JGD
-
Posts
513 -
Joined
Posts posted by JGD
-
-
Oh, and you asked for the blurry and low contrast icons I had mentioned, Matt.
I fear this is an entirely different matter, and I don’t think it can be regarded, for the most part, as belonging to the “bugs” category. Let me say, I *really* love the new light interface, but after playing around with the new version for some time, I hope there will be improvements to the user interface in upcoming versions. I am actually not sure, if it would make sense to mention my concerns at this early stage, but let me share just a few observations. Most importantly, I wonder if we could get a little more contrast on the UI.- To my eyes, the selected tool highlight should definitely be darker. The contrast is just too low to see at a glance which tool is selected. By the bare numbers, the contrast is even lower than in the dark version (light version 86 : 83, dark version 61 : 39), though I am aware that the numbers alone are not very telling in this case.
- The main toolbar buttons are confusing to me. I cannot figure out at first glance which buttons are engaged and which are not engaged, which are interactive and which are “greyed out.” Again, the contrast seems too low. The grey level that is used for the active (“pressed”) state is very close to the grey level that standardly indicates a disabled state in macOS (“greyed out”). That is really confusing. In the dark version, you get at least the impression to press down a button by the background color change, but in the light version, you somehow get the impression that you are disabling a button by pressing it. Just compare the standard buttons of the OS to see what I mean by increased contrast.
- In addition, the main toolbar buttons on non-Retina displays do not have very sharp and actually somewhat inconsistent borders (stray dark dots in the corners, divider color). And the same goes for other buttons and button combos, such as Cap, Join, Align on the Stroke panel etc.
- Finally, there are quite a few cosmetic issues. Do we really need to have such a marked gradient on the main toolbar? In that particular case, I would say the contrast is too high. In the dark version, the main toolbar is visually flat, though in the light version it has a very marked bevel (or how you may call the effect suggested by the gradient). And frankly, there are a lot of inconsistencies and alignment issues throughout the user interface that should be ironed out. Clearing up these inconsistencies will make, in sum, a huge impact on the appearance and the usability of the application.
But anyway, I hope this post won’t be received badly. Again, I like the new interface, but in my opinion there are still some issues that have to be resolved in order to make the user experience better. And maybe it makes sense to voice these concerns as early as possible …Thank you again for all your hard work … :)AlexYep, I second your comments, but I also have to add a few more thoughts on the title/toolbar gradient; it does indeed seem a bit weird when compared with the native “flat Aqua” style… Not only is it much more marked at all gamma levels, and only vaguely similar to the OS in the darkest setting (shouldn't the equivalent look to the native mac OS UI be maybe at the lighter end of the slider and the latter allow for a neutral, OS 8/9 Platinum / Windows 9x gray, just like Adobe CS6/CC?), but the tint itself is off.
Also, the selected, radio button-like dark background should apply also to the Persona buttons, don't you think? As it stands, it seems as if the other Personas are deactivated and non-selectable, and the selected Persona isn't distinctive enough at a glance. And I'm noticing this only now: the Preferences window and other modal dialogs (like the New Document window) look distinctively non-native, including but not limited to the anti-aliasing, the titlebar gradients and the fact that these don't even have an inactive state look consistent with the rest of the OS…
Up until now, when using the dark interface, those weren't very noticeable, but now that one can compare the interface directly with the native OS interface, the differences became jarring. Should the Preferences dialog really have a “Close” button (not to mention that the look is really weird, with the non-changing titlebar (something which is commonplace on Mac app preference dialogs) and lack of alternating line shading commonly found on list views? And why do the Back/Forward chevrons and the square grid on the toolbar buttons look that much different from the ones in System Preferences and Safari?
And… aren't the Cancel and OK buttons in the “New” dialog too tiny?
Aren't the search boxes super weird, as they are tiny and have a left-justified magnifying glass icon on a blank field instead of the HIG-mandated centred (until you select it, that is) magnifying glass icon+“Search” string?
