have access to both and can pick and choose based on the task and time pressures. Those of us that have ditched Adobe (yay), now have no choice and are all in. When an Affinity app doesn't have a feature (select by...) or is clunky (this ghosted / snapping issue) we just lose out because we have no alternative. I'd argue that many of those who have gone all in with Affinity apps are probably using them as part of a wide range of diverse tools (ie not just Adobe). My hunch is that very few use them 90% of their time and don't also have Adobe CC also as a fall back. As such, I'd suggest that Serif should be focussing on the markets where people use their tools as part of a wider and more complex workflow. After all, a licence sold is a license sold. They don't make more money from someone using the products all the time vs someone dipping in and out. The market for those dipping in and out must be massive compared to full time graphic and designers / artists. I don't know what the numbers are for graphic designers in the UK, but I know there are over 30,000 registered architects. Plus many many thousands of people doing the job of an architect who are not registered. Probably similar with engineers of various sorts. Surely a very large number of product and industrial designers too. All of these are in creative industries that likely spend most of their time doing other things but would happily consider £120 or whatever it is for the suite but would NEVER have considered £50 per month. My point is that the market of part-time users is potentially massive and that's just in a couple of sectors in one country.

@JGD Sorry, I was referring to people who use Adobe or Affinity or whatever apps 90% of the time. I spend a lot of my time emailing, doing CAD, 3D modelling etc. What I mean is that someone whose primary job is using creative apps such as Adobe or Affinity are likely to still have a Creative Cloud subscription. Those like me, who use these types of apps only say 10% of the time always struggled to justify the Creative Cloud rip off. We've embraced Affinity with enthusiasm. It always felt like Adobe were profiteering from large sectors who didn't need their apps for core business functions but they were essential for some tasks. Affinity is the big hope and is WAY WAY better than any other attempt at competing with Adobe in recent years. BUT, those of us that have ditched Adobe have no fall back. Ie, now fully reliant on Serif and their Affinity apps.

Probably the point I missed in my post previously was that with people using these apps 90% of the time still having Adobe is that they have access to the tools to do things the way they are familiar with or that are simply impossible with Affinity currently. In contrast, those of us that have ditched Adobe are 'all in' with Affinity. It adds to the pressure and urgency of delivering some essential features because we simply don't have the luxury of Adobe ready to fire up to do things that the Affinity apps cannot do currently.

Totally agree. And this approach should be taken in all possible scenarios where such a choice exists. Go for simple and quick solutions and fill out with the better one long term. Much like the select by stroke / colour / style request. Do the simple and easy to implement and do it ASAP. In some scenarios the more complex solution may completely supersede the quick and simple one, other times, like with this grid idea, keeping both would have merit. (re the above, I'm referring to complex vs simple in terms of how difficult they are to implement rather than the user experience)