GarryP

Ah, yes, that seems to be getting us somewhere. Deleting the brezovka_strelnice.afdesign layer – a linked document – in the Group on page 5 allows everything else to snap back into place, but there doesn’t seem to be any Text Wrap set on that layer itself. Since that layer is a linked document, and I don’t have that document, I can’t do any further testing with it. It’s a guess but if something in that document has massive Text Wrap distances then that could be having some kind of effect but I can’t tell with the resources I have.

If, and I’m not saying that it’s the case here, the PDF is for other people to use – maybe it’s being sold or distributed otherwise in digital form – then the OP probably won’t have much control over which PDF reader those other people are using. And it’s the OP who will, if this is the case, probably be the one who has to answer questions about what’s going on. Either way, this isn’t really an Affinity problem, but it could be something that the team at Serif could look at just to see if there was anything they could do about it, perhaps, on the off-chance.

Apologies. From how I read what you wrote it sounded like the only thing stopping you from dropping Adobe was the ability to get graphs into Affinity documents; I just didn't read it properly. Graphing capabilities have been requested quite a few times, so maybe something will come soon, perhaps, possibly? (I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it though.)

Welcome to the forums @TobyLobster I can confirm that the file looks okay in Firefox and Chrome on Windows, and loads okay in Inkscape. However it does look wrong in the Affinity applications. I don’t know if this is a bug or just one or more SVG features that haven’t yet been implemented – e.g. such as dominant-baseline and/or text-anchor, or maybe percentage-based X and Y values.

You can create the graph using some other software – e.g. LibreOffice Calc – and then export the graph – as PNG, SVG, PDF, etc. – and then place the result into your Affinity document. (If you use a linked document then the Affinity document should auto-update when you re-export after changes.) It can be a little difficult to keep colours and fonts to be the same across both applications but a bit of planning usually helps a lot.

An unexpected but nice solution, thanks for sharing. Now I’m wondering why it works. Answers on a postcard to the usual address...

When the first or second number in the version number changes – e.g. 1.9 to 2.0, or 2.1 to 2.2 – the older version of the software can usually no longer read the documents saved in the later version. I believe that the recent update to Designer was published by mistake: https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/189983-new-update/

You’re welcome. Unfortunately I can’t do any testing on this because my PDF reader isn’t so ‘smart’. One other idea I had was, for just the numbers, to use a font which had an alternate set of numeric characters and then tell Publisher to use those alternate glyphs. That might fool the PDF reader into not seeing the numbers as numbers (if it is only looking for the standard number character Unicode-numbered glyphs). Another idea was to use a font which only had number-shaped glyphs, all of which are not in the normal place in the character set, but good luck finding one of those. Another idea, which may be more practical, if the numbers aren’t going to change, would be to convert them to curves so they aren’t text any more, or convert the whole table to curves if that’s easier and won’t cause other problems. (Keep the original table in case you need it in the future.)

The text in the text frames on page 4 seem to be wrapping around something but I can’t find what they are wrapping around, either on the page or the master page. If you select the “SLOVEM…” frame and then go to the Text Frame Panel and switch “Ignore Text Wraps” ON, the text comes back into the frame. Moving that same frame lets you see that the text really doesn’t want to be in the frame and always ‘keeps low’ at the bottom of the page. Unfortunately I don’t know how this has happened or how to fix it, but hopefully someone else will. (Just thought I’d mention these things in case it helped anyone else looking for the problem.)

Putting fancy borders on images is something which isn’t normally done for web or print these days, unless you are going for a specific look. Have a look in any magazine that you can buy and count the number of images which have a fancy border. Unless it’s a magazine which has a specific house style, I’m guessing that there will be very few. It was something which was done a while back because the tools to do it were new and ‘cool’ at the time but it’s generally fallen by the wayside in much the same way as multi-colour scrolling and flashing text on web pages did. As mentioned above, adding a border to a good image won’t generally improve it and could actually spoil it. And adding a border to a bad image won’t generally improve it. If you want to give some extra ‘interest’ to an image, one which may not be as good as you might like for some reason, then one possibility (at a push) would be to clip it inside a shape. For example, in my attached (deliberately made bad) mock-up, the ‘photographer’ didn’t get the bird properly in shot and the image is blurred. However, the image has been clipped in the shape and it now looks a little bit more like it was a deliberate ‘style’ choice – just a bit of something to give the page a bit of colour and shape, but nothing that the reader need concern themselves with.

