Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JGD

  1. Ohh, I see… I had a suspicion I was doing something wrong. Thank you for pointing that out!
  2. (By the way, Apple seems to be lagging a bit behind itself with their own FCPX update, and it will take 10 years for most browsers to support those formats, so… do take your time. But I’d love to try them out on a proper DTP package sooner rather than later, if you know what I mean )
  3. Hi MEB, Cool! Weirdly, a search on the forums for “HEIF” didn’t produce any results… And I don’t lurk much on the iPad forums, seeing that I only own a 3G/Retina. Thanks for the heads up!
  4. Well, we'll have to agree on disagreeing. That would only make sense if the modifiers affected the action after the click, such as, say, the Alt-to-duplicate mid-drag operations on the Finder. In this particular scenario, pressing Alt does indeed switch to a different mode temporarily, and even though it sticks if you click and drag around for a brush selection, you absolutely must press Alt before clicking. Functionally, it works, yes, but the UX is *broken* because the UI does not fully reflect said changes as they are happening (and, no, as I said on another post, a tooltip is not enough to make it feel right *as you are using it*. Just because you, as a professional user, may get used to that, it doesn't make it any less broken). The right way would to give feedback be: press Alt, and the appropriate tab in each tool is highlighted; if you let go before clicking, it will revert to its default state, if you click and let go of Alt, it will still reflect their temporary state until you let go of the mouse/trackpad button, and if you don't let go of Alt, it will stay put until you do. Is this that hard to grasp and implement? It seems like a no-brainer, IMHO. Photoshop does this almost right (it isn't perfect because it only gives you the appropriate feedback after clicking, but at least it does eventually give you some UI feedback), while Affinity plainly doesn't even try to when using either the Brush Selection tool or the Refine Selection brush. This is one of those cases where Serif's attention to detail could very well allow them to, once again, one-up their competition.
  5. The title of the thread says it all: in AP, it would be nice if pressing Option toggled between one of the two additive selection brush modes (Matte or Foreground) and the subtractive mode (Background) in the Refine Selection dialog box. It's just that having to move the cursor or the pen back and forth just to change the selection mode gets rather tedious quickly and breaks the flow. Also, while on this subject, it would be nice if one could do further refinements without screwing up with other parts of the selection, but maybe it's just my workflow that isn't properly set up. Please bear with me, as I started transitioning to Affinity Photo in a production environment only very recently, and for now only when the tools I need are superior enough (the Refine Selection brush being one of them). IMHO, the greatest thing ever would be being able to just use the refine selection brush and the refine selection parameters independently of one another (or being able to undo them in separate steps in History), in order to achieve the most perfect selection possible. If only there was a way to use the brush without applying any effects, or certain effect slider values in said dialog box that produced zero changes and allowed me to refine the selection in many independent passes and apply said effects only when I was completely satisfied with it, I'd be a happy[ier] camper. That being said, the tool as it stands made one heck of a difference in a self-initiated emergency change, on a crazy-ass deadline (I could never have finished that in time using Ps, that's for sure), I made for a big project I just finished last month; I basically treated a landscape shot, which was used as the main theme on all media for an arts festival, in order to change the orange-y colour of the background clouds to a more neutral blue-gray independently of some trees in the foreground, because our country's forests had just started burning earlier that day – and have been burning almost continuously for a while now –, as leaving it untreated could mess with some people's sensitivities because it looked waaay too much like the photos and videos of said deadly fires circulating on the media. The only reason I didn't send this photo to you for your recent call for professional work done with AP was the fact that I do not own the rights to the original, and even though the author retroactively authorised the modifications I did to it after I explained him my reasoning behind them (I mean, given how serious the situation was, how could he not?), he didn't seem all too happy about the whole thing at first (especially considering that I did that on a rush, the night before sending that job to the print house, without consulting him first – I obviously negotiated it with our mutual client, which can ultimately propose and decide that kind of stuff at its sole discretion, but still), so I didn't even consider asking him for permission to share it with you. But anyway, I digress; Affinity Photo and my loyal Bamboo tablet saved the day and made doing this on a single all-nighter possible. Just to think that I could have saved some 10+ hours of work in a similar trees-vs-background selection task I did back in 2013, for the very same client, if only this app was available back then makes me value it even more because I now know how much more time I'll be able to save in the future… But I also know for a fact and from experience that I could save even more time if you implement that toggle shortcut.
