Medical Officer Bones

Hi there,
I completely agree with what Fixx said.
To me preparing my work ready to print is vital for 2 specific main reasons (there are others too but they are mainly related to my workflow).
1. I want my artwork to be print-ready so that i have control or let's say legal certainty and using a bitmap to tone an image with Spotcolors is the usual way how prepress will handle it.
I do comic art and the reasons why this is important here has already been sufficiently explained earlier.
2. I have been working in a prepress department for quite a while and I do want them to have exactly what they want if need be and have them not necessarily do it themselves because the very least it will cause is a delay which of course might provoke other problems.
So yes, bitmap is absolutely necessary and other prepress related features such as a preview of color-separation and overprinting.

 

I work with both the printing industry and laser engraving and both require 1 bit files. The fact that this is not going to be supported is giant. I wanted to like Affinity over Adobe, but this is making it so I have to use yet another program to do something that Photoshop can handle in one. A true 1 bit output would be a start, but won't be a complete fix because every time there is a color conversion (to grayscale then back to 1 bit) there is the possibility of weird and unexpected things going wrong.

Krita is not a general purpose image editor, and aimed at digital painting. It wipes the floor with Affinity Photo in this respect (even Photoshop cannot keep up with painting in Krita), and Krita is widely in use by many professional digital illustrators.
Apples and oranges.

Download Krita (open source and free). Krita includes the G'MIC filters (over 380 different filters) which include Cut-Out and Brushify artistic filters. Not sure about Palette Knife, but I am sure a similar effect will be possible.
www.krita.org

I would consider this a bug, not a feature request. Windows version is also affected. Imagine this situation: the file dialog is smaller than one of the GUI panels. The user attempts to save the file, mis-clicks, and the file dialog is hidden beneath that panel.
Unless the user is aware of what just occurred, the user may assume that the app no longer responds. Showstopper!
This can be categorized as a user interface BUG, not a feature request.
I have NEVER experienced similar behaviour before in any Windows or Mac app. This is a first! Very interesting oversight on the part of the developers.
Definitely should be categorized and labelled as a bug.
...and I am going to use this as another clear example in my UX design classes of "How Not To Design A User Interface". I've got a couple of other great Affinity GUI examples which are already part of that list.

 

Download Krita (open source and free). Krita includes the G'MIC filters (over 380 different filters) which include Cut-Out and Brushify artistic filters. Not sure about Palette Knife, but I am sure a similar effect will be possible.
www.krita.org

Agreed with the OP on all counts. Here are some of my observations.
The keyboard shortcuts preference screen cannot be resized. This leads to unnecessary scrolling and extra effort to locate an option in the list. Other preference screens, such as Abbreviations and Auto-Correct in Publisher also cannot be resized, leading to similar user frustrations. The search option is almost useless in practice. Entering "Use" highlights four categories, but the actual preference options remain unexposed. A much more usable method would be to include a simple dropdown list that lists the found properties, and when clicked immediately opens the intended preference screen, as well as highlighting it. Allow the user to use the up and down cursor keys to navigate the found entries in this dropdown list. Hitting the Enter key in the search field should not close the Preferences window. Hitting the Enter key at any time closes the Preferences dialog. Frustrating to the user, because the user may not have noticed that they mis-clicked an input field, still continue typing and hit Enter. Result: dialog closes. Besides, Escape already closes the dialog. The Escape and Enter keys have very different usability connotations in a dialog. In the beginning I kept clicking the "Next" and "Previous" buttons to attempt to paginate through the main option screens. But instead these act like browser buttons, making it frustratingly hard to quickly browse the main preference screens.
Click a preference category. Can't find the option? Go back to the main preferences entries. Click another. Still not found? Go back, and try again. A chore, in particular when it is unclear where a specific option can be found. If the Next and Previous buttons would allow the user to quickly page between preference categories a lot of wasted time clicking around could be avoided.
In short allow the user to quickly browse/paginate the main preference screens.
(And yes, I am aware of how Apple abuses these as well.) Page up and down keys could be used to effectively paginate from one preference category to the next. And/or right and left cursor keys. Miscellaneous screen's top content is center aligned, which is inconsistent with all the other screens. Check boxes should be left aligned instead. Instead of a slow, cumbersome and hidden dropdown list to browse to a specific preference category, list all main preference categories in a list on the left of the main preference dialog. Highlight the one currently browsed. 1) far easier and efficient to navigate, 2) far better indication which settings the user is currently viewing.
(The currently used category word is hardly noticed due to visual hierarchy problems. Some preference screens are "uber"-filled with options, without proper visual grouping or even adequate vertical space used. The General options is particularly busy with no apparent logical grouping, but other screens are problematic in this respect too. The lack of visual subgrouping of options leads to cognitive overload and confusion on many preference screens.
For example, the Performance screen puts four distinct subcategories of settings in one densely populated screen, with no visual grouping.  All in all, the preferences dialog in Affinity is among the worst that I have encountered so far in regards to usability.
I am used to both Mac and Windows in my work.
Rely foremost on active user testing rather than anything else. What works in one situation, may backfire in another. Avoid blatantly copying GUIs. Besides, the Mac Preferences dialog is far more configurable and evolved user experience than the one in Affinity, which is a shadow of the former.

