[Affinity Designer Editable Dropline Effect]

@kx08 I have known some people whose first - and only - language was English and they didn't speak it as well as you, so don't worry too much about that.
I would be interested to know which software you decide on using for the subtitles. I have looked at a few applications for this sort of thing but they all seem a bit too complicated for what I want to do.
As for the length of the video, that really depends on who you expect your audience to be. There is no 'best length' for a tutorial. Sometimes I just want to quickly see the basic work-flow so I can try it for myself. On the other hand, sometimes I prefer to hear the presenter go through their whole decision-making process as it gives me more information about why something was done rather than just how. Often, the 'why' can be much more informative than the 'how'. The manual tells you how you can do it, but experience tells you why you should do it a certain way.
Also, don't be afraid to leave mistakes in the video, as long as you correct them. Seeing how someone recovers from a problem can often be just as informative as watching them do something right.

[Is there a way to tell a single master page whether it is for a left- or right-hand page?]

Windows 10 Home 1809, Publisher 1.7.0.227.

I have a Facing spread with pages of dimension 5.8x7.9in with margins of 0.75in inner, 1.0in outer, 0.75in top, 0.8in bottom (see attached image).
This means that the outside (left) margin of the left-hand page equals that of the outside (right) margin of the right-hand page and both outer margins are larger than the two inner margins. That's all well and good.

However, when I come to create a left- or right-hand Single master page - sometimes I don't want one side of the spread to have what's on the related master page 'side' - I can't seem to find a way of telling Publisher that the master page is either left- or right-handed and always get the margins for a left-handed page.

Is there any way I can correctly set the margins for each left/right single master page without doing it manually? Or, is there a better way I should be doing this?

I have found that I can create a Facing master page and then apply that to each 'side' of a spread but that puts me in the position sometimes where, for pages that use both left- and right-hand sides of the master, I now have a duplicated master page, which looks a little confusing. I should really remove the existing 'side' of the master page and apply the whole facing master page but I might forget.

The attached AFPUB file shows both the left/right single page margin issue - master pages Left Single and Right Single - and the duplicated master page 'issue'. It also shows that the margins on the Right Single master are not visible on the pages that master has been applied to, even when you switch off the other master pages applied to the spread. Basically, I have too many margins - on the different masters - and don't know which will be applied (I think that might be a separate issue).

master-page-sides.afpub

[Affinity Designer Editable Dropline Effect]

Welcome to the forum kx08.
That's a nice video. Maybe a tiny bit slow-paced for me personally but otherwise absolutely fine.
Some videos move way too fast and the viewer has to keep skipping back - or, at least, I do - but yours is easy to follow so, if I was you, I wouldn't worry too much about the speed.
As Pariah73 said, your English is easily understandable and everything was explained well with no major steps missing.

One small tip: Your next video might benefit from your working from a basic script. Nothing too fancy, just a set of bullet points reminding you what to do next so the flow isn't interrupted. And, if you wanted to give yourself more work, these bullet points could then also be added as text to the video - at the relevant places - to give the viewer another way of seeing what is happening (but that's not necessary).

On a related note, are you aware that you can achieve the same sort of effect, with fewer layers, by using an exported slice in a bitmap fill?
The result isn't as crisp as using pure vectors, and changing the fill colour requires more work (adding a Recolour adjustment), but it's probably fine for most purposes.

Anyway, all-in-all, a good video showing various functions and techniques which can also be used elsewhere.

[Line shapes]

Welcome to the forum.
It is good to hear that you want to contribute to the Affinity community. Having another expert to learn from is always good.

It does not look like Designer will be getting any new shapes for 1.7.0 - they would probably be in the Beta by now if it were.
However, I feel sure that if enough people say they want a particular shape then the Affinity team will probably think about it for a future release. (I myself have asked for an 'egg' shape.)

When you come to putting in a suggestion for a new shape it will probably be good if you keep to one shape per suggestion (forum thread).
That way, people can discuss each shape individually, rather than the discussions getting mixed together.

