Pšenda

There is no focus set to 'Close Document' dialogue. It is very annoying that user can not use tab key or cursor arrows (left or right) to select the right button and then press Enter.
It should be standard to set focus into the dialogue in that way:

I wish Affinity would use the Bring/Send nomenclature developed decades ago for Forward/Backward which is used by Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, Corel, and pretty much everybody else. i.e.,
Bring to Front Bring Forward Send Backward Send to Back Affinity uses:
Move to Front Move Forward One Move Backward One Move to Back This is a very small thing but Bring/Send differentiates the items in the menu making it easier to pick the right one. And consistency with others is good.
Thanks

I really enjoy these would-be "adults" from similar pseudo-professionals who know everything best and have been everywhere twice. Thank you for your "beneficial" contributions to the topics with which you enrich us here, and that you make this forum look more "professional".

But that's exactly what Walt is talking about - after turning off the layer type symbol, how do you know what layer it is when you name it, and the layer type description disappears? But if you don't organize your layers in any way and thus don't even name them, then the layer type symbol is of course redundant for you (although turning it off does nothing at all - the layer still occupies the same place).

I really enjoy these would-be "adults" from similar pseudo-professionals who know everything best and have been everywhere twice. Thank you for your "beneficial" contributions to the topics with which you enrich us here, and that you make this forum look more "professional".

I'll have to disagree. The new way is better.
 

the object type that is possible to remove is that little rectangle that repeats what is in the main square. Really nothing lost. This is a demonstration how redundant and confusing that system is: in the same layer we have a little rectangle, a bigger square, and a legend, all indicating and saying the same thing. 

DPI in itself is not interesting for raster images - it is only about how many pixels the given image has and therefore how detailed it is. If you increase the number of pixels, when using the Bicubic or Lanczos methods (you can try which is more suitable for you), the missing information will be added (of course, this is only an interpolation of the existing image information), which then looks more detailed and therefore sharper. You can then try to improve the sharpness with Sharpening.

As Paul already wrote, if the font "does not exist", then in principle it is impossible to create a shape - what the "non-existent" font would look like.
That is why the applications use embedded fonts that were inserted into the imported pdf, so that for these applications even the non-installed font "exists". And as already mentioned, the Affinity application cannot process embedded fonts yet, but it has been requested many times before:
https://www.google.com/search?q=embedded+font+site:https://forum.affinity.serif.com
 
I think the title "When importing pdf, Inability to import unknown text as paths" is not correct. Apparently the word "font" should be used there.
I think that reconstructing non-existent text would be an even bigger masterpiece than reconstructing a non-existent font 🙂
P.S. However, in order to avoid a formally incorrect confusion of the words non-existent, unknown and not installed, the title of the post should be modified to "... Inability import text with non-installed font as path".

JPEG is a lossy format, so if you require the highest possible quality, then a lossless one, such as TIFF or PNG.
 
Yes.
Try Copy/Paste with image, or Place embeded (*.afphoto) document.
 
It would be good to work with an "Image layer", which is a container for image data that is kept at full quality.
That is, insert an image (or an original *.afphoto document) using the Place command.

Just out of interest, how are the thumbnails “confusing”?
And, if the thumbnails were not there, especially if the default names are kept, how would that make it easier for you to “concentrate” on what you are doing?

This may be a function name translation problem.
 
 

So you're apparently talking about the iPad version? That would be an important info to note in the first place.

Hi @fde101,
I already mentioned it in my previous post here,
and I was accused that "i can see that you like to give lessons but i’m not a child anymore!".
Someone is simply not interested in the problems and needs of others, or does not understand the difference between "Question" forum and "Feedback and Suggestion" forum.
As I was also advised, maybe you should go for a well-deserved rest 🙂
P.S. Only a child could write this, despite what they try to convince us otherwise.

Isn't that what they tried to do with Pinning in the Recent view?

@Pšendaasked: I read an opinion on the forum that an application installed with MSI is faster/more agile than the MSIX version (possible effect of sandboxing). Can you confirm this?
I cannot say that I have noticed anything.
John

If a company blocks the Internet for security reasons, I am very surprised that it allows any custom applications to be installed and run on its "closed" network, which are as a result just as, if not more dangerous than a controlled Internet connection.

Thanks to @Pšendafor pointing out and quantifying the very consistent zooming in with the mouse wheel in Windows. Zooming out is, of course, just the inverse where each view is just 80% of the current view. This seems to me most logical and desirable, neither too much nor too little. 

"Inconsistent zoom increments (Windows)"
Just to add, zooming using the wheel in Windows is completely consistent. 25% is always added to the existing zoom value.
So it's not an absolute increment (+25%, +25%,…), but a relative increment to the current display, so the values look seemingly chaotic.
100% + 25% of the value 100% (which is 25%) = 125%.
125% + 25% of the value 125% (which is 31%) = 156%.
156% + 25% of the value 156% (which is 39%) = 195%.
Another situation is when using Ctrl+"+", where the value jumps by fixed increments.

"Inconsistent zoom increments (Windows)"
Just to add, zooming using the wheel in Windows is completely consistent. 25% is always added to the existing zoom value.
So it's not an absolute increment (+25%, +25%,…), but a relative increment to the current display, so the values look seemingly chaotic.
100% + 25% of the value 100% (which is 25%) = 125%.
125% + 25% of the value 125% (which is 31%) = 156%.
156% + 25% of the value 156% (which is 39%) = 195%.
Another situation is when using Ctrl+"+", where the value jumps by fixed increments.

Lots of companies have to cater for the specific software needs of individuals working for them, in addition to the generic software that everyone gets...
E.g.
The accountant needs accounting software
Whoever pays the wages need Payroll software
Whoever does the Invoices needs Billing software
And the Graphics guy needs Affinity Photo
etc
etc
etc

If a company blocks the Internet for security reasons, I am very surprised that it allows any custom applications to be installed and run on its "closed" network, which are as a result just as, if not more dangerous than a controlled Internet connection.

Same here, but being an option for three is much better than no option at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combo_box
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_menu

As far as I know, in V1 the adjustment icons did not appear in collapsed layer. You can even click on them, and you can adjust their parameters. So in most situations (smaller number of adjustments, adding adjustments that I really need so I don't have to turn them off) the user can do with a collapsed layer, which makes the layers stack significantly clearer. That was probably the reason for this change in behavior.