@hifred I believe Sparkle saves single project files, and the now defunct Adobe Muse shares that same approach. As you mentioned, Xara saves the pages as one file too.
The question you would have to ask yourself is whether this is a good approach or not. Html, CSS, Javascript: these are all open human readable files, and the entire point of the web is open technologies. When relying on a closed file format like Xara, Muse, or Sparkle you become entirely (or mostly) dependent on that software to manage the site, and all three write rather abysmal code that cannot be handed over to a programmer in good conscience: they would have to start all over, because it is entirely human unreadable.
I suppose it is fine when dealing with simple sites with a simple structure, one-pagers, or flashy portfolio sites. But if the design must be integrated with a content management system (CMS) and/or database driven content with a server back-end, or even be converted to a mobile app... Well, let's just close with this: it is a Very Bad Idea to rely on pure visual web page building tools that 1) are unable to work directly with (existing) html files, 2) rely on a proprietary file format, and 2) output code that is only machine readable and a mess.
Tools such as Muse, WebPlus, and Xara all work with a separate design layer which must be converted to web code. This is hard to maintain (by the developers), hard to keep the design layer updated with the latest web technologies (which often change on a yearly basis or more often), and that custom design layer cannot hope to emulate an actual web browser output, so the so-called WYSIWYG view is only an approximation of the real thing (can't test javascript right in the view, for example).
No wonder Adobe and Serif had to throw in the towel with Muse and WebPlus: the web goes too fast to keep up with such a proprietary tool with an abstracted design layer. It's unmaintainable in the long run. Muse had become an obese dragon of an application.
Not to mention the hardships related to designing and testing responsive layouts in these kind of tools. And I am not even mentioning the trouble and frustration related to one-file file corruption issues, and thereby losing the entire site. That is to say, a versioning/file backup feature should be either integrated and/or it should be compatible with the tools you use for web site creation. A single-file approach for web development is (sorry) just a really bad idea, and adds one more unnecessary layer between the output and yourself. That is not how web pages work. and it is a severely limiting workflow anyway.
These tools cannot be integrated well in a team environment at all. So, unless simple static web work is what you do, and you are not involved in a team (you're working on your own), and you don't mind running the risks of depending on a proprietary design app and file format, then one of these tools might fit the bill.
Anyway, long explanation to tell you that I think, that unless you are making very simple static sites, it is better to stay well away from such tools, and only choose tools that work directly with the html, css, js, less, sass, etc. files themselves. You should be able to open an existing web page or site in these tools, and be able to edit the code in a visual environment which is based on an actual web browser view.
And this workflow is compatible with a team, as well as a file versioning workflow (like Git(hub)). Pinegrow keeps an automatic local file history, and all changes are recorded.
For me that means Xara, Muse, Sparkle, online solution like WebFlow and the like, and WebPlus are always going to limit you in some way. Wappler is better, but doesn't allow for CSS frameworks outside the ones they support directly, and that leaves Pinegrow for me and my frontend development work. But it is possible to combine both Wappler and Pinegrow in your workflow, because in the end they both work directly with the actual web files. And in a good human readable way, so anyone with a bit of html and css skill will be able to open the code in a code editor and make changes. I can open a Wappler website directly in Pinegrow, and continue to edit it. Can't do that in Muse, Sparkle, WebPlus, Xara, etc.
In short, even if Pinegrow would met its demise in the future, those Pinegrow-built sites are fully editable with other open tools. Compare that to Muse or WebPlus users.
 
