Jump to content

Cineman

Members
  • Content count

    62
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cineman

  1. This is one of the few areas in creative design that are best served by learning from books, IMO, more so than other types of apps like video editors, audio, 3D, animation, etc. Often the book itself will have interesting layout features that demonstrate the concepts being shown. Which books you need depend on what you're doing. I would go to Amazon and type a few simple searches like "page layout and design books" "logo design books" etc. Seek out the ones with the highest number of verified, non-one-line reviews. You should find some good stuff.
  2. This is not an area where Affinity should try to break new ground / fix what isn't broken. Master pages should work like this: 1. When you create a new master page it isn't based on anything other than a blank page that matches the current document settings. Currently it seems any new master is built on the active non-master page. If someone wants to derive a master from a non-master page they should simply generate the empty master then copy all the objects from the other page, and paste them into the master. 2. You should be able to specify newly created pages ineherit their look and structure: from the active master page; from the last master used; from the document settings only (i.e. blank page that follows margins, color settings, etc). These could be a global setting from the panel fly-out menu, and/or per document settings. I would default to last master used and if none was used, then the standard document setings. 3. Changing anything on a non-master page, which was originally generated from a master... should NOT change the master page or any other pages that use the master. 4. Changing a master page after non-masters have been generated from same, should change ALL of said generated pages. Basically any page created from a master should be considered a one-off, moldable "instance" of that page, affecting no others unless that's explicitly set somewhere. The whole point of master pages is to control the look of all the pages generated from it, not the other way around or some permutation where you can change all master-drive pages from any other master-driven page.
  3. Yes. Create a new master page (it will take its initial settings from the active page so make sure it's blank — sort of a weird setup IMO), then draw out a text box on the master and in the options bar, set the number of columns you want and customize. Now any page you create from the master should have that columnar setup. What I can't seem to find is the gutter controls. They're not available in the places you'd expect to find them like context menus or Text menu, AFAICT.
  4. 1. Field where we can add the number of pages. This should be grouped with the Facing Pages controls. 2. Bleed settings. I know we can get at them through the Document Setup feature after the document is created but why not give people the option to set them from the first step? If you have to add a tab to the New Document dialog to include Bleeds that would be OK by me, you could actually make it the "Margins and Bleeds" tab and group those sets of functions together. That would be a logical ordering and make the vertical height of the dialog smaller too. Either way, it needs to be there somewhere. That said, thank you for adding the Margin sync lock; I believe that was missing in the first beta.
  5. As a former photo editor I'm going to suggest you pull back the green saturation on those leaves unless it's some kind of color matching issue? First example looks normal / believable. Second example looks like a leprechaun relieved himself on the leaves in the foreground and far background. Or possibly they were fertilized with plutonium? <g>
  6. Everyone feel free to post your own ideas here. Good place for a catch-all thread. Here's one I was reminded of today: when it comes to editing objects set inside of table cells InDesign SUCKS. Example: If I have two columns that are 20 rows tall, each cell housing a color-coded vector object that has the same shape and scale as every other object in the other 39 cells... can I quickly click-drag (with modifier key or not) those two columns and select 40 items if I want ot change their scale or color or position all at once? No. If I select a column? No. If I select a row? No. Can I shift-selection two items in the same row but different columns? No. I literally have to make 40 individual selections and make those changes 40 effing times because InDesign's flaw was never fixed to allow rapid object updating inside of tables. And anchored or unachored shouldn't matter. Now imagine it's not two columns but 50 spread across 25 pages. What takes me 3 hours should be doable in 3 minutes! I have searched everywhere for workarounds to this but the frustation is common. There is no workaround. I haven't tried this in Publisher but for the love of the old Gods and the new, Affinity, DO NOT follow this example! I will literally never use anything other than small 5x5 type tables in InDesign again. Their workflow and refusal to fix this limitation is inexcusable in 2018. There should always be an easy way to (at a minimum) shift-click a bunch of objects in individual cells to make the change one time. Ideally you could also select entire columns or rows worth of objects.
  7. Found it. Man that is really easy to miss / not obvious enough. They need to brighten that field outline or something. Or do what most devs do: make room at the top of the panel for it. I think that's where most people look first. I do, anyway. That matters less than making it easier to see though. Right now its boundaries are way too subtle / blend in too much.