I don't want to be too much of a nitpicker, seeing that the dark interface grew on me to the point that I switched to it also on CC and doesn't, like I said, look as jarring, but… You can either go the Adobe route (which I loathe, by the way, but I do respect that at least their interfaces are now turning a bit more consistent across apps as of late) and do completely non-native interfaces (and the dark interface kind of went in that direction and masked all the imperfections, sort of), or go the extra mile and make it completely consistent, because leaving it in this uncanny valley kind of makes it look a bit weird and unpolished (you can of course do the same for the dark interface mode and even for the Windows version – which I suspect may have some inconsistencies of its own with the OS itself especially if the Preferences dialog looks in any way like the one on the Mac version, but I can't really comment on that one because I haven't tested it lately). I'd go as far as saying that not even iTunes, of all apps, looks this out of place (to be fair, with the advent of the flat design trend, it has been refreshed to the point that it no longer looks like a Carbon app in a Cocoa world, though some non-native controls like the non-expanding scroll bars still give it away).
I know that you use a very specific set of tools and are maintaining and greatly expanding a cross-platform suite of apps, but if you're still aiming for Adobe's turf (and everything seems to point that way), you really need to address all these issues. I mean, many of your current and future clients are the same who created and contributed to blogs like Adobe Gripes, we are nitpickers at heart. ;)
Anyway, kudos for finally getting the 1.6 betas out of the door… I'm still holding out for Publisher and advanced OpenType support (more on that later, on a different thread) to make a complete and clean switch but, so far, I'm impressed with Affinity.
- smallreflection, Bauke, VIPStephan and 1 other
-
4
-
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.
-
Unfortunately, those are not safe assumptions. An example we've had is from someone who wants to copy and paste values from elsewhere. Those values will be in whatever locale they use, and will include delimiters for the thousands.
So, they could quite easily paste 2,013 and mean 2013, not 2.013.
If we allow locales, they must be followed accurately.
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). ;)
-
JGD,
Again I have to admit that I did not read much of your latest, very long post. However, I think you may have strayed from the reason a 'done vs. to do' progress report was requested. I think the idea was to help those waiting for the release of Affinity Publisher get a better idea of when it will be released, not to get a "behind the scenes" look at how it is being developed.
As I explained, I do not think such a progress report would do that.
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. ;)
-
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. ;) -
guess it would be helpful to know the current state of development
like done vs to do
most things I´ve heard so far were about features that will not be available so it´s like you´re working on nothing specific and don't have a report although it has been delayed again now ..ough
if you´d offer such a snapshot (by which I don´t mean a snapshot release) of your development it would be much clearer to see what you´ve achieved VS what is still to be done
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).
To me it seems like the ideal time to release the software is once it can do several things that ID and Quark can not do. InDesign generally works ok so just rushing out a competitor doesn't make sense to me. I think what will entice most people to get the software is when it is able to do many of the features that ID users have been asking for over the years that Adobe hasn't delivered. The fact that some people don't want to pay a subscription for ID probably isn't enough reason to rush out the software.
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 ;) ).
Most of people in THE WORLD have Windows no Macrappy, ok? So, if they should priorise anything, that should be softwares for WINDOWS
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
-
For people wishing to run Affinity Designer on an older Mac under VMware fusion, I discovered something that looks like a bug more than anything else, but which works: unintuitive as it may seem, turning off 3D acceleration will switch from DirectX 9 to DirectX 11 behind the scenes (I don't really know why, but it does).
So… at first I though I would be left out of the Beta because I got the dreaded “DirectX 10 (Shader Model 4.0) hardware not found” but, lo and behold, it runs and (mostly) doesn't crash. The mouse cursor is, by default and in Windows as a whole, super glitchy (each time I switch desktops, it flickers between the Mac and Windows cursor, and even jumps around a bit, until it eventually settles down), and scrolling and dragging objects in Designer is laggy as hell, but that is to be expected and, besides, I am not using the Windows build to thoroughly test the tools but mostly just stability, the UI/UX, and file rendering.
I have already managed to crash it while messing with the Studio panels (much like I did back during the pre-release Mac Beta) and found a few UI/UX glitches, so I'll be sure to post my feedback in the appropriate thread. ;)
-
Designer has an extremely limited buffer for snapping candidates and starts “forgetting” objects after you selected more than six of them in a row …
Have you seen the new options? Have a look at the screen shot below … :)
Oooh, I must've skipped past that option… I'll definitely give it a look later on, as it seems like it would solve my issues in many scenarios, thanks! ;)
However… 20 snapping candidates would still be too limited for some projects. Sometimes I make geometric textures (more specifically, tesselations) with up to hundreds and even [tens of] thousands of objects, via iterative duplication and snapping. Having a “snap to everything” (and I really mean *everything*, performance and intuitiveness be damned) mode could still be useful for some users in some use cases.