Note: The "Suggestions for Affinity Designer on Desktop" and "Suggestions for Affinity Designer Range" forums get more views than the iPad forum so if you want more people to see your suggestion you could consider posting in one of those instead.

[My efforts in Photo and Designer]

You're welcome.
I'm pretty sure there must be a tutorial somewhere that shows how to make something look 'battle-worn', or close to it.
Try looking at the posts pinned to the top of the "Tutorials" section of the forum.
Also, there are quite a few forum members who make T-shirts so they might have some advice on T-shirt-specific techniques and/or dos-and-don'ts.

[Leprechaun Inking in Affinity Designer 1.7 Beta]

Nice.
I like the way you tidy up after yourself, something I would forget to do - or be scared to do - and leave myself in a horrible 'node-hell' mess.
Looking forward to seeing more videos.

[Colorized photos]

I missed it in November and I would have liked to see the 'making of' that was also shown.
It would be really interesting to see how they restored just a few seconds of footage. What processes did they use? What analogue equipment was used? What computer hardware did they use? What software did they use? What were the harder bits to do? Was anything impossible and what was the 'Plan B' if that happened? Etc. Etc.
We very rarely get to see experts do their thing on TV for any decent length of time. Watching someone who really knows what they're doing showing us what they do and why they do it the way they do it is often fascinating. (A series like "Handmade" but for technical work rather than 'arty stuff' would be nice.)
Anyway, considering the kit, experience, skill and money the team must have had to hand I imagine the results are brilliant.

[Colorized photos]

I've just found out that the BBC - in the UK - are transmitting the documentary film "They Shall Not Grow Old" by Peter Jackson (the "Lord of The Rings" one) this Saturday (2nd Feb 2019). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Shall_Not_Grow_Old
His team took 100 hours of archive video from the Imperial War Museum and restored it to the correct speed, removed all kinds of problems and recoloured it, and it looks fantastic from the little I've seen. I'd say it was well worth an hour and a half of anyone's time if they're interested in this sort of thing.

[My efforts in Photo and Designer]

I have a few comments/questions/observations on the logo if you're interested...
1. Where do you see the logo being used?
I ask this as the 'distressing' on the roundel might not be something that's easily replicated on all formats, e.g. embroidered badges etc.
2. Are the spears important?
I have no experience of kick-boxing - or martial arts in general - but I didn't think they used spears. If you, or your friend, wants them then that's absolutely fine but they look a little out-of-place to me. You could try making them non-symmetrical so that they are at different angles and, perhaps, make one longer than the other. And maybe try making the spears thinner and trying rounded or slightly jagged ends, easy enough to experiment in Designer.
3. Some of the strokes aren't the same width as the others, e.g. roundel curves vs. nicks, spear-head 'base'.
Not super-important but it might be worth checking to see if that's what you want. Sometimes you do but sometimes it's better if they're all the same, it just depends on what you want and, sometimes, how the logo will be reproduced.
4. The typeface used for the lettering doesn't seem to fit the rest of the design.
This is a totally personal thing but I don't think the lettering style fits with the artistic style of the fighter. I would have expected something less 'fancy' but that's just me. Something with a bold/black look - maybe outlined - might go well.
5. The letters aren't properly centred within the roundel.
If you look at, for example, the first "T" in "TESTED" and the "G" in "...BOXING", there's a big difference in their distances from the edges. Sometimes you might want this, it can give a 'hand-made' look to something, but often it's a bit off-putting.
6. It might be good to make some of the nicks in the roundel cut into some of the letters.
If the nicks are where chunks of the logo have been knocked off then it's a bit suspicious that none of them have hit any of the lettering.
7. The belt looks strange.
At first I thought it was a stool and couldn't think why there was a stool in the image. Maybe shorten one of the ends so it's not as symmetrical. Or maybe remove the belt altogether and make the fighter a bit larger perhaps?
8. Could the glove nearest to the viewer somehow overlap part of the roundel?
I might make more 'impact' if the glove was to 'come out of the logo' somehow.

