jmwellborn

Thank you!    Every so often, computers have a way of making their humans feel like total idiots.   The computers are usually right.   Guess we humans operate on too many things other than 1’s and 0’s!!     I hope you like Publisher as much as I do!

I spent 4 minutes staring at your message with a big question mark over my wine filled brain, then suddenly, without warning an electrical charge turned the question mark into a delightful 400 watt light bulb....

Hey, watch it. I resemble that remark.
 
— cubesquareredux

Well that's true, but I do think the one with a white fill is slightly bigger, however a little bit of math equation and I worked out that mine would consume about 0.0005 picolitre of ink per square 0.1 mm, and yours would consume about 0.000004 Picolitre of ink per cubic 0.01 mm, further calculations, (this is really taxing my brain), based upon Prof. Gringe's quadratic law of christmosity (after factoring in the differential between the cubic and square results I obtained) results in a clear case that you are right by 0.0000025 picolitre of ink.  More wine please...

One of Parkinson’s laws.   People in the board room argue the longest time over the size of the wastepaper basket.   Looks as though there is plenty of spare time around here to “argue.”

I hardly know where to begin. I sincerely hope most of what you wrote was ill-conceived and ill-written. Because it is pretty elitist and ill-informed in places.
I really don't know what you actually mean here. So I likely have a wrong take on it. I take it to literally mean that "amateurs" and "consumers" should have no say in how you work, your work-flow. But I don't think that simple restatement is what is meant. I take it to mean you don't want them involved in, having a say in, what functions are included and how those functions should work in a layout application. And in this thread, specifically how APub functions and what those functions even are.
I find that simply silly. Just how many decision makers at Adobe that are making decisions about InDesign are even competent in its use? And by competent, I mean even at a novice level? How many people at Serif that are making decisions are competent layout persons? At Quark? 
Nah, not tautology, but whatever.
I have seen layouts of all sorts from "consumer" users that rival much "professional" work. And I have seen work from a few people that have grown over the years in their abilities, and yet at best are laypersons. Conversely, I have seen dreck from professionals. That learning road is the exact same road we all travel. How well one learns, how well one performs, is not tied to a paycheck. But we all, lay people and experienced people alike, have all traveled that road.
I have no idea when it was during your journey you considered yourself a professional. But I would reckon you are better, quicker, your eye more assured now than the day you considered yourself a professional. At least I hope so. Don't judge the part-timer's work by your current standard. Judge by that once upon a time period. And then look around at Amazon's selections of POD and use their Quick-look to peak inside. Yep, you'll find some not so good layouts, poor decisions, rivers and the like. But you should also find some damn good layouts done by the casual person, the consumer user.
I think I have said all I want to say in response to your posts. Neither will convince the other. We seem to have a fundamental difference of opinion.
Take care, Mike

Well, now that the title has been changed to:
Will it sell? (The whole world vs professionals only)
There are only a handful of desktop software titles that can sustain a professional-only sales model. Everything else depends upon the consumer/prosumer market. Serif falls into the everything else category. So does Adobe & Quark. And, and ...

Serif have made no secret of the fact that they planned to release Affinity Publisher when they judged that it would be “useful to someone”, and that that someone “may not be you”. To some users, APub is useless without RTL text handling; many users, including professionals, may well manage fine without drop caps. We simply have to make a purchasing decision based on our individual needs.

And here is yet another one.
 
Publisher is not an upgrade to or continuation of PagePlus.  It is a completely new application being developed with a different philosophy from PagePlus and built on a different foundation.  The features will probably never match exactly and those which will be added may take some time.
 
This is called eMail and is already available in various forms as a 3rd-party companion application.  Integrated functionality to do this is not a normal feature of productivity applications and I'm not sure why you would be expecting this when it was never advertised as a feature we should be expecting.
 
It is nice that you respected this.  QuarkXPress does this also, but Affinity Publisher currently does not.  This strikes me as a very reasonable feature request but it hardly strikes me as essential.
 
There are already multiple threads discussing this, including one major large one that is pinned.
 
I'm assuming you mean Photo and Designer?  This will be unlocked later in the beta cycle, as the features are apparently not quite ready yet.
 
I personally would not expect #1, though only Serif could answer for sure.  InDesign IDML import might come later but will not likely be in the 1.7 release.  #4 is coming later in the beta cycle.
 