  6. Well, I'm running the Mac version, and I just checked on that. My bad, it really does, and thanks for pointing that out! I guess I was just distracted, maybe because of all the pressure I was under while doing that job. However, I still stand by the suggestions I made on this and the other thread. Though the “cheat-sheet” is indeed there on the status bar, I still think that the selection mode separator should reflect which modifier is pressed. And some sort of iconography next to the brush cursor outline would be a nice plus, too.
  7. Well, what do you know, @toltec, you are absolutely right! Thank you for your feedback! But now comes the hard part for Serif devs, who are never exempt from my cutting criticism. The feature is there, sure, but the UX is just disastrous (and that's why I was a bit skeptical at first about your reply, sorry ). It is not in the least bit discoverable, as the toggle *is not visible* to the user. It just magically happens behind the scenes with zero visual feedback. If the team had implemented that small but crucial detail, I would have found out immediately that pressing Alt was doing what I expected and this whole post would be moot. So, I'll either change the title of this request accordingly or, if that isn't possible, create a new one. [Edit: I went for the latter option; you can follow the new topic here: Make Refine Selection modifier-activated toggles visible to the user ]
  8. Oh really…? Well, the last option seems to be just what I was looking for. Let me just check on it…
  9. I have to add something else: I know Affinity is being heavily sold towards UI designers and digital illustrators, so having digital screen presets makes sense, but it is also a print-geared app… It would be nice to also have print-sized presets (DIN A-series formats, US formats, offset formats – 50x70 cm, 70x100 cm –, etc…) and maybe have Affinity only show the appropriate formats depending on colour mode/document preset (as in “Print/Print (Press-Ready)” vs. “Photo/Web/Devices” and/or RGB vs. CMYK). If a user is working in a mixed media project demo for a client (such as a corporate identity that includes both printed stationery and UI mock-ups), switching between presets would be a minor inconvenience, but the net gain for most users when working in most projects (in which the print-bound and screen-bound artboards would probably be segregated anyway so as to allow the assignment of the proper colour modes and profiles for each use case) would be great.
  10. Hi guys! I just detected a general bug in Facebook Messenger, while opened in Safari, but in the process of trying to troubleshoot it I also found that Affinity Photo is also affected in other browsers. So here goes: When using Facebook Messenger under Safari 10.0.3 running on macOS Sierra 10.12.3, pasting content copied from Adobe Photoshop CC 2017, Affinity Photo 1.5, Preview or even the integrated screenshot engine (by using the Cmd+Ctrl+Shift+4 keyboard shortcut) into the input fields on either the Facebook Messenger page or the chat windows on the main page is impossible; the “Edit” menu will flash, as usual, but nothing happens. However, when performing the same task on Google Chrome 50.0.2924.87, also on macOS Sierra 10.12.3, it works for all the aforementioned applications/sources except for Affinity Photo, so I initially thought the issue might lie either with Facebook Messenger's website code or Safari's application code, and that Serif's software wasn't also supported in Chrome for being too recent or something. I also realised when using this very input field, under Safari, that I could paste content copied from all the aforementioned sources (including, yes, Affinity Photo), but not under Chrome, so I am now convinced that the issue lies specifically with Facebook Messenger's website code AND Chrome's application code. So I've found two different bugs/insufficiencies in one go. I obviously gave feedback both to Facebook and Apple before (and will do so to Google shortly), but I believe Serif developers should contact the Facebook and Google Chrome teams directly, as Messenger doesn't seem to play nice at all both Safari and Affinity Photo, and Chrome doesn't seem to be very compatible with Affinity Photo either.