Maybe Affinity already has such a mode and I'm just missing something?
-
Snapping with guides seems to be working fine to me. Have you got Snap to Guides turned on? Also, when moving a guide, it should snap to candidates in the same way as if moving a layer.
As for editing guides in the Node tool - this will be improved soon. It may appear to be a trivial thing, but I will have to refactor some of the tools in order to allow this to work in a common way across tools. Not a small task. We could shoe-horn in loads of features in this way, but I prefer to do them in a scalable and robust way - you'll thank us in the end.
Hi Ben!
Yes, indeed I do have Snap to Guides turned on, as all other snapping options… It's not the snapping to the guidelines that is broken, but the opposite: snapping new and existent guidelines *to* other objects and nodes, which breaks the whole manual guideline workflow. :\
Maybe it's just an issue with my setup, but we should probably give a look into it, since it's working fine in the 1.4 MAS version. Is there anything I can do to help diagnose the issue? I can tell you upfront that this is happening on a new, blank document created in the 1.5 Beta, so it's definitely not a file format issue with 1.4-created documents.
And yes, I'll definitely thank you in the end… I am already thanking you for the promise of great performance, as using CC 2015 is an absolute nightmare (buggy, slow… especially Illustrator and InDesign) even on my maxed-out 2009 Quad-Core i7 iMac (I even swapped the processor, put a whopping 32 GB of RAM and a decent Fusion Drive). Much, much worse than CS6, for not that many new features (many of them lifted straight out of Affinity, eh), it's insane! And this 1.5 Beta (!!!) is still delivering, still smooth as butter, on my vintage (yes, it's officially vintage), nearly obsolete (it's the last model to be officially macOS Sierra-compatible… *shudders* ) but still powerful iMac.
Expecting anything less from your development roadmap choices would be not giving you enough credit. Still, since I know a thing or two about UX, and belong to a slightly different target group than most of your featured designers (they are mainly digital illustrators, and I am more of a type designer/branding specialist who does a lot of geometric stuff), I probably notice a different set of issues than them. And now, with the upcoming “Windows explosion”, users like me will no longer be a niche of a niche, but will actually become a sizeable group. ;)
-
Guys, first of all, congrats on finally getting the 1.5 Beta out! :D The new Text Styles panel surely looks promising (and, if implemented in the same fashion in Photo, will run circles around Photoshop's text engine, which can't even handle the full scope of OpenType properly)… It already gives us a whiff of what Publisher will bring, am I right? ;)
As for snapping, I've been testing it, and though I will always repeat my position on wireframed/phantom dragging and self-snapping until you eventually add it as an option, it works much better now. It's still a bit hit-or-miss, though, especially when working with bigger numbers of objects (apparently, Designer has an extremely limited buffer for snapping candidates and starts “forgetting” objects after you selected more than six of them in a row… which always forces me to convert everything to curves and use the Node tool as a subterfuge; at least I finally got the hang of it, though it entails selecting all objects with the Move tool, then switching to the Node tool and pressing Cmd+A to select all nodes, then manually selecting the snapping target and, finally, dragging from the desired source node to the target node… Phew, in Illustrator I could actually do that in only two steps, and having the ability to temporarily switch from the Selection Tool to the Direct Selection tool by pressing Option makes it even easier, so couldn't we at least get that shortcut? At least Affinity makes super clean and rigorous snaps, so there's that), so I'll be sure to send you a video demo of my experiments later on.
I also have a thing or two to add when it comes to guidelines: they aren't snapping properly to points and objects at all (they are working fine in 1.4, so I'll consider that a bug), and – something I only now realized, after mentioning my node tool subterfuge – you should definitely be able to add (or even drag pre-existing) guidelines with the Node Tool (that never worked in Affinity, as far as I can recall, and should be fairly easy to implement), which could be very useful in complex geometric illustrations (smart guidelines and snapping are very useful, yes, but sometimes having visible and permanent guidelines can come very handy).