Serif has stated quite definitively that PagePlus is no longer being developed.
 
Then for now use something else.

Of little 'help' I know I am still telling myself "just Do It" after nearly 15 yrs. on Macs. Still trying to think of how to do something before realising it just drags&drops DUH!!!!!
Moving to AP from PS5.5 via Capture One, Pixelmator, Silky Pics, Photo, Aperture etc etc etc was a complete "Nightmare" and I doubt it completely ends :-(
As I recall "This is an Illegal Operation", Windows 5 I think, caused me to switch the PC off just incase someone found out ;-O.........
Language, Assumption and the totally misunderstood Intuitive are the most intrusive and destructive forms of torture for the user of any software - beware of them all.
Oh, and age of course (rising 67). 

A digital version of the book would eliminate the shrink wrapping, the paper (wood) used, the inks to print it and the diesel/fuel used to ship it.
You need to think bigger than just one component if you want to petition Serif (or anyone else) to go green. 
Then again, if all books were digital, printshops would go out of business, ink sellers would dry up, shipping operatives would have to lay off staff and the book trade that you worked in "for nearly thirty years" would probably not exist.
Actions have consequences, we need to think before we de-ink
Clingfilm/plastic is actually very useful when used correctly, we just need to think of how better to recycle/dispose of it when it has been used, not try to eliminate it. 

How about this?  No hat, great dog.

Yes, I get that the conventions with which we are familiar and have come to use and like are best left untouched. Looking a little deeper; we can see that conventions are merely those methods that are included with the software that has become flavour of the month or year. Some of those conventions (e.g. Photoshop mediated) were turned upside down with the arrival of Aperture. It was a fantastic software that was completely transparent to old fashioned film photographers like me and completely logical in its use. It soon became less popular with digital photographers who demanded curves adjustments because they had no understanding of how the software was designed or how film worked. Sadly, that software is no longer supported but I have never used such an easy and speedy bitmap editor with great image colour management.
The granularity of version 1 or version 2 software is never completely satisfactory. It takes many iterations to achieve a satisfactory level of fine control.  I like to see all numbers available to three significant decimal places but that level of fine adjustment is not necessary in many tasks. Arguably; one could probably manage with integers in a well-designed software package. Legacy beset software tends to take small evolutionary steps to overall improvements while new softwares can be as revolutionary as they like. I use Adobe's Acrobat a great deal and as yet,  I have not found anything to compete with it. There are plenty of PDF file editors around but none with the rather comprehensive and fine control of Acrobat. Much of what Acrobat can achieve could be described as convention but it is the overall reign of the software that dictates what features become an accepted convention.
Supporting Serif and Affinity software products and feeding back suggestions is the one way in which we can contribute to the software offered and its overall development. It is probably inevitable that new developments will be compared with existing developments. What seems to me to be very odd are the many loud calls to make any new software just like the old software. q.v. my reference to Aperture above. Progress derives from examining current methods and then making improvements in methods and capabilities. I may not know where the journey will end but for me it will always be exciting. The serious business of making money does not get in the way of finding new and interesting ways to accomplish repetitive tasks which result in better endpoints. YMMV 

I understand that it may be the only choice for YOU.
Facts: $49 x 12 = $588 pa.
In the UK the same monthly paid fee is £49.94 which equates to $63.25 monthly and totals $759 at current exchange rates. This is $171 more than the US rate. Enough for almost 3 months additional subscription. Why does Adobe indulge in this price gouging when it costs no extra to deliver software globally via the internet?
The next monthly fee includes membership of Adobe Stock at £73.93 per month. This the equivalent of $93.63 per month and totals $1,123.56 annually. Of course only the first ten images are included in that stock fee component. 
The costs of Adobe Stock can be chosen from the following scale depending on your needs...
£19.99 ($25.32) £47.99 ($60.78) £99.99 ($126.63) or £119.99 ($151.96)
At the current exchange rates you could pay an additional annual fee of $303.84 up to an eye watering $1823.52 per annum. So if I wanted the best package including Adobe Stock, I would need to find the sum of $2582.52 as rental for the software and the use of Adobe Stock, every year! 
Adobe is very definitely NOT the only choice. YMMV. 