  11. I thought I should chime in again, too. Definitely either giving more refined options for parsing delimiters and separators or allowing the user to at least specify which assumptions Affinity apps should make (and, if possible, automatically honouring the macOS' regional settings) would still be the best course of action. Also, think of it this way: besides the main user's muscle memory, most of the time that we will be copying and pasting values gathered from outside of the app those will, yes, either come from people from our own country, or from the macOS calculator app / Spotlight calculator results generated on our very own computers (yes, I am aware that Affinity apps allow, like Adobe apps, simple operations, but sometimes we need to calculate proportions with the rule of three, square roots, golden section, etc., or may just wish to perform and keep track of our calculations elsewhere – personally, I use plaintext files in TextEdit), which also honour said regional settings. It's people on fringe/niche cases, like designers working abroad or with people from multiple countries that have to adapt and manually swap decimal separators and delimiters (or just remove the latter and have Affinity convert them to the appropriate, customised setting), and not us boring folks who don't collaborate that much with foreign colleagues (I actually have foreign clients, interestingly, but my cooperation with them doesn't go into that level of detail). ;)
  12. Ah, yes. As I said, I'm fully aware of the limitations such a developer blog would present. But I was speaking purely from a developer-customer relationship standpoint, which already seems to be very peculiar in Serif's case. If you think of it, at least that option would give the eager potential users a sense for the scale of the project, and… dare I say it, of its actual progress, even with the expected setbacks and all. It would be kind of like watching a progress bar in a torrent download, with its variable DL speeds (and the sometimes bizarre ETAs they generate) and the occasional scrapped packet because of data corruption which does, indeed, make it actually go backwards. A moving, unpredictable goal, yes, but a hypnotizing one nonetheless. ;)
  13. R C-R, I totally understand your point. In that sense, software development is not at all unlike, say, typesetting itself; in a less dramatic sense, little, apparently innocent and unavoidable changes may cascade through a supposedly "finished" or at least stable project, and force one to rethink and redo it entirely and on the fly, multiple times even and to the very last moment before sending it to the printer… We've all been or will be there at some point in our professional lives, am I right? ;) To be fair, *a lot* of APub is already done in the form of an excellent rendering engine already found in AD, but APub will probably be, to put it into very simplistic terms, AD on very strong steroids, with more advanced typesetting tools (not as advanced as Adobe's Multiline Composer, though, the devs said as much before, but I'm hopeful they will make it a top priority after the first release and get it ready for v2) including high-quality and an easily customizable and manageable typographic grid system that may put Adobe's convoluted one to shame and obviate quite a lot of must-have plugins (to their respective devs and to Adobe itself, which enables that situation: I am very sorry for their future loss of business, but that kind of stuff should be built into any self-respecting professional-grade DTP package, not just available as a paid add-on, because it lets lazy and/or less qualified designers get away with equally lazy designs that don't adhere to any semblance of a grid or to good typographic practices, nor do they eschew those visibly and intently like Carson and Brody did – thus residing on that uncanny valley of mediocrity and being worse even than sometimes comparatively illiterate but masterful typographers, taught by their own masters from an early age – and, as such, disregard 500+ years of accumulated typographic history and knowledge – hence my offer, a few years ago, to work for Serif as a typography consultant; I am finishing my final dissertation about, of all themes, Modular Type Design and Typography on, of all degrees, an MFA in Contemporary Typographic and Editorial Practices this school year and intend on looking for work and move to the UK, preferably Scotland, on the next, so my offer still stands and if you ever reach a point in development where you think you may need someone with those qualifications, by all means do send me a message –, which the software itself could help to reinstate in an intuitive fashion – cross alignment of columns with differing leading values by calculating common divisors or multiple-field-grid calculators are two features which come to mind and are incredibly bothersome to replicate manually), an easier to program alternative to GREP Styles (easier as in as easy as AppleScript or Automator, maybe in addition to GREP Styles themselves for those who like that kind of thing), artboard/page management along the lines of a more conventional spread model (though I am very much yearning for Serif to surprise us with different modes – personas? document presets? – that allow us to do folded leaflets more complex than three-page fliers and multi-page accordions, that would be awesome) instead of the free-floating artboard model we have now (though a hybrid model or even a free model like that of FreeHand and, indeed, AD itself may be desirable in some projects), a strong linked document management panel, and above all an excellent master page system (are Symbol and Asset support, along with Constraints and other tools/capabilities, repurposeable for DTP? Maybe…). The common document model will take care of the rest (though I am not so sure how are you supposed to be able to open an arguably more complex APub document in AD or APh without losing some information and what for, honestly… Seamlessly editing – in-line or otherwise – linked documents and assets seems to be more useful, IMHO, since APub will be, for all intents and purposes, the “end” of the print design production line, combining elements created on the rest of the suite) and, of course, APub can have a modicum of live, non-destructive filters and effects that may even allow foregoing the other elements of the suite for lighter stuff and reusing the same assets in different documents, with different filters and effects applied in each, much like you can do in InDesign already. But I digress; even if there are twists and turns in its development, actually getting to see how the process goes (at least for non top-secret features