Oh, and by the way, I noticed a terrible inconsistency in the Node tool that could and should be solved, and which would make object selecting and snapping *that* much easier… When you select a curve (or various curves) and a shape (or various shapes) with the Move tool and then switch to the Node tool, or when you select both directly with the Node tool, the nodes in the curve(s) are individually draggable, whereas the “nodes” (not that they are editable as such, but they *are* there) in the shape(s) are not only non-draggable, they are not even selectable (but can serve as manual snap candidates, hmmm). On the other hand, when selecting one or various shapes with the Node tool, you will get the exact same size and rotation handles as you get in the Move tool. Now, this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever UX-wise; the Move and Node tools are supposed to be different “modes”, and if you're not supposed to individually edit a shape's nodes, at least make it an all/none proposition (selecting one node selects all of them, de-selecting one does the opposite); likewise, if you're not supposed to resize and rotate objects with the Node tool, you should also make the resize/rotation handles just disappear for *all* objects when selecting them with said tool.
As it stands, the Node tool is just extremely confusing to work with when selecting, moving and snapping stuff around (because it just stealthily behaves the same as the Move tool when selecting and dragging shapes, and plainly ignores them when curves are thrown into the mix), and even though you love to tout your smart guidelines and snapping, there are times and projects that call for finer control. If you think about it, investing in great automated features *and* manual control (as you did with your snapping manager, but taking it a step further without even further complicating the UI panels) aren't mutually exclusive propositions… I will also add that you should really fix this glaring inconsistency before Affinity hits the Windows market. It's already bad enough that Mac users are getting used to a tool behaviour that doesn't make much sense; it'd be even worse if it became an entrenched standard… It would be Illustrator all over again (except much speedier and with different nags), and I believe Serif is aiming much higher than that. :\
Afterwards, I shall do all my spot colour transparency, gradient and cross-gradient testing to see how far along it is as far as print production is concerned. I haven't read anything related to that in the release notes, but one can always hope for a surprise, right? ;)
Finally, symbols and assets really do bring it on par with other competing packages and will make managing larger projects a breeze. I've done a lot of stuff before in Illustrator where symbols made a huge difference in keeping files lean, so I can certainly see myself, little nags notwithstanding, using Affinity for more complex stuff as soon as 1.5 hits the RC stage and the MAS.
So far, even with all my complaining (I'm sorry… I just want to make the permanent switch to Affinity ASAP, and I want it to be perfect ;) ), I must say I am very impressed with what I've seen. Kudos for your great work!
-
Sorry Matt, no can do. I am running quite a peculiar setup (an iMac with a CPU upgrade, way more – and faster! – RAM than the machine officially supports *and* a Fusion Drive which, all combined, preclude me from even considering BootCamp, and I don't believe I'd be willing to put up with security issues either way).
For performance testing, I am pretty sure that you will have more than enough Windows users to validate your betas… I'll be just checking if the files created on the Mac side of things render properly and if there aren't any glaring bugs.
-
I will be running it on Windows 10 x64, on top of VMware Fusion 8. ;)
-
What about 1.5 beta? :D
This mythical 1.5 beta almost sounds like the PowerBook G5 rumours of yore. :P
Let's hope the devs don't skip directly to Affinity v.2, though… For all that is in store, it will be good enough to carve out a decent user base, especially after the Windows beta is released. ;)
-
Our PDF Export is based on PDFLib. Unfortunately that does not support the DeviceN colour space, that would be needed to output spot colour to spot colour gradients. It also only supports gradients of two colours. We will surely fix these limitations at some point, but probably not for a long time as we have so may other things to do.
With those caveats, you can actually achieve the other results, albeit in 1.4.1 not as simply as it could be. Spot colour to white you can achieve by replacing white with a zero tint of the spot. Spot colour to 0% opacity you can achieve by making the fill a solid spot colour and then using a separate gradient transparency for the alpha. In the forthcoming 1.5.1 beta, both of these transformations will be applied automatically.
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?
-
This is, indeed, great news… FontLab has always been the gold standard for cross-platform digital font design, and VI, judging from the beta, is shaping up to be a great release (even though they went about implementing cross-platform support in a less than optimal way, by using Qt… Alas, one couldn't expect much better from such a niche app anyway).