 

As long as Publisher and Photo cannot deal with 1bit bitmaps, it is useless to me for most of my print work. The latest 1.7 still converts a 1bit 1200ppi image to 8bit when exported to pdf, irregardless of the settings.
Good 1bit support is absolutely required for a variety of print jobs.
When imported, a 1200ppi 1bit image looks fine in Publisher. Switching to Photo results in the image being down-sampled to a 300ppi anti-aliased version in the view. Any edit in Photo will return a 300ppi greyscale image to Publisher!!!
Imagine that: import a 1bit print resolution tiff in Publisher. Then the user decides to remove a scan stain, or something in Photo. Result: the image is reduced, without asking, to a 300ppi greyscale version, which will print at low resolution and with fuzzy edges. And because the user worked zoomed out, they did not notice and generate a pdf for printing.
Now imagine the client's reaction.
It staggers the mind to realize that the Affinity devs have stated they will never support 1bit images in Photo. As for Publisher support: it is all up in the air. I have not yet tested the 1.8 beta. Will do this today.

The market already is saturated with both free and commercial production level animation software. Take your pick: Toonboom, TVPaint, OpenToonz, 3d animation software (Blender, Modo, Max, Maya, Lightwave), CelAction2D, Moho Pro, Flipbook, Spine, DragonBones, Krita, ClipStudio Paint EX, Animate CC, and the list goes on and on. Not to mention visual effects software which also includes very accomplished 2d (and 3d) animation features (Nuke, Fusion, HitFilm, etc.).
So just pick one of the above, and import your work. I don't think Serif is going to attempt to compete in this market with a dedicated animation tool.
That said, a simple Krita-like animation timeline would be nice to have in Affinity.
 
Funny, the first time when I read this sentence I read "Adobe Perversion". :-) I never knew about that software, btw.
In regards to presentation software: I create a lot of presentations/slides for my work, and I've completely given up on superfluous eye candy like transitions and animations years and years ago. I create my slides in design layout software, and export a simple PDF. Audiences are distracted and bored at the same time when faced with yet another PowerPoint-like slide collection. Nowadays I focus on the content and the content structure instead of useless slide animations and effects unless I have to show a complex topic or subject which requires animation to clarify the content. In that case I fire up a movie file.
Otherwise I just stick with simple static slides which have a good clear readability and visual hierarchy. People grow bored quickly staring at that same old cross fade or wipe-in for the umpteenth time. Good presentation technique works FAR better than someone rattling off yet another boringly animated presentation slide. The less slides to bring the message across, the better.
"Oh look, it's one of those presentations where the heading and text bullet points fly in sequentially from whichever direction" responses should be avoided. Have the audience focus on the presenter and the presented content, and avoid pointless animated effects. Avoid inserting graphics and images "just because" - there should be a valid reason. Stop brain-dumping all over your slides. Elucidate and engage and interact with your audience. Stupid pointless animation effects will just bore the audience. Clarify, use great typography, visual structure and presentation structure instead of relying on visual animated effects which no-one in your audience appreciates or cares about anyhow.
If I do need to create something eye-catching, I create it in an animation and/or visual effects package with sound and so on. But that would become a running presentation for a booth at a convention, or something. Or a museum kiosk. In these cases I have control over the hardware used as well. And in such cases I avoid traditional presentation software like the plague and opt for different solutions.
sso often have I seen presenters get into technical trouble because PowerPoint wouldn't run right, or slow, or the hardware was completely outdated and software wouldn't support their latest greatest presentation files. Or they would bring their own snazzy Mac notebook with Keynote, and forget about that RGB/HDMI regular connector.
PDF always works no matter the OS, and I bring my own portable version of PDFExchange Editor, as well as export simple PNG files just in case when presenting in locations where I haven't presented before.
If you are heck-bent on introducing slide transitions, why not export to a PDF, and assign page transitions with a PDF tool like PDFExchange Editor? Works fine.
 