Are you talking about the available presets, or the maximum size which you can manually input? If it’s the available presets then, no, it’s not a settings issue. (Although A3 should be an option, which is larger then A4.) Some pages size presets were removed by Serif, for whatever reason. If you want them back then you can add the ones you want yourself.

Amy Halim: Thanks for giving us the sample. As mentioned above, this seems to be one of those cases where the PDF reader software, or the OS, is being ‘helpful’ in a way that isn’t wanted. I don’t use macOS or have the PDF software mentioned so I can’t test it, but Acrobat on Windows doesn’t do the things that have been demonstrated. Since you cannot choose which software people receiving the PDF will be using to read it, it might be good if you can do something in Publisher to stop this from happening but I have a feeling that the ‘remedy’ won’t be ideal. One idea would be to add some white-filled text – i.e. invisible to the user – to the table in the cells between the numbers to try and stop the other software from interpreting the numbers as a phone number, but that’s not a great solution especially as that text could still be selected on-screen in the PDF reader. Another idea could be to have the numbers as images pinned to the table but that’s probably a bit awkward too. Hopefully someone else can suggest something better.

Thanks for the screen shot – we can now see all of your Context Bar settings, amongst other things, which are often useful for diagnostic purposes. In this situation I would expect the area being painted by the brush tool to be temporarily black/dark because the normal temporary red colour is being modified by the adjustment, but I wouldn’t expect the result to be black. What happens if you turn all of the layers above the “retouch” layer OFF – not just the B&W adjustment one – and use the brush tool? Which Brush (selected via the Brushes Panel) are you using?

Photo will always show you the whole document ‘at the document resolution’, whereas Designer and Publisher will show you vector-based layers ‘at the screen resolution’. Those aren’t the correct technical terms but hopefully you get the idea. Photo = always see pixels, as the document would be when exported; Designer/Publisher = vectors shown more clearly. This is normal for the Affinity applications.

If the Opacity should not be changeable for Pantone colours than that other method might not be available for long.

You’re welcome. Not sure why you were getting a blurry export though; maybe someone else can explain that (possibly something to do with resampling).

If you have Photo, the Pixelate Filter should do the job, but it has a permanent effect on the layer you apply it to (no Live version yet).

Welcome to the forums @ToyGunFun Does what I show in my attached video do what you want to do? If not then we might need more specific details about what you are trying to achieve and what you don’t want it to do. 2023-08-02 13-45-10.mp4

I’ve been able to replicate the issue in the fly-out on the Context Toolbar as shown in the video. However, I don’t know if the Pantone colours are ‘special’ in some way and shouldn’t be given a non-100% opacity for some reason I’m not aware of. While you are waiting for it to be fixed you could use the Opacity slider in the Colour Panel instead.

You’re welcome.

I don’t think it can be made any larger than 500. As that value is an approximation of pixel size (I think) it’s reasonable to guess that the developers didn’t think anyone would want/need the cells larger than that, and the field has to have an upper limit of some kind. If you do want to be able to make larger cells then you can add a Feature Request in the appropriate section of the forums, specifying how large you want to be able to make them and, perhaps, giving a good reason why.

Ah, you’re using a Gradient Map Adjustment, not the Gradient Tool, which is a different thing. You can see the presets for that filter by opening the Adjustment Panel and opening the section for that particular adjustment. See attached image.

That’s what I thought too. It seems to be picking up two fives, then a space, then two sixes, then a space, then two sevens, etc. etc. A bit like part of what's contained in part of the table. It would be interesting to get an example document containing just that table to experiment with.

Looks nice. I haven’t properly examined it but I have three things of note: 1. The URL on the front(?) is much shorter than the URL on the back(?). Is that deliberate? Also, are the “https://” and “.html” really necessary these days? 2. There are two lighthouses on one panel on the front(?). Is that too many lighthouses for one panel? 3. I would personally lose the 'apostrophe-s' from the end of “Accounting” on the top-right of the front(?). Just what I would do, not a big issue.

The Shape Builder Tool was only introduced in V2 so it’s still very young and has much promise. All we can do is wait and see what happens.