However, Glyphs.app is also a strong contender (especially when compared with the arcane FLS5), so I shall try importing vectors made in AD into it if you wish. ;) -
How about the topic of this thread: Where is Affinity 1.5 Beta? :)
Well, that was answered a few posts ago… Soon-ish?
-
-
-
AD is my main app for illustration. But a lot of things can't be done today. My AI is always opened for specific tasks : spirals, gradient with shapes, offset with shapes, all the deformation tools (twirl, twist, bend, etc).
Many little things are missing : In AI, when you move a point of a shape, we can see the old shape until we release the mouse button. It's very handy when you must follow a line who is not horizontal or vertical. IN AD, we are blind.
We can't align points in horizontal or vertical just by typing 0 in Transform menu.
The center point works only with rotation, not with scale or mirror. It's a great lack.
What I hate in AD : selecting objects is not effective enough. It's my main waste of time.
Why Deselect (cmd D) doesn't work ?
I would like to see in the scene manager (layers) the same functions we can find in cinema4d (duplicate with CMD, search by name, open/close hierarchies, solo, objects visibility, etc).
What I love in AD : fx, adjustments, masks, corner tool, donut tool, square star tool, ultra speedy registrations, beautiful anti aliasing, elegant GUI.
I absolutely concur with your quick assessment of AD…
I've said as much many times in the forums: while AD probably satisfies a huge crowd of digital vector illustrators, it's still not up to spec for designers, which is a bit ironic since that means Illustrator is the best tool for graphic design, and Designer the best tool for illustration.
Selection and object manipulation is, obviously, a big part of that.
For instance: for all its smartness in snapping, I just wanted to be able to choose *which* nodes to drag from (I always have to select them manually, or by pressing Command+A with the Node tool or some other drag-to-select shenanigans, whereas in Ai I only have to select an object with the Selection tool, press Command – and that only if I wish to drag from a corner which coincides with the resizing handle –, pick a node and drag it to the node to which I want to snap it) and forgo smart snapping entirely. Most of the time I know exactly what I want to achieve, but sometimes I either have to resort to convoluted shortcuts or to rely on an impossible and useless “smartness” (especially in documents with lots of nodes). In fact, I think the best possible snapping behaviour, sometimes (especially for very complex artwork with lots of nodes), would be the old Smart Guides from Illustrator CS3, which only spawned after touching a particular node and gave a much finer, more manual control of snapping operations. Ai CS4 got a bit to “smart” about snapping and actually made Smart Guides harder to use, since they will spawn to whichever nodes are visible on the screen.
The same goes for the “dragging with preview” instead of “dragging outlines” (you know, like the difference between the window dragging behaviour of OS X and that of Mac OS Classic); since that can actually be useful when duplicating by dragging (which is another behaviour that irks me; undoing just reverts the dragging operation and leaves a duplicate in place… why??), because it serves as, you know, a more useable preview that could very well be a toggleable behaviour right in the largely unpopulated Control bar…
For all these little nags, though, there are a lot of revolutionary concepts and nifty tools, as you said. But those are the kind that Serif should guard from their competitors while they tick all the other boxes because, on that note…
JGD,
Your logic would work if the Affinity products were on an equal feature-set with Adobe.
At the moment that's not the case so there is no need for any secrecy, etc.
That may change in the future of course.
An early community feedback on certain choices taken by the developers might prove to be of great benefit to them and us, who end up using the software.
But, this is only speculation on our part. But it does require bold thinking.