  8. Libre Office works pretty well. Google Docs can be OK too as long as you're not talking about long-form documents. As for Microsoft, at least on the Mac side, it seems with each new version their installers become more and more complex and less reliable. And often the initial releases are buggy as sin, despite MS having years between versions to test and stabilize things. I understand sometimes it's unavoidable (we're moving to 365 where I work) but I encourage anyone who can get away from MS office to do so.
  9. Agreed. This is a "don't fix what isn't broken" area. To the extent they legally can, they should mimic the different panel types and behaviors in InDesign, when it comes to working with Pantone swatches and the like. Not talking about the Cloud stuff, just the basic panel types (one for books, one for the custom set you're using in the current document, etc). Also would be nice if in the book panel or wherever we have to choose from, a text search field that auto-completes so we can just type in the number of the swatch instead of scrolling and scanning.
  10. Agree with Sandra's option 2. Flexible text selection is a big efficiency thing with layout apps.
  11. InDesign isn't any less confusing, it just confuses in a different way. It's "global" in what it tracks but then doesn't present a UI that is consistent with a global layer list. By default, if you set up a new document and begin adding dozens of objects to the document (regardless of which page), and then go back later you will see the entire document has 1 layer. In effect, instead of giving each new object you place onto or drag across the canvas its own layer ID, it makes them all sub-layers of the default — Layer 1. You have to explicily go into the Layers panel and create a new layer and then with that active the next object you add (and the next) goes into that layer. But then the same thing continues to happen. If you don't add new layers, every page will list Page "X, 2 Layers" (in this example), regardless of what is placed on any given page. It you explicitly set up 1 layer at the start of each new page, and then jump around, the layers panel will show you only the contents of the active page's layers, but also show all the other layers as empty even when they're not (which is a little weird / not a good UI practice IMO). In terms of visual layer management, at the panel level I prefer Affinity's method because it's more intuitive in the sense that it doesn't show me all the other layers that are not applicable to the active page. The only thing that might be nice is a search field, but that requires you to name each layer in a memorable way as you go along. But yeah. I don't think InDesign's layer implementation is anything special. Kind of reminds me of Illustrator's layers which I find to be overly complicated and counterintuitive, depending on what you're trying to do. Spoiled by years of using Photoshop's layers I guess.
  12. Disclaimer: it is possible Affinity set this function up to work differently than any other page break function I've used, so someone correct me if I'm missing something. Expected: you create a page with one or more columns of text, you insert the cursor where you want the page break to occur, you choose Text > Insert > Page Break, and the result is a new page that starts with the text that appeared after the insertion point. What actually happens: you follow the above steps but get what appears to be a line break or maybe a section break instead. No new page is created and none of the text after the cursor is moved down to the new page. That said there are a lot of break functionalities in this menu so possibly the intent or required setup is different. I tried creating a second page first and then doing a page break but even there the text after the insertion point did not move down to the new page. I've tried some of the other break types and the thing they all have in common is there doesn't seem to be any visual indicator for what has happened other than the text moving down a few spaces.
  13. I saw something similar to this when I was trying to delete a text frame that had multiple columns in it. Not sure what caused it but if I just make a new frame and add type and hit delete, it does delete the most recent character. At the same time the actual frame disappears and then reappears a second later so they've got some screen refresh bugs to work out. That might be part of what's happening here.
  14. When those controls appear in the wrong place, do they remain there even after you close the panel? If so this is not specific to the TOC and is a known UI problem that has been reported several times. They're working on a fix AFAIK.
  15. Standard bleed settings and sync lock need to be added to the new document dialog, along with sync lock for margins and number of pages.
  16. The easiest way I've found (which is a nice surprise because it saves clicks vs. InDesign) is once you drag a text frame onto the document, the "Options Bar" (I forget what Affinity calls it) displays a "Columns" control. Piece of cake. Place cursor in one of the gutters to scale one column width relative to the neighboring one. Unfortunately don't see a gutter width control in the Options Bar but I'm sure there is one somewhere. Right-clicking inside the gutter didn't reveal any context menu.