go, because as AD and APub have shown us, some 80% of the features are obvious and very similar to those found in competing offerings) would still be better than being left completely in the dark. Heck, even Apple cuts features and re-adds them later from time to time when performing transitions on release-quality software (iWork and iPhoto/Photos for macOS come to mind, and even OS X in the early years was a prime example of that) and most users end up eating those up, so why would Affinity users be mad if Serif said “sorry, we had to redo features x and y because of conflicts and dependencies”? On final, paid-for creative software we would probably go mad about it on the forums and never buy it again, but these would be Developer Alphas, not even Betas… On that note, it's also interesting that I mentioned iWork and Photos, since it was the effort towards achieving feature-parity with iOS that motivated said feature culling in the first place, and I wonder how Serif will manage feature-parity and feature creep management when their iOS apps hit the App Store. Anyway, I, for one, wouldn't mind witnessing a convoluted development process, especially if said dev blog came with a big, fat disclaimer expressing that it would be perfectly normal and expectable. And this isn't the Apple Watch or the Apple Car we're talking about, a DTP package is a perfectly obvious, necessary and doable addition to the suite, it's not like Serif doesn't have the chops to do it or will can the project any day (otherwise it would be a company secret or a half-promised-without-a-schedule app like the DAM; they wouldn't have announced with such fanfare it in the first place, nor would they have discontinued PagePlus development altogether like they did). It may come out super late, but come out it will eventually and, if the other components of the suite are any indication, it will be worth the wait. ;)
  14. This proposition intrigues me and I must say I agree with it almost fully. Serif devs would do well by at least giving us a roadmap with the features that are already available on InDesign and Quark visible, and the rest redacted, as they are better kept as secret features until beta testers can get at them and their release schedule can beat Adobe at it's copying game (we saw them doing it with smart corners in Illustrator already, so we all know they can't be trusted and are probably running all the Public Betas at San Jose, California). Think of us, AD and APh owners (and AD+APh+APub+…A[DAM?] potential owners) and users as sort of Kickstarter backers, waiting for a still-pending (and extremely vital) part of the initial deal; that would at least keep the backers informed, happy and confident, even if we don't get to test, buy and professionally use the software in the schedule we were promised. I am well aware that a DTP app that wishes to rivalize with InDesign as well as AD and APh rivalize with their Adobe counterparts is a tall order; InDesign is, in fact, probably the tightest of them all, seing it's the most recent app of the bunch and nearly killed the incumbent Quark, and not just because the latter was developed and sold by bumbling idiots who price-gouged their user-base and consistently let them down during Apple's OS and CPU transitions, InDesign is really that good and the only part of CS/CC I'd kind of miss if I was forced to switch to, say, Quark, PagePlus running on a VM or *gasp* Scribus. But, IMHO, these odd, sparse forum posts with announcements of further delays are a bit out of character, especially when compared with the extremely fast development rate of the other components of the suite, including a Windows port that seems to be on a good track (I haven't tested it lately, but last time I checked, it was surprisingly stable even on a VM, even if a bit rough around the edges UI-wise). A good, consistent developer blog would keep people on their toes, assail their fears that Affinity Publisher might one day become the Duke Nukem 3D of DTP packages (look, I still trust you, because I know software is hard to get right and really want you to succeed, but other people may not be as forgiving or patient), and maybe even make them take the plunge and buy the other apps (you've seen a few examples here already of people who are holding off until Publisher is a tangible or at least believable product). I fully concur. Releasing half-assed products is a surefire way of alienating customers, even if the rest of one company's offerings are pristine. One rotten apple may ruin the whole bunch and break customer confidence, so to speak (just ask Samsung about their exploding Note 7s and machine washers :P ). As for said features, I already addressed that on my answer above; they really should be some kick-ass surprises, dropped on us, the media and Adobe only when the Public Beta hits the forums. As for subscription or no subscription, well… Users can either pay for CC and make a softer transition from Illustrator, Photoshop and Lightroom (yes, Lightroom… You are still working on that DAM, aren't you?) as well, running both those and Affinity apps side by side, maybe converting old stuff into Affinity formats, etc., or they can use an alternative like InDesign CS6, Quark or (in the case of Windows users) PagePlus. I might suggest, too, that you offer some deal like “buy PagePlus now, get a discounted/free license of Affinity Publisher for Windows later” (and I say APub for Windows only because I'm aware that the MAS is not as flexible when it comes to that kind of deal, but since PagePlus is available for Windows only anyway, I wouldn't be too bothered about that as a Mac user myself as it would force me to use a VM and not being able to spread my palletes on my secondary monitor, buy Parallels or VMware and a W10 licence). And, on the flipside, since CC is now a subscription, well… the cost of jumping ship is not as big as leaving a perfectly good CS6/7/8/9 license (the latter three suites do exist, they just aren't called nor licensed that way, alas) gathering dust. Just terminate your payments to Adobe and boom, you're off the subscription train for good and can then feel the utmost Schadenfreude by knowing then and there that Adobe's licensing strategy may, in fact, end up decreasing consumer lock-in and backfiring spectacularly (I hadn't thought of this angle before, but it is now making more sense than ever). ;) As for the transition, namely from InDesign to APub, and the conversion of your archives, well… aren't we lucky that InDesign is probably the only Adobe app that can also use an XML-based format? Just give us a best-in-class IDML importer and we'll be all set. Then, there's feature-parity (or its lack thereof), sure, but for more common stuff and