Anyway, while going though some of my ideas I thought I'd give it a try for myself.
I've attached my quickly-made version (without the fighter) for you to have a look at. (Note where the "T" and "C" have had to be 'stuck back on' quite crudely.)

Feel free to ignore any or all of my comments. It's your logo so do it your way.

[Affinity Publisher and opening PPP files]

I don't think anyone here has said that the number of OS X installations was - even closely - equal to the number of Windows installations.
I don't have the facts to hand but I have seen way more Windows machines being used than OS X machines and I don't think my experience is way off most people's general experiences. I think it's probably very reasonable to say that there are way more Windows machines than OS X machine in the world.

But that's not the point I was trying to make.

To try and clear things up - and I'm sure this can be sorted reasonably easily - lets go back to the start and take things slowly because I might have missed something.
In your second post you stated: "I've never seen any company shoot itself in the foot and attempt to lose their customer base as blatantly as this."

So, my first questions is: How do you calculate that Serif will be losing their customer base?

Consider these scenarios:
* Existing PagePlus customers can keep PagePlus - no loss of customer base there.
* People who want PagePlus can still buy it - chance of an increase in customer base but no loss.
* Existing PagePlus customers who want to also buy Publisher can buy it when it becomes available - they don't need to uninstall PagePlus - so no loss of customer base there, more likely an increase. Some might switch from PagePlus to Publisher (a one-to-one exchange) but no loss of customer base.
* People who are using non-Serif software could see that Publisher isn't for them yet, not purchase Publisher, and keep using their existing software - no loss of Serif customer base there either; no gain but no loss.

So where is the loss of customer base coming from?

[Affinity Publisher and opening PPP files]

Without wanting to get into the whole "Windows vs. Mac" hoo-haa:
@Mist001 Looking purely at the numbers, where do you get your information about OS X being a niche market compared to Windows?
And do you mean the total number of installed copies of OS X (and variants) as compared to installed copies of Windows, or do you mean number of users on each (including distributed/server software)?
Does this include/exclude desktop, laptop, tablet, and/or phone installations and/or users for each OS?
Are you also putting those numbers into the context of the desktop publishing, illustration, photo editing or design/creative business areas?
And how do you also consider those numbers in relation to the people who might want to get into those business areas but haven't yet been able to do so because of hardware/software price/availability etc?

Basically, how do you count the number of people who might want to get into desktop publishing, for example, on a Mac or Windows - it doesn't really matter - but haven't yet because of some unknown reason? You can't reasonably count what you cannot know so you can't reasonably compare that to anything.

[Is there any way to force the PDF viewer page display mode on PDF export?]

@Wosven I've used other software where the user can set the suggested page display mode - PDF specification / 7.7.2 Document Catalog / PageLayout - and was just wondering if Publisher could do the same.
@MikeW I'm not exporting as spreads, just pages. Since my document doesn't have facing pages there are no spreads to export. Apologies if my using the term 'spreads' caused some confusion but I didn't know what else to call them as that's what they looked like.

As it happens, I found that my copy of Reader was set to use "Two-Up Continuous" in "Preferences / Page Display / Page Layout" - can't remember setting that myself but there we go - so there's probably no actual problem in this specific case but it might be nice if Publisher gave the options to the user. Something for 1.8 perhaps?

[Suggest a slight reorder of some controls in the Export dialog]

The PNG, JPG, GIF, TIFF, EXR and HDR pages of the Export dialog have some "Size" controls at the top which change value if the - lower down the dialog - selected "Area" changes.
It would be better if the "Size" controls came below the "Area" control so that the user can more easily notice the change.
It is generally better if controls only change the value of other controls further down a dialog - and not above - because, otherwise, the user might not see it happening, or may even assume that it's unimportant.
The user should be able to make their way down a dialog - especially a dialog which produces an external effect/product - from top to bottom once without having to go back to the top and check everything again, just in case. (One exception to this 'rule' is when the user's actions change the settings from those set by a preset, in which case it's okay to remove the preset value.)