In fact, while I do agree that most of Serif's choices have been sound, I think you've got it backwards when it comes to priorities, sorry. :\ I've installed some CC apps recently (I know… I can neither confirm nor deny that I've subscribed to CC, and only installed those because I applied for a job in a professional design school and was afraid of falling behind), gave a quick look to Illustrator CC just now and was a bit dismayed to see that Adobe already copied AD's Corner tool, and even managed to integrate it nicely and intuitively into the Direct Selection tool…
Their approach is a bit different, however: the original vertex becomes invisible – though it is restorable, but then you lose the corner radius – and the newly-created nodes are actually selectable and snappable, whereas in AD it's the exact opposite. Also, in Ai like in AD, you can adjust corners in concert or individually, but you can also do both in succession (as in adjusting an individual corner first and after that readjusting all corners equally from their current standing), whereas if you try to do that in AD, the Corner tool will reset any individual corner settings and readjust them equally from scratch. If AD is to
regaingain the [absolute] functional high ground as far as this particular tool is concerned [Edit: Actually, it still has the functional high ground in one regard: Corners edited in Affinity are always persistent and editable until converted to curves regardless of which object they were added to, whereas in Ai, they are only persistent in rounded rectangles, so, kudos to Serif and a big fat booh to Adobe; the latter fail even at implementing copied features properly :rolleyes: ], it will already have both to match the ability to set corners both individually and in concert without resets *and* allow both vertices and new nodes to be selectable and snappable… and that brings us again to the basics of node selection, snapping, live rendering vs. outline previews, etc.So, you can already see the effects of the lurking I was talking about. It kind of saddens me to be right, sometimes, but I'm dead sure that if it wasn't for Affinity (or for a huuuuge coincidence, but, like Obi Wan Kenobi, I don't believe in such things :P ), the CC crowd wouldn't have gotten this nicety to play with. If I were on Serif's team, I would seriously reconsider that “novel feature” strategy (especially those “easier” to implement) and prioritize basic feature/UX parity and cross-platform compatibility ASAP, lest Adobe sucks out all reasons to switch for people who aren't that pissed at them, because the fact of the matter is that AD is already *almost* good enough to compete on a level field, nab a lot of Windows users right now (from Adobe, from Corel, from Quark very soon and don't forget about the Plus crowd…) and set itself as a new, true standard even while missing some advanced features (like, say, 3D… I've used those in Illustrator a few times, but they are super clunky and feel kind of grafted on hastily on an obviously 2D engine, so if I ever have to do 3D stuff again I'll probably resort to a full-blown 3D package instead) or not having that many *unique* features (I mean… They have already proven to be very creative and technically proficient, so their promise alone of new features atop a modern base would already be more credible than Adobe's vague and false intentions of providing “constant updates”).
Affinity has a faster, slicker, more modern engine under the hood, and that is already impressive and extremely difficult to replicate without breaking compatibility with older file formats. We all know that Adobe is lazy and won't bother with that unless outright forced to… And many of their users are lazy and conservative, too; they won't bother to switch (and convert huge numbers of files in the process) if the only thing they gain is a bit more performance, a better UI and better interoperability (something which even Adobe may get right one day). That's why I think that throwing new tools out there for the competition to copy, before reaching basic feature-parity and being able to compete on a level field, could be suicidal in the medium term. :(
I am so very sorry about insisting on the urgency of a Windows port; I am constantly reminded of my early years of Mac evangelism back in 2004, when I tried to convince people who absolutely didn't have the financial means to buy or interest in Macs, out of sheer survival instinct (and belief that it was a superior choice software-wise, obviously, though the hardware was severely underperforming at times because of the discrepancies between PowerPC and x86, especially during the great wait for the PowerBook G5 that never came, and that kind of made me a bit of an “embarassed evangelist”). The turning point was, indeed, the switch to Intel… Many in the community cried foul before, during and after the switch, because the Mac would cease to be as “unique” and “exclusive” as it used to, but the fact is that Apple managed to make that transition without much fuss or loss of users (whichever users defected were largely offset by switchers, but I'm willing to bet not many went to the PC camp… Since Macs became more affordable and powerful, why would they?), and the rest is history.
I, for one, eventually ceased actively evangelizing people or fearing for the future of the platform; after the switch, from 2006 to 2012 (and beyond, but I'm just recounting my experience as a Machead and, later, during a two-year stint as the Mac room monitor at my Faculty), my colleagues actually came to me, at first, to ask whether it was a good idea to buy a Mac, then they had already decided on buying one and asked which model was the best for them, then they had already decided on which model but just wanted to check first with me, and finally they started showing up unannounced, at first trickling in and then in droves, at the Mac room with brand new Macs, asking me for software and technical advice. Now *that's* what I call a transition…
I know that considering a Windows port of Affinity as Serif's “Intel switch” moment is a bit of an exaggeration and would entail a bigger investment relatively (since it wouldn't be a transition, but a new commitment adding to the current one, and done by a much smaller company, mind you), but it would have an equivalent effect, Mac userbase's opinions be damned (I know that I'm referring to almost everyone in this forum, and I'm sorry for being this blunt, but business strategy is just like that and facts are facts… And it also think that whoever is afraid of some terrible fragmentation, UI/UX inconsistencies or an unacceptable slowing down in development because of a Windows port/branch is not giving Serif enough credit, IMHO).