student use APub will be a fine piece of software even if it has some limitations equivalent to those that AD and APh exhibit as of now (I am still waiting for those properly separated spot-colour-to-spot-colour and spot-color-to-0%-opacity gradients when exported to .PDF, but that is an extreme and very specific use case ;) ). Dude, are you high on something? Or, with all due respect to thirteen-year-olds, a thirteen-year-old banging frantically on a keyboard? I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but this isn't YouTube or Facebook either, so here goes nothing: first of all, Windows and macOS marketshare are heavily distorted and skewed towards the latter by dumb clients, POS machines, ATMs, etc. Interestingly, macOS *and iOS* (where Serif will also leave their mark, rest assured) marketshare among creatives is exceptionally high, I would say way above the magic marker of 50% (I studied and worked at a fine arts faculty as the Mac Room monitor – nay, it was the Communication Design laboratory, “Mac Room” was its nickname because we only had Macs there and 70%-80%-ish of my colleagues and users/clients were Mac users anyway – and I can assure you that is, indeed, the case… Also, the last last company where I worked, which only used MS Office and FileMaker Pro on the admin and account management department and could very well standardize on Macs across the board, at least had only Macs in the graphic design department – it was a publishing and events company so graphic design was of the utmost importance there – and they broke less often and less spectacularly than the PCs). So, while THE WORLD [sic, didn't your mom tell you it's rude to shout on the Internet? She should've, clearly] may “have windows”, creatives do use mostly “Macrappy”, and you are either a student who never used one and/or envies his colleagues, or a little kid with no sense of regard for personal choice nor any knowledge on both OSes' technical merits (yes, I am a staunch Mac user and evangelist, but I started out on the PC side of things and I must concur that Windows has gotten pretty decent as of late… though not enough to woo me back, and if you had at least a smidge of knowledge and respect I would just need to utter “Registry” for you to at least give us and our Macs the benefit of the doubt). Oh, and it's not like Serif isn't offering you already a Public, free, pre-release Beta of Affinity Designer *for Windows*, and you still have the gall of questioning Serif's more-than-reasonable Windows roadmap (in case you didn't know, Affinity started out as Mac-only and though Windows users could be justifiably more pissed than you, especially Plus suite users, none of them behaved as badly and childishly on the forums as you did here on this thread, not that I can recall) just because some user made the recurring and a bit unfair judgment that Windows development greatly delays Mac development… Maybe it does delay it a bit because of added complexity and cross-compatibility checks, but the costs are marginal when compared with Serif having the chance to go head-to-head with Adobe, which is Affinity's whole point. Serif is betting the whole company on it, haven't you noticed? Nope, I am betting you didn't even bother to check their website about it. Finally, I take it from your user name that you are either portuguese or brazillian; I could've written all this in our native, common language, sure, but this is an international forum and that would've been disrespectful (besides, there's already another portuguese user around and a portuguese moderator, MEB, who both write in perfect english as well). If you can't even write english properly and add something useful and constructive to the discussion (and failing to do so is, suffice to say, disrespectful itself, especially the latter), please keep it to yourself, will you? You bring shame to us all protuguese/lusophone people by showing such rude behaviour on an otherwise civilized forum. /rant
  15. Hi all. Maybe this is too much to ask at this time, and I know I've already mentioned this earlier, but I've been testing Affinity Designer periodically for proper spot colour gradient support (sometimes I miss a beta or two and I may skip the one that finally brings that feature to the table, hence my method). I cobbled up two similar files in Affinity and Illustrator, with gradients from spot colour to spot colour, spot colour to white, and spot colour to 0% opacity spot colour, and exported them to .PDF. For good measure, I also threw in a 50% opacity spot colour as a control swatch. After opening both files on Acrobat Pro and checking the Output [separation] Preview, I was a bit disheartened to see that Affinity still supports flat spot colour transparency only, whereas gradients are all converted/flattened into CMYK. For now, I can accept this omission, and the fact that it may be due to technical limitations in Affinity's engine or something, but I'm obviously expecting much more from it in the future (and that may include Affinity Photo duo/multitone support too, perhaps?), especially for colour-critical work like in logos, where tight budgets for print production more often than not call for the use of spot colours (and, yes, that also includes spot colour gradients). Though this would be fairly easy to correct (especially for simpler artwork) via a small trip through Illustrator before sending my work to the printing shop, I would really love to ditch it altogether from my workflow, and this would be yet another proverbial nail in its coffin. Can you comment on the feasibility of such a feature and maybe give us a rough ETA? Thanks guys. Once again, kudos for your great work! Pantone test.afdesign Pantone Test-AD.pdf Pantone Test-AI.pdf
  16. So, I suppose that by doing a convoluted manual plate separation (in separate files, that is), I could conceivably achieve the same two spot colour cross-gradient effect… It wouldn't be as straightforward as I would like, but it certainly beats separating those plates in black, as print shop people may get confused with spot colour reassignments; having the final artwork exported in .PDF with the proper PMS codes embedded is a way safer bet. Actually, I used that same technique when doing something similar in Corel Draw, way back in 2001, for my very first poster. Nevertheless, I expect you to get around that at least on Affinity Designer v2.x, which I will probably buy if you keep this development pace and if it becomes the industry standard I reckon it will on account of the Windows port. ;) Anyway, do you think I could overlay those two objects fading to 0%, in the same document, without having them become separated into CMYK, or is that a default PDFLib behaviour?
