Granddaddy

lacerto's video of the Blender scalable interface is impressive. Sadly, history suggests that this kind of interface scaling is well beyond the capabilities of Affinity developers, just as its purposes seem beyond the comprehension of Affinity interface designers. But surely Affinity could implement simpler approaches to readability and usability that have been standard in Affinity Photo's competition for the past few years. Corel PaintShop Pro has provided discrete choices of text size, icon size, and other User Interface settings right on the main menu bar so they can be easily adjusted at any time while working on a project. Or why not just implement a user interface with readable text and icons similar to that on all other programs I use. Affinity stands out as the only interface that chooses to use minuscule text and icons. I am still using Office 2000 that was designed originally for 12" monitors or thereabouts. It is perfectly legible on my 24" monitors with Windows accessibility scaling set to 100%. Only Affinity is dysfunctional and unpleasant to use. Some text in the Affinity UI uses the Windows system font and so is scalable with Windows Ease of Access settings without scaling the entire Windows interface. Other text elements seem to be hard coded into the Affinity applications.

Affinity staff said in 2016 that the user interface issues would be addressed in future version. Indeed they have, with the result that everything has become worse. See the discussion that resurfaced recently at https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/189371-high-dpi-settings-on-windows-increase-tools-font-size/

Let's enlarge on R C-R's comment that he cannot understand why the Affinity usability issue has never been addressed since day 1. In a phrase popularized by a prominent, contemporary, social commentator, "it is beyond comprehension" that such a serious, even debilitating, deficiency has never been addressed despite assurances given seven years ago that such issues would be addressed in future versions. The user interface has indeed been altered over the years, but always in ways that make usability worse, as I and many others pointed out with the release of Affinity 2 in November 2022. Among many other threads in these forums at the time, see for instance https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/173835-what-ergonomic-design-principles-call-for-minimal-contrast-and-reduced-readability-in-user-interfaces/ In 40 years of desktop computing beginning with PC-DOS and continuing through Windows 3.0 with excursions into the Power Mac world and today in Windows 10 with over 100 applications installed, I have never encountered such an unreadable, unpleasant user interface as that foisted on us by Affinity products. It's enough to make me doubt my sanity for still using the software. I remain sane enough to warn others away from Affinity software unless they have some really compelling reason to try it.

Hello @btmgreg, welcome to the forums. For background as a new user you should know that people have been begging for a more readable UI since the Affinity apps were first released more than 8 years ago. What you see now seems to be baked into the system. Sadly for so many of us, Affinity 2 made the UI even less usable, as described in numerous threads in these forums beginning last November. For more on this topic, see my August 2 post at There you will find links to additional posts with more details, including my own reasons for continuing to use Affinity Photo and Publisher despite the unpleasant, dysfunctional UI. Everything is a tradeoff. With Affinity you get great power at an affordable price along with these extremely helpful forums populated by patient, expert users. See also https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/171054-accessibility-customising-the-ui-font-size/&do=findComment&comment=1075020 And why I bought the Affinity 2 Universal License at https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/177444-upgrade-i-still-can-not-decide/&do=findComment&comment=1021782

I think the threat of invisible data being inserted into images created and/or modified by generative AI might be of interest to others in this thread. When you use generative AI to alter one of your own images, how can you be sure that the resulting image will not be damaging to yourself in one way or another? How do you know if the AI has not inserted invisible data into your generated image, even data deeply buried in the AI's image library through generative inbreeding? It turns out that careful visual inspection will not be sufficient to protect your interests. Companies have developed ways of embedding data into an image that is invisible to the eye but detectable by suitable software. This particular article is about invisible digital watermarking and deepfakes. I imagine many other kinds of data, both benign and malignant, might be invisibly embedded in any image you create for yourself using generative AI. https://spectator.org/saving-ourselves-from-ai-deepfakes/

I thought the inbreeding and artifact generation aspect of generative AI might be of interest to others in this thread. Will it become important to know and understand the genetic background of any images or text being crossbred with your own images or text to produce a final product? From https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2023/08/28/gross-ai-is-turning-into-the-human-centipede-n1722597 “Garbage in, garbage out” (GIGO) was one of the very first computer terms I ever learned, a way of saying that the results you get out of a computer are only as good as the data you put into it. But because of the way AI works — “large language models” is much more accurate than “AI” — the systems are actually creating, out of thin air, the bad data that generates garbage outputs. The AI/LLM version of GIGO is “generative inbreeding,” according to Louis Rosenberg in a new Venture Beat report. That’s what happens — just like with people and animals — when “members of a population reproduce with other members who are too genetically similar.” Rosenberg writes that “recent studies suggest that generative inbreeding could break AI systems, causing them to produce worse and worse artifacts over time, like making a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy.” Worse:

