Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About taharvey

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. taharvey

    New Logo Please!

    Generally Agree there. Those are apps that don't get the UX love they need, but we use them anyways... cause what else are you going to do? My PADs software doesn't look that much different from its 20 year old DOS version. Talk about slow velocity. Most serious board designers still don't use auto-routing. What? Crazy! Auto-routing is the quintessential machine learning problem, and yet it hasn't received much development effort over the last 20 years. Total nuts, and very lazy. It is a reason I like the Mac ecosystem though. Strong community commitment to quality. I think a lot of the cruft in these applications has to do with lax community standards for quality. Largely because a poor leader (Microsoft) who has struggled to value design in UX or in architecture, and APIs. Which only makes it harder to build quality applications on these platforms.
  2. taharvey

    New Logo Please!

    I think most people in the MacOS ecosystem are pretty judgmental about design issues. I believe with good reason. I have found in my 20 years of using a broad array of software tools* that design and UI/UX is a harbinger of the overall application quality and software architecture. And that has lots of implications. Features are important, but if they are quirky or buggy, its not much help. More importantly, software that has messy architecture is slow to evolve and slow add new features in the future. I have found that teams that value clear clean design also value clear clean architecture. So yes, when I see poor icon design for a graphics application, I question if I should buy it. I'm not alone. I think it should be noted in the 200 application on my system, I can't think of a icon until Affinity that bothered me so much I'd look around for a forum to discuss it. *I keep active software on my system covering the fields of illustration, graphics, CAD, electrical engineering, structural engineering, software development, web development, data science, and even chemistry).
  3. Its fine to have fixed context menus. But why is a major feature like gradients missing from studio panels? Stroke is there. Fill is There. Gradient is just another fill. As you noted its not like they didn't implement tear-off and re-arrangable panels. Just strangely things are missing from the panels like gradients, which is already implemented as a tabbed panel in a fixed (and different) location. Everybody mentions that you can save a gradient in this thread and others asking the same thing. Yet in the last 20 years, how often do I pre-create a fixed gradient, and then just re-use it? Very rarely. AI and even Apples non-drawing tools (keynote, pages, numbers) all have a very interactive gradient palette that saves the last version for reuse & tweaking. This seems very clumsy and inconsistent with the rest of the interface.
  4. Oddly inconsistant implementation. Why is gradient fill color treated different from gradient fill color, or any other pallet? Quirky. I find the context menu too small to edit complex gradients. There are some neat bits about Affinity. But in a short use time I'm finding too many quirks and missing features to be a real replacement for AI. Maybe they should up the price and do more development work.
  5. I've been messing with the UI, and I'm a little baffled. On the inspector/palette bar there are the typical stroke & fill palettes. But no gradient. For gradient you have to click in the top-side context aware toolbar when selecting a object... which also has copies of the stroke and fill palette (inconsistency?). I've trying dragging the top-bar gradient palette into the permanent right-side palette bar? Nope. I've tried to find a AI windows/tabs list. No. Right clicking on palettes to add? No. How do I get a gradient tab in the palette bar?
  6. taharvey

    New Logo Please!

    Just looked them up. The original logos are just fine. They were slightly busy, but clear and descriptive. The folded triangle looked like affinity=infinity, pen and marker. The colors of the triangle are nicer than the kindergarten gradients of the current logo. Pretty good stuff. The left shadow and bezier control points were maybe more detail than they needed. But worked fine. I now see how they got to their current logo. None of the infinity or drawing tool concept comes across. Perhaps a misguided attempt to "flatten" a illustrative icon without redesign. I think this is an example of unnecessary fashion trends to "flatten" what is perceived skeuomorphic design. You can had good flat design and good skeuomorphic design. What you can't do flatten skeuomorphic design... its like reducing the resolution of a detailed photo into a single color and expecting the results to look good automatically.
  7. taharvey

    New Logo Please!

    Icon design does have describable rules. Simplicity, clarity, meaning, recognizability. Your examples of Apple is a good example. An Apple with a bite out of it. Very clear imagery, very recognizable. Even still, the Apple logo of the 1970s was too muddy and busy. They fixed it, and simplified it, now it is very good icon design. Here is a random grab of App icons from my computer. Some flat (Deltawalker, Omnigraffle), some 3D (Motion, Sketch), some simple logos (Sourcetree, Postico, WhatsApp, Zoom), some concept-identifiable illustrations (Xcode, Pages, Dashboard). Very different approaches, but all relatively nice design. Affinity stands out. Its super amateurish. Its design is very muddy, not simple and iconic – like say the Dropbox icon. Yet, all of the that complexity doesn't read as a identifable 'thing' or idea like say the Xcode icon which is clearly illustrating the idea of building and blueprints.
  8. taharvey

    New Logo Please!

    Gosh those are bad icons. Are you being serious, or joking? Maybe I don't spend much time in Windows these days... assumed it was improving on the other side of the fence. (Opera is ok, as is VS). But Affinity, ImgBurn and LIghtworks are the Gaudi-ist logos I've seen
  9. Yes! HSL is very odd 3-deminsional space smashed into 2 variables. Its hard to control, and you spend a lot more time picking a color
  10. Agreed. Please add HSB! HSL is a werido. The 'L' adjusts not one variable, but two. Where S is an expected 0-100%. The L 100% is really at 50%, adding black down to 0%, and adding white up to 100%. HSB is more sensible, 1 variable for each slider. Its better usability has made it more dominate in all the drawing and design apps. I think HSL would be dead if it weren't for javascript. If you want to get real progressive, also change LAB for HSLuv/HSBuv, which provides a human perception based color picker, that humans can actually use! (I've never met anybody who thinks in LAB) Finally, provide a mac color picker button in the Affinity color tab (not just menus)
  11. It is difficult to organize non-trival projects in AD without pages. For example, I have a website with 40 views, each with its own layers showing the base view, notes, actions, and datamodel. But in addition to these basic layers, every page/view has custom layers to manage overlays, popovers, sliding panels, menus, special action behaviors, or in complex views multiple data-models. If I had to flatten all layers for 1 master artboard view, I'd have 100s of layers to manage, and it wouldn't be clear which artboard view they go with. In addition, managing shared layouts with shared layers, is a very helpful concept. Artboards are not practical solution for non-trival design projects. Artboards are nice for managing aspect ratio variants. Both pages and artboards are used to good effect in Sketch, which with omnigraffle problems own most of the UI/UX market.
  12. taharvey

    New Logo Please!

    I got here from the google search "affinity designer icon ugly" It is stand out bad icon design. It is not about flat or complex. It is down right the worst icon i've seen on a Mac application... Which is saying something. Very amateurish. Mostly evokes messy graffiti, but not in a good way. It made me question the quality of the application. Yes, I like most people judge the book by its cover. Get a better cover, please!
  13. I see the roadmap posted from 2014 shows multiple pages on the roadmap. Any news or update? I currently use Omnigraffle for wireframing. AD have several attractive feature that could make it a Omnigraffle killer. Symbols, Full drawing features, Pixel preview, responsive design... But I can't image managing and organizing projects of any significance without pages. Each screen gets its own page. Every page has layers that can be turned on for each page mode, notation, actions, data-model... Art-boards aren't a substitute. If i flattened a whole web site into one page space, I'd have 100s of unmanageable layers.