  17. You know what, I don't really agree with you… If you consider my earlier post, going the “as native as possible” route is the way to go to keep it simple development-wise. If devs focus mainly on features and always use the native UI toolbox offered by the target OS SDK instead of doing those crappy “UI branding” shenanigans Microsoft and Adobe enjoy so much, sure, the learning curve will be a bit steeper for OS switchers (be they temporary or permanent) but the apps will always look as native as possible, regardless of which OS you're running them in (and regardless of specific OS versions; don't forget those stupid “pseudo-native” widgets both Microsoft and Adobe – and even Apple, in the ever-egregious iTunes – also use, which stand out against more recent or even older versions of the OS). And that's a win for everybody, IMHO.
  18. Well, I personally don't get what this fuss with porting is all about… First of all, Windows ports are essential for Affinity so that it becomes the industry standard and Adobe CS/CC alternative it deserves to be, at least in the Design/Photography/DTP market. Technically, a port, done right, can easily offer a great experience, as long as the UI conventions specific to the target OS are respected. If you look at the Studio UI, you'll see that most of it is made up of 100% native (albeit dark-tinted) OS X UI widgets but, if you think about it, Windows and OS X being both WIMP GUIs that took a lot of ideas from each other over the years, porting the Studio to Windows (especially Windows 10, which is as flat as the latest versions of OS X and, in fact, initiated that trend with Metro in the first place) wouldn't be *that* difficult. Sure, some reshuffling would be in order (the obvious being moving the menu bar and window widgets to their default places in Windows, and that would be an easy task as I wouldn't see that stupid ribbon thing making any sense for a creative app anyway), but it would be mostly limited to cosmetic changes like button, widget (drop-down menus, disclosure triangles, lists…) and scroll bar shapes. As for code optimization, well… Getting its performance up to snuff would be hard, but I distinctively remember reading here in the forums or maybe in Affinity Review that the engine was written mostly in C and was, thus, inherently portable. Add to that the experience Serif developers already have with Windows apps, and it suddenly looks quite feasible, actually. The only problem would be keeping up the feature parity between both versions, especially with the betas… And as for the forums? Well, the user- and post-count would skyrocket (I mean, a lot of the professional creative market is already using Macs, but Affinity being as affordable as it is, it could attract a lot of honest but budget-constrained PC users who would otherwise pirate Adobe CC – coming from a crisis-sruck EU country I personally know a lot of them and would never help them pirate Serif apps as a matter of principle) and they would be twice as confusing. Would they be segregated by OS? Would there be feature-specific sub-forums encompassing both OSes? Or would everything be jumbled together, with the inherent and tacit requirement that all users specify their OS platform when reporting issues (much like they already do when it comes to the OS version)?
  19. Hi! I had the exact same question… I decided to install El Capitan Beta 6 on an external drive, just to test stuff. That includes, obviously, Affinity apps, both the MAS and the Beta versions. So I figured that I could just go to the preferences folder, but I couldn't seem to find them… Well, after some searching around, I did. They are housed in ~/Library/Containers. I just copied the four folders pertaining to Affinity apps, and voilá! Everything works fine with my previous settings… Though an export/import function, maybe like the Workspace functionality offered by Adobe, and/or even preference-syncing through iCloud would be welcome additions. ;) Btw, does this strange new location have anything to do with MAS app sandboxing? I found it interesting that said “containers” contained full replicas, in the form of aliases, of the Library folder… I would, however, advise you against mucking around that folder… Doesn't Affinity have its own shortcut, à lá Shift+Ctrl+Alt+Opt+click, to reset app preferences on app launch? Anyway, good luck to FCB and thanks in advance to the devs for that info, it can come in handy!