Perhaps the Affinity Photo stacking function would be helpful when panorama fails. Stacking is far more robust than most users realize. Stacking enables you to build panoramas non-destructively with manual adjustment of alignments and masking as demonstrated at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eSLyZA0Zao You can also use stacking to make action sequences from a succession of photos taken while panning across a scene even without a tripod. https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/114815-create-an-action-sequence-by-stacking-panned-photos/

After many years of futile requests by countless users, I see no reason to hope that Affinity will ever provide a comfortable, user-oriented interface for its applications. Numerous people in these forums have posted detailed descriptions showing how the release of Affinity 2 made the UI even more dysfunctional than before. For some background and history, see my post from 7/20/2023 that will lead you to others. Everything is a tradeoff. Either you will make do with Affinity's dysfunctional, poorly-designed, unpleasant UI, or you will choose software products from another company with designers more attuned to usability requirements. Just don't expect Affinity products to accommodate your need to see what you are doing on screen.

Users have been requesting fixes to the default export location ever since Affinity was first released about eight years ago. To date we have all been ignored. Sometimes we are told we are wrong to even want such fixes. It is infuriating that files are not exported to the location of the original file but instead are exported by default to the folder last used, which may be for a completely different project and for completely different purposes. It is especially frustrating when files from several different folders are being worked on simultaneously. Using Affinity requires a very high level of tolerance for poor design decisions made long ago. Perhaps old coding decisions make difficult what ought to be simple changes. See, for instance, the myriad discussions on the readability of the user interface, especially on modern high-resolution monitors.

Welcome to the Affinity forums @klodoma Your question about getting a readable UI with Affinity products arises again and again. You might find some help by reading my most recent post on the topic. It includes links to some history and some partial solutions.

For additional history on this rendering feature see and

Immediately your article reminded me of Isaac Asimov's 1958 story "The Feeling of Power" in which one man discovers graphitics. He learns to calculate with pencil and paper. Doing arithmetic without computers obviously has military significance: it makes manned missiles possible. https://archive.org/details/1958-02_IF/page/n5/mode/2up?view=theater Even older is E. M. Forster's 1909 tale about the rediscovery of outdoor reality beyond one's room when "The Machine Stops." https://archive.org/details/e.-m.-forster-the-machine-stops_202008 I hasten to add that while I purchased my copy of "If" from a newsstand in 1958, Forster's story was published before even I was born. I know of it only from an anthology I bought many decades ago.

@DesertPenny welcome to the forums. Your request for a readable user interface is as old as Affinity products. You may benefit from reading my most recent summary and review of the issues on Windows and why I've continued with Affinity despite it's unpleasant UI. There are also several additional useful links in my post. Using Windows Accessibility settings can help with some text and is preferable to scaling all of Windows.

PHLEARN's very slick video posted above is indeed fascinating. It raises a lot of questions in my mind. As I understand the PHLEARN video, you use Adobe's "generative fill" function by uploading your images to Adobe servers. Adobe's computers process your images in accordance with your instructions. Your processed images are then downloaded back to your computer to be used as you see fit. Adobe will be charging for this service, so it might best be described as an in-app purchase implemented through your rented copy of Photoshop. When you purchase a generative fill for your image, you won't really know what you will be getting until it arrives. Some of the images shown in the video as produced by Adobe's generative fill are clearly unacceptable for any purpose whatsoever. I wonder if charges will be waived in such cases. This kind of functionality is a giant step beyond using Adobe's rented software to edit your private images on your own or your company's computers. Suddenly the integrity of Adobe and all of its subcontractors involved in running its servers and connected through its communication lines becomes important as they have full access to your images. Will you have to get a release from your clients before uploading their images to Adobe? Will most companies allow their proprietary images to be uploaded to Adobe for processing and who knows what else. What guarantees and liability protections will be required. Even Adobe has been unable to implement generative fill in a stand-alone, desktop product. Demands that Affinity should incorporate such features into its stand-alone, desktop products seem very premature.

Hello @MikeWaz, welcome to the forums. Your complaint is as old as the dawn of Affinity products. For a brief review of Affinity UI issues with font and icon sizes, see my April 15 post that will also lead you to some older posts surveying the problems. Do not expect any improvement in UI usability. You have to take it as it is and hope it doesn't get even worse, as happened with the release of Affinity 2 products. https://forum.affinity.serif.com/index.php?/topic/171054-accessibility-customising-the-ui-font-size/#comment-1075020