If you like Bridge, you can keep using it alongside Affinity Photo. Bridge is a free download, although it still requires the CC app to install.

Love WebP and PNG for game development. I use WebP mainly for lossy images which also require alpha transparency to vastly reduce the file size footprint.
And in my opinion not supporting WebP is a bit silly. High traffic websites are converting more and more to the use of WebP instead of jpg, for the simple reason of reducing traffic bandwidth. WebP is out there, it is used, and it ought to be supported by an image editor.

Recently I was responsible for getting a company to switch over to the Affinity products. (Serif, you're welcome. ) I wanted to share some insights behind one company's process of deciding what design software to purchase, my own experience as a teacher of art and design, and why Affinity should start thinking about developing Linux versions of their design software. This isn't intended to influence short-term plans, just long term ones and the way the market is shifting with regards to software ownership and operating systems.
* * * * *
The company I convinced to adopt the Affinity software is a web software company that also creates print/video games. We primarily run Linux. I'm a new hire in the design and art team, so I was able to bring up the existence of the Affinity products when the discussion of design software came up. We have huge issues with Adobe with regards to ownership, and other issues I won't get into here. The short version is that we had philosophical issues with Creative Cloud and Adobe as a company.
The problem is that our choice to go with Affinity products is that it was a compromise. There wasn't any other reason for us to use Affinity products besides we didn't like Adobe, and the minor issue of cost. It doesn't run on our preferred development environment, meaning that seemingly arbitrary separation between developers and designers and the software that they run will still exist in our process. It's almost 2020; it shouldn't be that way. Developers are designers too.
That is why we use software like Figma. It works on all operating systems because it's a vector and UI design tool that works in the browser. We are not really a fan of the subscription model or how our data is basically held hostage, but it's more practical to pay extra to have a unifying tool among all team member's operating systems. That is why we use Figma.
With WebAssembly, we'll start seeing more browser-based design applications. I strongly suspect that this is the direction Adobe will go to address the cross platform issue, but it doesn't address people's pain with "subscription fatigue," the questions of ownership, or having performant design applications. (If you haven't used Figma, it's performance is acceptable but not great.) I don't see WebAssembly browser apps having as good a user experience as native design apps in the near future.
So there's still a need for native design apps, including native Linux apps. For us, Affinity was a compromise purchase, and we bought the minimum number of copies we needed for each team member's role, instead of making sure everyone was on the same page which is what would have been ideal for us, but alas, "not available on Linux." What happened to the rest of the software budget that didn't go to getting copies for the entire staff, including the development team? That budget is going to the development funds of other design tools that do work in Linux, but just need more work to make them viable.
* * * * *
Okay, so that's just one company. It's just a web development company, not a design agency. Web development companies may not be Serif's intended customer. I get that might be the possibility. But here's something else to consider.
I'm also a teacher of art and design. I took a human-centered design approach to art education, and did a lot of research on the people who want to learn design. That process led me to focusing my efforts on teaching underprivileged and disadvantaged creatives, because I found that group encompasses most of the creatives out there. Since starting that journey I've developed some personal beefs with Adobe. I've witnessed creatives who couldn't afford their Adobe subscription, which meant they had to stop working as a freelancer if I hadn't stepped in. That's the type of stuff I deal with. Again, this group is huge: people in college, just out of college, or trying to ditch their horrible day jobs and pursue a more creative career.
When it comes to this group of people, every dollar counts. You may not think the cost of Windows ($140-$200 per computer) is that big of a deal, but it matters when you have to scrimp and save for every dollar, or when your local currency doesn't go as far is does in other countries. If that freelancer had the choice to use Linux as a designer, they would have been able to afford a few more months of the Creative Cloud subscription and continue working that month. Linux is the difference between someone having to save $460 for a computer instead of $600 to get started (that's 24% less, just from the cost of Windows). It's the difference between being able to work as a multi-disciplinary web developer and be able to design for and code in the operating system that powers the web. (Just us a VM for your dev server you say? VMs require a good chunk of dedicated RAM and a little bit more overhead, and a budget computer may not be able to handle that, especially if you have Windows as your host OS, making it far more memory efficient to run your entire server environment locally.)
Quite frankly, for creatives Linux is about providing more opportunities to people that would otherwise not have it. I'm hoping that more software companies adopt that mission too.
But until that happens, as a teacher I have to provide equal software coverage for both the Adobe products and the Affinity products in the curriculum, because I can't with full confidence entirely recommend one over the other. But for audio and video editing? DaVinci Resolve. Full stop. I won't teach Premier. Not everyone can install Premier, but everyone can install Resolve. For 3D modeling? Blender. Period. It works for everyone. No need to teach anything else.
I would love love LOVE to only teach Affinity products, but currently I can only recommend it. Granted, it's a strong recommendation, but my curriculum can't be as dedicated to one piece of graphic design software like I can with DaVinci Resolve, Blender, Krita, Godot, and Visual Studio Code, which are all programs I didn't have to compromise on.
I'm pleased with what Serif is doing. I got one company to adopting it, and a handful of other freelancers to start using it. I'm slowly moving over to Affinity for my freelance. Having software that competes with InDesign was a lot more urgent than Linux support, so I've been happy with the prioritization. (Although I think all software companies should consider targeting all three platforms at the beginning of a project. The libraries to do so have existed for years. But that's a business decision that is in the past.) The freelancer who couldn't pay for his Adobe subscription that month is now using Affinity products as per my recommendation. So Serif is doing a lot of good. I just hope that people who create design software don't forget about the creatives that are off of Adobe's radar.