Yes, up to a point you may be correct. It is clear that software which falls into the category of 'professional software' has to be capable of fulfilling tasks which would not fall within the scope of amateur work. i.e. Photoshop Elements does not compete with Photoshop if you want to create CMYK separations. How would you deal with dot gain, screen angles or traps and knock outs with software intended for amateur uses?  Grids are likely to be found in professional DTP software but not in less well specified applications. DTP of course was known as CTP before DTP supposedly freed everyone from the constraints of printing. Frame, PageMaker, Quark Express, InDesign were softwares that grew from original CTP applications like Impression on an Archimedes computer. 
Everyone and their brother could then produce a Parish magazine from home. We have all seen the amateur 16 page monochromatic productions produced on 80gsm coloured paper that uses 70 different fonts. If you were a local letterpress/offset litho printer, you probably could not afford to own 70 families of typefaces in different sizes and weights. Amateur software also does not address issues for the designer who wanted to produce long runs of high quality documents by the photogravure printing process, for example. 
Interestingly, despite being introduced in the mid 90s, Hexachrome printing requires Adobe's Photoshop or Illustrator software to adopt and use plugins like Pantone's Hexware, Heximage and Hexvector in order to be Hexachrome aware. My point here is that even the industry 800lb gorillas of today are somewhat less capable than they could be. One software solution will not be the answer to every user's problems. I have always kept many different bitmap editors and utilities on hand for file conversions and ease of use. Likewise with design and publishing softwares.
Not wanting to be locked into a one size (from one manufacturer) fits everything philosophy was my rationale for owning many different pieces of software. After many years of Photoshop (v2.0 onwards) I got sucked into the Adobe CS nightmare with version one and somehow realised it was the beginning of the end. The assurances and promises from Adobe that prices would stay reasonable were quickly forgotten (shades of QXP from its position of market superiority?) and it seemed as if the updates broke more than they fixed. I skipped versions so that I could keep essential funds to myself rather than exchange more cash for doubtful 'features'. Adobe CC has been a bit of a nightmare and truthfully, was the final straw.
I have learned to do what I need to do in Affinity products. Photo does all that I need from a bitmap editor. Designer is a delight to use and shows Illustrator the way forward. Publisher looks set to be a killer program and all Affinity software is priced so that users do not need to have a mortgage to purchase it; nor is the software on some endless merry-go-round of paying the piper. I think it is likely that the Affinity suite will be purchased by many users rather than pirated because it represents excellent value for money. There has been some commentary from professionals who want the Affinity products to work like Adobe products. Learning some new methods may not be a bad thing, especially when it means that the code is lean, purpose built  and not beset with legacy issues.
Brutal honesty is a double-edged sword and cuts in both directions. Living in the past and reliving old glories is less than helpful. Who remembers what InDesign was like when it first appeared? It was not the perfect software that some reporters would have us old dogs believe. I would say that is better to learn some new tricks and support the developers who want us to have better software at a reasonable price.
0.2₵ 

Good heavens!    What in the world did you have for dinner?    I am currently revising a 300-page book In Publisher.   Smooth as can be.   It was originally produced with InDesign, which I used for years!   Also Pagemaker, which I used for many years until Indesign took it and wrecked it.    Publisher may not suit you, but that does not mean that it won’t make hundreds of thousands of people extremely happy.    And not simply for the local church newsletter, either, which was, if I may be permitted to say so, not a very kind remark.  Merry Christmas, all the same!
 

Good heavens!    What in the world did you have for dinner?    I am currently revising a 300-page book In Publisher.   Smooth as can be.   It was originally produced with InDesign, which I used for years!   Also Pagemaker, which I used for many years until Indesign took it and wrecked it.    Publisher may not suit you, but that does not mean that it won’t make hundreds of thousands of people extremely happy.    And not simply for the local church newsletter, either, which was, if I may be permitted to say so, not a very kind remark.  Merry Christmas, all the same!
 

I agree that in the tutorials videos the UI is barely readable due to low contrast.

I've been using Dark Theme myself for some time, but recently I switched to Light Theme, because  it's too black and the controls don't make a big difference.
Tutorials, especially when watched in lower resolutions, definitely need to be in Light Theme.
+1 from me.