  20. Hi guys! I just noticed a weird bug on the forum… It's pretty much “what it says on the box”: when I click on “load more topics” (instead of paging through topics as usual), I only get the same list of topics on the current page repeated over and over again, and all I get is a nifty separator between each set. Any ideas? I am running Chrome v.41 on OS X 10.9.5, by the way… Also, I'm sorry for posting this on the general Affinity bugs forum, but I couldn't find any “Forum issues / other” section, so this was my next best option.
  21. JGD

    New Branding for Affinity

    The latest ones are a marked improvement over the first three versions (original, new without gradients and new with the simpler gradients). Using two-tone/hue gradients (and not just between two shades of the same hue), from the original logos and splash screens, no less, make them more enticing logos to look at, more recognizable in relation to the older versions (you just have to look at it right next to the Designer's [MAS version] logo on the dock, the resemblence is definitely there) and a piece of advertising to Serif's superb gradient engine. It actually makes the interim version's gradients look amateurish by comparison. As for readability and iconography: I think you nailed it. The interim Designer logo was too abstract, IMHO. It did look a bit too much like two mountains… The pencil tip is one of those cool “ah-ha, clever!” features that will probably go unnoticed on daily use, but will definitely stand out on your marketing materials, website and MAS page. And it is also a nod, as has been suggested here already, to your novel corner tool. Overall a nice identity… I am still not digging the weird shape on the back (which, as I've said earlier on Twitter, is probably more of a function of brand equity management than anything else), but it is more subdued and colourful at the same time (two apparently opposing goals, but hey, if it works, great). Alas, I also miss the möbius strip… Maybe you can go for a cleaner look still on V.2 and resurrect that element, too? I give it a solid 8/10 for the two icons you've shown as of now. As for Publisher: may I suggest something a bit more recognizable and iconic, like the classic folded corner on pages? I mean, since you are using an isometric grid, why not make the most of it and make an isometric projection? It wouldn't look too bad, and it could certainly silence the “way too abstract” camp. ;) On the other hand, you could easily draw the inner corner of a folded booklet, loosely based on the new Affinity Designer icon, and giving further significance to the diagonal line that shoots out of the logo, by equating it to a spine… Also, it would be a nod to the möbius strip theme, too. Check out my quick and dirty rendering: … or why not even a combination of both ideas, by folding the upper vertex of the booklet, which would play nicely along the equilateral triangles theme? By keeping the top triangle, you are already implying that Publisher not only works with typography, but is best suited for multiple page layouts… Like so: Aaaaand… while you're at it, and since Photo already has a big gaping hole in the middle of the icon, why not chop off a triangle from Publisher's icon as well and reinforce the booklet's proportions, while further reinforcing the möbius strip theme? Food for thought… :)
  22. Hi guys! I just noticed, after all these months, that the Arrange pane toolbar button is lacking a feature that visually distinguishes it further from its simpler counterparts than just by its blue colouring; maybe a down-facing arrow, like the one at the right of the snapping button (except maybe smaller and closer to the icon itself, seeing that it would be integrated into the button) could do the trick?
  23. This. Thank you, deeds. You surmised most of my, err, little beefs with AD. *Iteration* is key! As I said: because AD shows dragged objects as fully rendered instead of phantom shapes (you know, much like the old outline window dragging behaviour in Mac OS Classic/Windows 3.x vs. the full “show contents while dragging” behaviour of OS X/Windows 9x), it doesn't support self-snapping of objects. If I want to iteratively produce a regular texture by exponential duplication in AD, I will have a hard time snapping things together (you could argue that I should use something like symbols or pattern fills instead, but what if I wish to manipulate areas of it?). And while AD's vector tools are, in many ways, more intuitive than Illustrator's, and snapping seems to be an area where Serif is investing a lot, it seems to be too spotty to be relied upon for rigorous, geometric drawing. I know that some killer features (central node – hopefully with snapping support? –, rotation with custom centre, etc.) are already in the official pipeline, but AD doesn't provide, by design (!!), some features that are essencial for a user to give it that extra rigour, like being able to easily drag a selection from a specific node and have it snap to another node (and not dragging it aimlessly around the target node, waiting for AD to guess where exactly you want to have it snapped and having it fail miserably at it). I know I am beating a dead horse here, but transform handles should be hideable in some way when initiating draggind operations (and nodes could and should be selected as preferential snapping candidates, a la Smart Guides behaviour) or, alternatively, the node tool should select automatically all nodes on a previously selected object for more precise dragging, *just like in Illustrator*. And that wouldn't, in and of itself, make AD “too much like Illustrator” (hey, the vector drawing would still be far better, hands-down) while both making the designer's camp *very* happy and not being detrimental in the least bit to the illustrator's camp. Oh, and when can we expect snapping to curve intersections? That would be a godsend, IMHO… deeds, you have pretty much nailed it. AD has, first and foremost, a bit of a naming problem (or maybe a problem of positioning, too, because there is, indeed, more of an overlap between AD and AP – namely the pixel brushes, which are, as you pointed out, more useful to illustrators than vector designers – than there is between Ps and Ai, and also because Affinity Publisher will attract even more people from the strict, hardcore vector design crowd, and those two factors will make AD's shortcomings become all the more evident), and Adobe Designer / Affinity Illustrator would, indeed, be more fitting monikers.