[Is there any way to force the PDF viewer page display mode on PDF export?]

Windows 10 Home 1809, Publisher 1.7.0.227.

I have a document where the pages are non-facing and I would like the reader to automatically view them as single pages rather than as 'spreads'.
When I export to a PDF in Publisher, the PDF shows in a web browser as I would expect with one page on top of the other scrolling downwards - see first attached image from Firefox. However, when I view the document in Acrobat Reader DC the document is always shown as a 'spread' - see second attached image.
Is there a way for me to tell Publisher to 'force' or suggest to the PDF viewer - I don't know what software the user will be using - to use a certain page display mode, as shown in the third attached image which shows the options in Acrobat Reader DC? The one I want is called "Enable Scrolling".

[How to bend a logo? Help needed]

Pariah73's advice is great for text but it only works for text, it doesn't work if you want to bend anything else such as curves, shapes or anything imported from other software.
Designer - currently, as of 1.7.0.209 - doesn't have any complex automatic distortion tools, such as shape-on-path, perspective or mesh warping, but I'm fairly sure that the Affinity team have said those types of thing are on the roadmap so maybe sometime in the future.
In the meantime, you could try using Inkscape to get the vectors into the shape you require and then import the modified vectors into your Designer project.
Inkscape is totally free and has some very sophisticated tools - the one I think you need is in the "Extensions -> Generate From Path -> Pattern Along Path" menu - but the learning-curve can be quite steep, so be prepared to practice and experiment.

[Transparency gradient of the previous layer, when copied to a new layer, is not moved in relation to the new layer's position]

I just did a quick test and the same issue is also evident in Designer, both 1.6.5.123 and the latest 1.7.0.209 beta.
I've also noticed that the transparency gradient is not copied to new shapes or images, only text as far as I can see.

Further testing in Designer 1.6.5.125 shows that if you add a transparency gradient to the first text without specifying the geometry - I.e. with the text selected, go to the Transparency Tool, then select one of the gradient types - and then create a new text layer, the transparency gradient is not copied over to the new text layer. However, if you do change the transparency gradient's geometry then that transparency gradient is copied over. A bit of inconsistency there.

I can't think of any good use-cases where the current behaviour would be useful but, at the same time, I can't come up with a satisfactory way of transferring the transparency gradient over to the new layer because there's no guarantee that the new layer would have the same dimensions/orientation as the previous one. In other words, a transparency gradient is really only useful to the layer it's been applied to.

One way to copy it over would be to make the geometry of the transparency gradient on the new layer as calculated relative to the geometry of the previous layer but I think that sounds 'messy' somehow.

Because a transparency gradient is only really relevant to the layer it's been applied to - it has a very specific geometry that works for that specific layer in the position/orientation that layer is in - I would suggest that it should not be copied to any new layers under any circumstances. That would clear up any confusion about whether it will be copied or not and will also make it more consistent with other types of layer.

Maybe one of the developers could chip in with some comments about this. There's a good chance that I just don't understand why it works the way it does.

Moderators: If this is a bug, please move this thread to the relevant forum.

[Transparency gradient of the previous layer, when copied to a new layer, is not moved in relation to the new layer's position]

Windows 10 Home 1809, Publisher 1.7.0.227.

I'm not sure if this behaviour is correct or not - so I'm not sure if it's a bug or not - but I'll try and explain what's happening.
I can create some Artistic Text and use the Transparency Tool to give it a transparent gradient. All well and good.
Then I can create another bit of Artistic Text elsewhere the page. However, the transparency gradient of the first bit of text has been copied over to the new text but in exactly the same place as it is in the first text, which means that the transparency gradient no longer covers the second text.
Is this expected behaviour? It took me a while to figure out what was happening when I first saw this.
I've attached a GIF to show what I mean.