In the past used QXP till version 8.5 and now I'm on inDesign all day.
At first ID is full of informations and panels and a lot of things that can be too much, but with the time it's difficult to use another program with less informations visibles at first glance, or tha we can modify easily without clicking multiple times or scrolling.
I use a lot less shortcuts in ID (using and creating scripts can ease a workflow, like GREP — regular expressions), since I found out it's easy to forget shortcuts you worked with on an app for years… when switching apps and computer type But we adapt our workflow  with new tools.
Once you know what an app can do, and where things are, it's difficult to do with less.
As CodeMacabre, I added AP and AD at work with inDesign, and I have the same feelings.
There's useful features in Affinity apps we could miss switching back to our regular applications, but for now they miss a lot of automation and options that can help to work fast: some options we use a lot would be easier to access without needing to click once on some button to expand a panel (for example: aligment), or without scrolling (character and paragraph text styles in the same panel), etc.
Creating styles is easy, but we lack real object styles and way to modify them, the find and replace panel is the worst UI in my opinion, etc. Sometimes it's only details (but usefull ones), sometimes it's more important.
But there's a lot of work done, and I'm impressed with the number of updates in such a short time. APub will need a lot of time to grow and be able to replace some other app (it's understandable, some features need first a stable version), but a stable version will be usable for personnal work of more simple workflows, and that's a good point.
When using different applications or OSes, there's always a moment when you miss some features that's only available on the other ones. Already I miss some Affinity features in other applications!
 

Yes, it's that time of year again. My Christmas video is made with a 'borrowed' image, chopped up and manipulated with Affinity Photo, animated with Anime Studio (a third-party package marketed by  Serif a few years back) and brought together in Serif MoviePlus X6. Merry  Christmas!
 

Great stuff as usual, Steve! Another masterpiece to add to your collection. 
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you, too.

No, I did 115 characters contained in 7 classes in 2 minutes. Like I mentioned, I only did X% of the uppercase and none of the lowercase (like you seem to want to point out in your redo of my screen shot) because this feature is not one I will likely support in my fonts. How much "overshoot" one likes is really up to the layout person. 
My main issue with making it happen within the font itself is just that: I may not have enough overshoot for some people and too much for others. In this regard it is like kerning. The font designer may be happy with the kerning in one of their fonts, but the layout designer may want to set the text looser or tighter. In the same way as regards including OMA in my fonts, I would have to make decisions in the font that some people would find OK, others not OK.
So APub's ability for the layout person to edit those values in the Manual setting are, for me, the best option. It only takes a few minutes to edit the tables, add, delete or change the existing values for the pre-done characters.
As regards adding in more classes for the uppercase and adding in the lowercase classes would take me a grand total of perhaps a half-hour and then using the Font setting would be more appealing.
But even so, why should I bother since APub's Manual setting is what I would rather use myself?

What Serif has implemented, Optical Margin Alignment, does work and it works properly. The samples in the Manual adjustment section, when the method is set to Manual, are just that, samples. You can add to them to your heart's content.
What Dave Harris has said is that Optical Kerning, ala InDesign, is not going to be implemented at this time, or maybe never. But that again is a separate issue from what your thread is all about.
As a test, I added my uppercase classes to a font I've designed for using the optical bounds OpenType Feature. If I were intending on actually implementing this feature in what will be the release version I would take also add in the appropriate lowercase character classes as well. The result when the Optical Margin Alignment is set to Font is in the screen shot below.

It works as advertised.
I have not made a final decision whether I will actually add this feature or not as the only software that can make use of it currently Affinity applications and perhaps one or two applications I won't use for production (like Scribus).
InDesign's implementation of Optical Margin Alignment (OMA) is ill conceived in both implementation and control (and in fact is not on by default). QuarkXPress' is superior, but, like APub's, requires more user input due to the fact font support is poorly represented and so I feel the Manual setting will be the most used. However, I have worked for many publishers, from small to large, and none of them have OMA as a house style. None. Most newspapers don't. While I have typeset some books with OMA, only one ever went to print with it on.
As regards Optical Kerning, with a decently kerned font, this setting is generally not even a good one to set. No matter how I am using type, ID makes decisions with its Optical Kerning I would never make. Small type can be crowded together, large type can be set too loose for my tastes. And that's kinda the point—we all most often see type different and would make different decisions. Again, here is where QXP shines as one can change the kerning pair values for a given font and so will always use the edited values for that font without ever actually editing the font. This is how this issue should be resolved. At least, in my opinion. Which is worth every penny you paid for it.
Mike

I think this is a very useful idea. There's a feature in Quark which gives similar results but the Wrapping Tab would be easier...