I certainly feel the exact same way now as I did in 2004: going up against the 800lb gorilla, trying to stir up a grassroots movement without really having yet a leg to stand on (but with a firm conviction nonetheless that I'm doing the right thing), and think we would all gain from being more than an underground niche; for starters, we would never get strange looks from someone if we sent them .af* files without checking or if we put them on identity packages, press kits, etc. (we don't even think of doing that currently, now, do we?) and could do last-minute tweaks at the printing shop without lugging our MacBooks around. And, above all, we would definitely stop being afraid of seeing our suite of choice losing out features and users to you-know-what-company (sure, there would be copying and switching between both sides, like with Apple and Microsoft, but the status quo would be much better for everyone here).
By the way, for those Mac users afraid of losing that warm fuzzy feeling of exclusivity, Serif could maybe restrict synchronization between the desktop and iOS versions of Affinity to the Mac (maybe using iCloud Drive? I mean, who here doesn't fully expect that kind of feature from Affinity for iOS?). PCs, of course, wouldn't pose a challenge, since the Surface Pro and other tablet-like PCs run the full version of Windows anyway… And, quite frankly, very elaborate cross-platform cloud solutions and collaboration schemes wouldn't really be necessary for the time being (in fact, apart from TypeKit, I don't really think they are all that useful, and are mostly just “features” hyped by Adobe as being the best invention since sliced bread… not); I don't think that Serif will be aiming at the ultra-high-end market of large corporations with tens or hundreds of seats for the foreseeable future, and that's just fine the way it is. Schools, maybe, because they are an instrumental market in attracting new users, but those are not hugely collaborative environments (except for smaller groups, of course), and computer laboratories are usually standardized on one platform and sometimes even on one model/brand/supplier anyway.
-
I would very much like to see the Affinity products put on a 2 tier cycle.
1. Beta releases for features that are baked in but not yet ready for the public consumption. Here, the community members can report bugs, etc.
2. Alfa releases or bleeding edge releases for features in development cycle.
That way the community members can comment quite early on the features proposed by Serif and hone in on how they expect these feature to work.
Basically, it gives Serif a very early feedback on the features being developed.
My 2cents.
Now *that's* an interesting idea… However, I think it would only work for the 1.x suite, or at least for tools aiming at feature-parity with the competition, and not for outright novel features.
I think Serif, for all its openness, might be taking a page from the Apple playbook here. Just look how hush-hush they are when it comes to their upcoming DAM, their iPad apps and even Publisher (not that a DTP app is much of a mystery, but seeing how digital platforms are all the rage now I can see how coming up with decent e-book authoring tools at affordable prices is probably an opportunity too good to pass on, and so far we haven't seen much in the way of a roadmap for Publisher, which I expect to bring to the table some goodies to make up for the – I'm hoping temporary – loss of basic professional tools like multiline composer).