[PDF Export (NOT for web), strange semi-opacity result]

Thanks.
I should have mentioned that the screenshots came from viewing the document in Acrobat Reader DC, but I've just checked and the same issue is seen viewing the document in Chrome, Edge and Firefox too.

[PDF Export (NOT for web), strange semi-opacity result]

Windows 10 Home 1809, Publisher 1.7.0.227

When I export as "PDF (for print)" my document comes out okay but when using "PDF (for export)" or "PDF (for web)" a semi-opaque layer - with fully-opaque sub layers - is exported strangely.
See the attached images: first for print; second for export; third for web.
I've also attached a cut-down version of the document.

export_opacity_issue.afpub

[An interesting new font - Sans Forgetica]

You're welcome.
It was designed to be used to highlight certain passages that you want to remember.
The strange way it looks is supposed to make your brain try and 'work it out' as a little puzzle, so it's more memorable, apparently.

[An interesting new font - Sans Forgetica]

I heard about this font on a podcast last night and thought some people might find this interesting and/or useful.
It looks weird but was specifically designed to look like it does for various reasons.
Here's the link to the website: https://sansforgetica.rmit/
And here's a link to the podcast: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3cswhfj

[I seem to have got my export slices and grid 'stuck' to a layer]

Thanks Sean; at least one of my 'problems' was real in the end.

[I seem to have got my export slices and grid 'stuck' to a layer]

Ah, I see, I seem to have gotten myself in a bit of a tangle coming from different directions and going nowhere.
I've reorganised my layers and the export's okay now and working nicely.
Thanks for putting me right on that.

However, the mystery remains as to why my grid and guides get reset when I delete/move the "Backgrounds" layer.
That doesn't sound like normal behaviour to me, but with how today's been going, maybe it is.

NOTE: I've added a note in my original post to tell people to ignore the export part of the issue.

[I seem to have got my export slices and grid 'stuck' to a layer]

Windows 10 Home 1809, Designer 1.7.0.209

NOTE: Please ignore the export issue in this post. I was put right on that but the grid/guides getting reset is still an issue.

I have a document - attached - where, when I delete the "Backgrounds" layer, the grid is reset to the default and my export slices are deleted.
Try:
* loading the document;
* looking at how the grid is set-up (11px);
* going to the Export persona and looking at the export slices (should be 27, not all included in export);
* then go back to the Vector persona and delete the "Backgrounds" layer.
The grid has now gone back to the default and all of the manually-created export slices (named with "slice" and "Icon") have gone.

What have I done wrong? Or, what bit of the functionality am I not aware of?
Surely the grid and export slices can't be 'part of' a layer? That sounds wrong to me.
The slices were created from the rectangles in "Backgrounds" but I don't think the slices should be deleted when I delete the rectangles as the rectangles were only created because the "Add Slice" function doesn't - in my experience - snap to the grid or guides so that was the only way I could create exact slice positions/sizes without a lot of manual work.
Even if there's some odd thing about export slices that I don't know about, I really don't think the grid should be reset when I delete a layer.

On a related note, when I have the original document and I set the "Backgrounds" layer to not be visible in export, items within it still show up in export, which is a bit weird. I've tried all kinds of ways to get the rectangles from showing up in the export - including setting them to invisible individually - but they just won't go away. Might be a related thing, or might be something else entirely, just thought I'd add it.

P.S. After switching off - and making transparent - everything to do with the layers in "Backgrounds", when I try to export the "Icon" slices I can see the icons on the canvas but they're blank in the Slices studio and I just get 'empty' SVGs on export.
P.P.S. Just dragging the "Backgrounds" layer out of the artboard will reset the grid but the export slices remain.

grid-and-slices-on-209.afdesign

[Master page naming]

Publisher also allows the user to enter a name for a new master page which is already used by an existing master page.
Maybe Publisher should only allow unique master page names to avoid user-confusion - the same way it does for style names - although I don't know if there are some advantages to how it currently does things.