BMP support would be great, as well as DDS, DXF, WEBP export, .... Common file formats, really.
But I think I figured out why the Affinity devevlopers seem so reluctant to implement additional file formats!

The Export dialog would become awkwardly wide, with silly proportions and too many icons would cause cognitive overload in the poor brains of Affinity users! That makes absolute sense to me! Therefore I think it is better to limit the number of export file formats in Affinity, because adding more export icons would impact this export dialog's user experience in a very negative manner.
TGA was added only a short while ago, and I assume it led to many a deliberation and heated argument in the Affinity team whether to include it or not, which obviously led to a stand-off, and which in turn led to its very belated inclusion, even though many users had requested it. I understand their conundrum in this case. Each new export file format that is proposed leads to more icons, and hence, to an ever more widening dialog, with more and more icons.
I propose to remove TGA and WMF (luckily the Mac version omits WMF). Too many icons already clutter this Export dialog, in my opinion, so less is more!
 

 

Publisher + PDF export = presentation with slides which can be viewed anywhere on any device.

Publisher + PDF export = presentation with slides which can be viewed anywhere on any device.

Blender's Grease Pencil and 2d animation capabilities are getting better with each release. Amazing.
 
 

Really nice DAMs out there already. For example iMatch, DigiKam, Daminion, Photo Supreme, and many more. No need to wait, right?
Some searching led me to this page - which mirrors my opinion. Always plan for contingencies - is there an escape route? Software may be discontinued (or go rental only, in spite of "a certain company's promises").
https://www.bkwinephotography.com/technology/found-best-digital-asset-management-dam-system/

Yep, it has no point, the whole thing, as support ends in a pair of months or so. And by support we mean here security patches. Yep, we all have our own third party in antivirus, firewall, etc. But an OS not receiving security patches should be an end of the road for anyone, imo. And the option for a professional to work with the main machine not connected to internet... Well, I yet to know in person a pro that can really do that without wrecking greatly today's workflows. 
If there would be some huge money issue or network problem to do so, yep, one can in theory keep using Windows 7 for ever. But that'd be the only cases (extreme situations, very poor regions, etc) where I'd see it making sense.
And is not a small thing the fact that too many drivers and professional apps (too many useful apps with Win 10 as minimum req. already) are requiring Windows 10. Even newer machines (ie, AMD stuff) do require Windows 10 as an OS, only allowing windows 10 drivers. Hardware vendors of many devices are stopping providing Windows 7 drivers. And as mentioned, Windows 8 (and then of course, Win 10) indeed don't even have an option to deactivate it. This is not an alien thing in computers' world. Apple does similar things, just in a different way. And yet so, PC / Windows machines can last extreme periods of time without getting cut by obsolescence tricks. I have been almost 11 years with the same OS, since 2009. 