  17. Agree. Would use this with about 25% of the documents I generate.
  18. Haha. Sorry if my metric advocations derailed a bit, not my intention. With resect to your table, we talking French picas, American picas, or PostScript picas? Kidding. To clarify my earlier point, the anology I was trying to make was about legacy standards more or less and adoption of same (or lack thereof in some "civilized" parts of the world). Picas are to Points as Imperial are to Metric (more or less). But I get there is a simple relationship between picas and points WRT to character size and how many across on a page, etc. Again I have no object to Affinity adding picas. My comments were more an aside in terms being surprised some of these standards remain so well ingrained.
  19. Plenty of professionals will count on the inclusion of a Word import feature from Day 1 as well. It's a core requirement of any page layout application as the vast majority of the business world and other sectors generate their copy in Word. This feature needs to be in the first release or many people who might otherwise adopter sooner, will wait and adopt later. Of all the basic features not yet fully finished or included, I'd probably put this at the top of the list, then for next release INDD / IDML files should be at the top of the list (unless driving adoption by InDesign users is not a goal, which it may not be for the first cycle or two).
  20. Yeah for sure it's not there yet / not ready for an initial release. Too many nuts-and-bolts features missing for production work, but it's reasonably close and for some things it's already better than InDesign.
  21. I think what the original complaint video shows — aside from the original plaintiff being short-sighted and impatient — is that with professional design apps there is often "more than one way to skin a cat." People develop habits over a long period of time to achieve some specific output in an app, and when a new app comes along and does it a different way, the people looking for something new say that the new app is doing it the wrong way. We all have to be careful about this, making sure our feature requests don't amount to "this is wrong because it's not the way InDesign does it." There are some things missing which are obvious and need to work like InDesign and other apps — like standard bleed controls and previews, sync locks for margin and bleed settings dialogs, and number of pages when setting up a new document — that need to be added before this is ready for prime time. Other things are less obvious. Example: Initially I find the Page Break controls behave differently than expected and more complicated than they need to be. But after some discussion and additional tests I can at least see why it might've been done differently. So now I take the position that while it could be made simpler — my opinion hasn't changed there — the solution might not be "make it work like this other apps," but "give us a preference for the default behavior to work like the other apps." Bottom line for InDesign and Quark users, it's reasonable to expect that certain kinds of standarized features and commands will look and behave similar in Publisher, but it's less reasonable to think that multi-step workflows will look alike (or should look alike). InDesign is a good application overall and superior to Quark IMO, but it has grown some warts and the idea of a new app is to find the weak areas where Adobe has failed to innovate or to make things simple enough (or stable enough or fast enough), and do better. Perfect example: even though the UI is divided up in strange ways (IMO), look at the power of the text wrap (outline) controls in Publisher compared to InDesign. That's the kind of stuff we're looking for IMO. What Adobe has done well (and which is not patented or otherwise legally prohibited from being copied), Affinity should follow that lead — don't fix what isn't broken. And what Adobe doesn't do as well, or for things that have no well-agreed-upon workflow (like the one the original video complained about), Affinity should do something new if they think their way is faster or more intuitive. We should all expect to unlearn some habits; that's unavoidable. Where we should focus is things we know work well and with minimal clicks in other apps, that are less efficient or produce a worse result in Publisher. IMHO. I don't think the example in the original video qualifies. (One other thing the impatient guy didn't bother to check was whether "the missing shortcut" could be easily assigned in Publisher preferences. It can. AFAICT every command in every menu can be assigned a custom shortcut and saved collectively as a keyboard preset.)
  22. Could be real, an outtake from Roman Holiday. Probably unhappy with the director. Classic movie moments FTW.
  23. I don't know about the thread but I agree with your suggestion. Also your avatar is pretty funny. Is that Audrey? lol Additionally, this is another dialog that needs a sync lock. Technically any dialog box with margins or bleeds needs it. Doesn't apply to your example but anytime you want the margin to be the same all the way around, much easier to just enter the number once and be done.
  24. Much of the time I would not use any type of break, instead just waiting till the frame fills up, create a new page then click the connect widget and draw out a new frame on the next page based on where the images will be, etc. That's neither here nor there though. The crux is how people expect a Page Break function to behave (in the traditional sense). IOW, if I go to use it, what do I expect happens when I select that command? That's where things get a little askew with this implementation but like I said probably solvable with a preference that gives the option of changing the default behavior.
  25. OK I think I follow. I can see how that would be useful. Maybe what they can do is set this up as a preference. Default behavior = what it is now if that's what most people want, option to set it to "Immeditely set up new page and flow text into it" as the default.
×