  24. Hi all! What about these latest developments from BUILD'15? http://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-introduces-tools-let-developers-quickly-compile-ios-apps-windows-10 http://www.windowscentral.com/microsoft-also-working-towards-swift-compiler-ios-developers-come-windows-10 Something tells me that if porting iOS apps to Windows becomes easier (and Serif, as far as we know, started development on Affinity products for iOS first, which is interesting), porting OS X apps will, too. I've read somewhere here in the forums that the underlying engine of Affinity was coded in a somewhat platform-agnostic form of C already (I don't recall which, but I do remember it wasn't Obj-C…), so porting the rest of the code (the UI part, I'm guessing) would be a breeze. While I know that porting is not the best way to addressing multiple platforms (hey, I should know better as I used the infamous Corel Draw 11 for Mac for a while before ultimately switching to FreeHand; it was buggy as hell), Adobe's approach isn't the nicest, either. And, snobbery be damned, it would be the ultimate irony: Windows users using a port of a Mac app and actually *liking* it (because, y'know, performance… ;) And I believe the team at Serif would do a better job at adapting/redoing the UI for Windows than Adobe did back in the day when they still kind of attempted it – and failed miserably at it, as the multiple layers of cruft and stupid pseudo-native UI controls still found in CS6 attest to –, anyway).
  25. Interesting and well-thought reasoning… But isn't Serif only supposed to look at other platforms only 12 months from now? ;) The thing is, Helvetica has been, by default, available on OS X installations since its very inception… Then again, so is Arial, since it's considered a “web-safe” font and, thus, has to be available on OS X on account of its ubiquity. So I can see why choosing Arial isn't such a big deal, and well-justified… And, come to think of it, having the default be Arial will free you from the “AvantGarde/Myriad/Minion effect”, which are the tell-tale signs that a particular “designer” probably lacked training and just went with the default font (which can very well be and indeed sometimes is the best choice for a given project, thus triggering some false-positives) of the software package of his choice. That, in itself and IMHO, is not a very good endorsement of neither Corel or Adobe… If Affinity uses Arial as the default, professional designers (and some rare non-designers, and I know a few) will be left thinking that a lesser “design” (and, really, I may come of as snobbish for using such wording but those are very easy to spot and should have no place in a society were many professional, properly-educated designers *are* starving or forced to migrate – I come from a country where that is, indeed, the norm) done in Affinity was done by someone without font (or even design) knowledge in either Affinity or any of the aforementioned software packages (or even, dare I say it, some random old version of Microsoft Publisher or even PowerPoint)… Well played, Serif, well played. That's some fine piece of extremely convoluted reverse-psychology “non-branding” (or “white-branding”?) you've got going on there. ^^ Well, random and snobbish considerations aside, if I may add and since you brought it up, could Serif look into some deals with font foundries and type designers? I'm guessing that one of the reasons Affinity products are so inexpensive is that, as far as I can tell, it doesn't come with any bundled fonts. I wouldn't say that CS5/5.5/6 was competitive (not the full, professional version, that is), but the fonts were a bit of a “consolation prize” after the price-gouging. On the other hand, you ended up paying for fonts which you might never use anyway… So, can we expect someting (optional, of course) along the lines of TypeKit in the future? Or maybe discounted fonts bought as In App Purchases, which could become available system-wide? Who knows, maybe even a full-fledged font store like FontExplorer had? As long as its OpenType support is best-of-breed, as it looks to be shaping up to become very soon, I don't mind Affinity being fully BYOF (bring-your-own-fonts, I just coined the term), but it surely would be great to see Affinity supporting leading independent type designers and cutting deals that could make everyone win, without necessarily having to jack up the price tab of the apps themselves…