Yet so, for now (for 2 months), I yet use Windows 7, use it for my professional graphics work, and have done always so, I configured it to my liking, and Aero is not an issue (it doesn't feel like Aero as I configure it) since a while. No performance loss of any kind, also : I have used machines with Win 10, and no issues, either. Indeed, I made thorough tests (clean installs, same machines, same apps, etc. Scientific.), and Windows 10 (and 8.x) seem to have a much better handling of memory (RAM, disk) than Windows 7. I found it significantly faster in many ways, while some Windows 7 users think -very wrongly, but I had done so, too- that is the opposite case. The tests were for me conclusive and shocking. So much that I triple-checked everything.
Not necessarily assuming you haven't done so already, basically what I do (did) as another Windows 7 user is the following :
Select and activate the standard Windows Aero theme (right click on desktop, "customize", pick "Windows 7" theme). Once done that, in the desktop, right click over the "computer" icon and then "properties" or Go to Control Panel / System /  System Advanced Settings / Advanced Options tab. In the "Performance" area of that tab, hit the "settings" button. You then appear in a popup window and a tab which says sth like "Visual Effects". There you don't select "Let Windows set the best config..." or etc, but "Custom". And need to deselect all options except : 
 
-  Enable Desktop Composition.
- Show thumbnails instead of icons.
- Smooth edges of screen fonts.
-  Use visual styles on windows and buttons.
 
Do NOT save the theme (as far as I remember, it'd activate the unwanted features by its own will if doing so). Let the whole "themes" stuff alone.
That's it.

You can of course configure to your liking (to help even more reducing the Aero feel; it's what I do) the colors and other details. Just remember that touching several of those options in customization of appearance, Windows does activate back some of the unwanted stuff (like the glass effect, animations, etc) . The trick is doing those appearance (the customization of appearance -> through right click on the desktop or through control panel)  changes, let Windows activate the unwanted features, but do as I explained above AGAIN to stay ONLY with the 4 ones (or more if you are very sure you want them) you need. Although now with the color scheme and etc that you prefer.  There are other matters that can as well be disabled through other parts of the system, and folder properties. To me, they are irrelevant. Well, as the whole system (it's win 10's time) is already.
A link to one of the threads that Mark refers to  (but I provided in this post (above) the full trick as I used Spanish items names and captures in the link below, also, that thread is, besides super old,  less 'to the point'. ). The only thing of value (or not overridden by the stuff above) in this one below is probably the explanations to change appearance matters. :
https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/28514-small-tip-for-people-disliking-aero-windows-7/
 

It is indeed a minor inconvenience. But minor inconveniences may add up:
layer effect settings are not remembered and always reset to "none" the styles lack an option to save only layer effects (some workarounds exist, but that's the point, isn't it? It all adds up.) the default settings don't "do" anything, and arguably take extra steps compared to most other software, which do start with a common default setting. Taken together, users might get frustrated. I myself have noticed quite a few of these small workflow niggles throughout the Affinity applications.
That said, I couldn't care less whether it is named a "drop shadow" or "outer shadow". What counts is if the required effect can be achieved - and it is readily possible in Affinity, even if the workflow is a bit wonky.