They are holding some of their cards close to their chest because they know it generates buzz amongst the community and keeps the competition a few steps behind. Adobe would be *very* stupid not to have some lurkers in these forums, IMHO… ;) Though I think they've shown such hubris and such disdain for their users recently that they may very well be dismissing Affinity and its community as a niche. They are very Microsoft-y in that regard…
I know I may be going out on a limb here, but don't forget that I'm that guy who wrote a huge letter to Serif just a few days after Adobe announced their CC-only move, back in May 2013, pleading them to come up with an alternative and even promising to buy their Plus suite and run it in a VM as long as they announced a Mac port and provided cross-grade or cross-platform upgrade licensing, without even knowing they were already coding alpha builds of Affinity. On a side note, I've also been kicking myself ever since 2004, when I thought it was probably a good idea to buy Apple stock but was too afraid and/or ignorant about the whole stock buying process to actually do it. :P
I can recognize a winning company when I see one and, though I believe that Serif still has a long way to go before they can go head to head with Adobe (and I'm not just talking about cross-platform support or feature-parity here; stuff like localization, plugin support, a strong push into education and sustained community-building outside of these walls come to mind), I'm pretty damn sure they are the ones who will eventually do it. I also think that at least internally, they believe in that, too, even though they never acknowledge it publicly. All that apparent modesty is just common sense and corporate diplomacy 101; if the giant is, well, sleeping (as it seems), do not wake it up until you have a better chance of beating it…
In fact, if I may add, if they were developing alpha builds of Affinity for four years (!) without revealing anything to the world (and that could have been a bright move if done a bit earlier than the first beta release, right after the infamous CC announcement, as it might have just caused a bit of a “third-party Osborne effect” and pent-up demand for quite a few users), they could conceivably be developing early alpha builds of Affinity for Windows already (they do have Windows devs in their company, so, why not? Apple did the same with x86 builds of OS X and just look at where that got them)… They are transparent, alright, and that's extremely refreshing considering how opaque (and unresponsive!) the competition is, but I think they are shrewd enough not to be *too* transparent, which makes this a very fun exercise. ;)
- MattP, ONSO, BatteriesInc and 3 others
-
6
-
Where's version 2.0 ? :blink:
Judging by the current rate of launches (which is astoundingly fast compared to the competition, by the way) and the feature & release roadmap (which includes the as of yet unreleased – even in beta form – Affinity Publisher – which should be simpler to code once Affinity Designer is more feature-complete, since they all share the same engine and file format), I'm willing to bet that an hypothetical mid-2017 1.9 release will be enough to accomodate all the promised features and go toe-to-toe with Illustrator.
By then, Affinity 2.0 will probably be in pre-release beta, and will be a full-price suite (seeing as the MAS doesn't yet allow for paid upgrades). I, for one, will happily plunk down another €120 for the three apps at their launch discount pricing.
While on the subject of pricing, if and when paid upgrades become available in the MAS (and with the recent management reshuffle at Apple, with Phil Schiller taking over the app stores from Eddy Cue, it's conceivable they may try those), it would be more than reasonable to slightly increase the base app pricing, while providing more affordable upgrade pricing (definitely lower than the current full price) and increasing the trial period to two months. That way, Serif will beat Adobe in all camps, and will get happier and more loyal customers. Win-win situation, IMHO.
- MattP and AshTeriyaki
-
2
-
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!
-
Custom rotation centre is not working at all in a document made from an imported .PDF page… AP just ignores it and uses the default layer centre instead (and also rotates the custom centre along with it :P ), what gives?
I created a new document with the same dimensions and pasted the troublesome layer into it and, lo and behold, the custom rotation centre is working again. If you wish I can send you the faulty .afphoto file so you can give it a spin (ha!) and check what's going on.
-
I don't want to be a kill joy but the rate of issue of these Betas seems to indicate panic. In my experience, launching too early usually ends in tears.
Better to postpone a formal issue until everything is fully tested and watertight.
Reputation can be so easily lost and impossible to regain.
Well, Mike, I don't think that releasing Betas in short intervals and with small fixes close to a GM release is an indication of panic at all… In fact, it's perfectly normal; if you look at other software companies, like Apple itself with iOS and OS X Beta builds (public or otherwise), it's pretty much standard practice. ;)
Affinity Designer Customer Beta (1.6 - Beta 5)
in [ARCHIVE] Designer beta on macOS threads
Posted
Ben, the Alt+dragging method is not just the “Mac way” (even though it probably originated in the Finder at some point), but the “Adobe way” as well… And one of those Adobe choices that aren't that unintuitive, because they, duh, mimic the most popular OS' (for creatives who run their products, that is) behaviours.
Anyway, while I would love to see that being the other way around (the default setting being Alt+drag as the “cancellable duplication” operation), just having the option is great. And if I survived through working with different modifier+drag/scroll behaviours, like in my FreeHand+QuarkXPress days or even today with MS Office, I can certainly survive working with Affinity and InDesign for a few years until Publisher comes along.
I'm all for overhauls that add options and make my workflows easier, and I'm a click-and-drag duplicate kind of guy, so this is great news for me personally!