If I really need to know how shadows would fall I actually make a mock up in a 3D app but that's just me being nerdy.

Well, here's one from CD. CD does a fine job and can save the effect.

Is as automatic without saving a preset as per ID, QXP, PP and ... ? Nope. 
But in the time that has been used in posting arguments in this thread, I could have set, consistently, 1000 drop shadows in an APub document how I want them all to appear--which are as well done as any applications including the aforementioned one.
Do Serif applications need to be able to set defaults? Sure thing. But until such time as it does/can do so the present means are how it's done.

Agreed with the OP on all counts. Here are some of my observations.
The keyboard shortcuts preference screen cannot be resized. This leads to unnecessary scrolling and extra effort to locate an option in the list. Other preference screens, such as Abbreviations and Auto-Correct in Publisher also cannot be resized, leading to similar user frustrations. The search option is almost useless in practice. Entering "Use" highlights four categories, but the actual preference options remain unexposed. A much more usable method would be to include a simple dropdown list that lists the found properties, and when clicked immediately opens the intended preference screen, as well as highlighting it. Allow the user to use the up and down cursor keys to navigate the found entries in this dropdown list. Hitting the Enter key in the search field should not close the Preferences window. Hitting the Enter key at any time closes the Preferences dialog. Frustrating to the user, because the user may not have noticed that they mis-clicked an input field, still continue typing and hit Enter. Result: dialog closes. Besides, Escape already closes the dialog. The Escape and Enter keys have very different usability connotations in a dialog. In the beginning I kept clicking the "Next" and "Previous" buttons to attempt to paginate through the main option screens. But instead these act like browser buttons, making it frustratingly hard to quickly browse the main preference screens.
Click a preference category. Can't find the option? Go back to the main preferences entries. Click another. Still not found? Go back, and try again. A chore, in particular when it is unclear where a specific option can be found. If the Next and Previous buttons would allow the user to quickly page between preference categories a lot of wasted time clicking around could be avoided.
In short allow the user to quickly browse/paginate the main preference screens.
(And yes, I am aware of how Apple abuses these as well.) Page up and down keys could be used to effectively paginate from one preference category to the next. And/or right and left cursor keys. Miscellaneous screen's top content is center aligned, which is inconsistent with all the other screens. Check boxes should be left aligned instead. Instead of a slow, cumbersome and hidden dropdown list to browse to a specific preference category, list all main preference categories in a list on the left of the main preference dialog. Highlight the one currently browsed. 1) far easier and efficient to navigate, 2) far better indication which settings the user is currently viewing.
(The currently used category word is hardly noticed due to visual hierarchy problems. Some preference screens are "uber"-filled with options, without proper visual grouping or even adequate vertical space used. The General options is particularly busy with no apparent logical grouping, but other screens are problematic in this respect too. The lack of visual subgrouping of options leads to cognitive overload and confusion on many preference screens.
For example, the Performance screen puts four distinct subcategories of settings in one densely populated screen, with no visual grouping.  All in all, the preferences dialog in Affinity is among the worst that I have encountered so far in regards to usability.
I am used to both Mac and Windows in my work.
Rely foremost on active user testing rather than anything else. What works in one situation, may backfire in another. Avoid blatantly copying GUIs. Besides, the Mac Preferences dialog is far more configurable and evolved user experience than the one in Affinity, which is a shadow of the former.

Agreed with the OP on all counts. Here are some of my observations.
The keyboard shortcuts preference screen cannot be resized. This leads to unnecessary scrolling and extra effort to locate an option in the list. Other preference screens, such as Abbreviations and Auto-Correct in Publisher also cannot be resized, leading to similar user frustrations. The search option is almost useless in practice. Entering "Use" highlights four categories, but the actual preference options remain unexposed. A much more usable method would be to include a simple dropdown list that lists the found properties, and when clicked immediately opens the intended preference screen, as well as highlighting it. Allow the user to use the up and down cursor keys to navigate the found entries in this dropdown list. Hitting the Enter key in the search field should not close the Preferences window. Hitting the Enter key at any time closes the Preferences dialog. Frustrating to the user, because the user may not have noticed that they mis-clicked an input field, still continue typing and hit Enter. Result: dialog closes. Besides, Escape already closes the dialog. The Escape and Enter keys have very different usability connotations in a dialog. In the beginning I kept clicking the "Next" and "Previous" buttons to attempt to paginate through the main option screens. But instead these act like browser buttons, making it frustratingly hard to quickly browse the main preference screens.
Click a preference category. Can't find the option? Go back to the main preferences entries. Click another. Still not found? Go back, and try again. A chore, in particular when it is unclear where a specific option can be found. If the Next and Previous buttons would allow the user to quickly page between preference categories a lot of wasted time clicking around could be avoided.
In short allow the user to quickly browse/paginate the main preference screens.
(And yes, I am aware of how Apple abuses these as well.) Page up and down keys could be used to effectively paginate from one preference category to the next. And/or right and left cursor keys. Miscellaneous screen's top content is center aligned, which is inconsistent with all the other screens. Check boxes should be left aligned instead. Instead of a slow, cumbersome and hidden dropdown list to browse to a specific preference category, list all main preference categories in a list on the left of the main preference dialog. Highlight the one currently browsed. 1) far easier and efficient to navigate, 2) far better indication which settings the user is currently viewing.
(The currently used category word is hardly noticed due to visual hierarchy problems. Some preference screens are "uber"-filled with options, without proper visual grouping or even adequate vertical space used. The General options is particularly busy with no apparent logical grouping, but other screens are problematic in this respect too. The lack of visual subgrouping of options leads to cognitive overload and confusion on many preference screens.
For example, the Performance screen puts four distinct subcategories of settings in one densely populated screen, with no visual grouping.  All in all, the preferences dialog in Affinity is among the worst that I have encountered so far in regards to usability.
I am used to both Mac and Windows in my work.
Rely foremost on active user testing rather than anything else. What works in one situation, may backfire in another. Avoid blatantly copying GUIs. Besides, the Mac Preferences dialog is far more configurable and evolved user experience than the one in Affinity, which is a shadow of the former.

In my experience the standard shadow effect settings in all software generally also needs additional manipulation to look good, depending on the job. I almost never am satisfied with the default settings.
The settings of Outer Shadow in Affinity and Drop Shadow in other design software are as good as identical, excepting the default settings.
But I do agree that it is rather odd that the Affinity devs decided to label it Outer Shadow and zero out the default settings, because:
most users would expect a standard Drop Shadow effect to be present in design software and one with acceptable default settings; Drop Shadow is an effect extensively used (Outer Shadow, however, much less so in my experience); a typical user would look for the same effect name, which is standard in all other design software (Outer Shadow is unique, as far as I am aware). And even the default settings don't "do" anything in this case, which can be confusing to novice users. Same with other effects. In my experience users tend to expect an immediate visual response from the design software, and that is exactly how it is generally done in most other design software. Apply an effect, see the effect applied, change the settings. In Affinity it works like: Activate the effect, nothing happens. Change the settings one by one to conjure up the intended effect.
The Affinity user experience does seem to go against the commonly accepted and expected one. Whether this is good UX or a less well thought design choice I will leave up to you.
Funnily enough I never noticed the change in effect name in Affinity before this discussion: my mind automatically 'translated' Outer Shadow to Drop Shadow. Never noticed the difference before :-)