RickyO

That seems to work, to an extent. In Windows, you can only assign a file extension to one app. I'm finding in Win11Pro, that if the file type assignment for the .aftemplate extension is set for APhoto, and I go to create a new APub file from a template I've previously created in and saved from APub, that template will not be available in the template dialogue box in APub; and vice-a-versa for APhoto. (haven't tried in ADesigner.) This only wastes a lot of valuable time, archaic. Why can't Serif create separate file extensions for the template files for each app? Consider how much time is wasted x the number of Affinity users who use all three apps. They can do better. Very frustrating.

If you don't want to be in this discussion, than move on. We're doing just fine without you. Start your own; maybe someone will join you.

Thank you!

Could the cost of licensing have anything to do with the adoption? Are there licensing requirements for application builders???

Could you elaborate your thoughts as to "some configuration setting"? It would help all of us if we had a starting point from which to work on the issue. I think your post is very appropriate.

Thank You! You are a magnificent RESOURCE!

Neither here nor there, but I think the author of the article you referenced as well as the header in the app in the capture is mixing up 'axes' with 'axis'. Though there may be some subconscious impulse working there.....

Of course we will! Only one I can think of for faxes is the security, as in medical or legal or government, et al uses. Emails are plain text, and if encoded, are still hackable. Faxes, .... not really.

I thought SVG formats had a number of security issues???

If past business practices can be of any indicating value, there will be some foundries sticking with the "views" method of ongoing pricing, only to find out that a competitor is not doing so and is capturing vast amounts of the market (assuming they market well or get a following socially). Nothing like having an internal committee convincing each other that the market will pay anything they believe true. It appears there will be enough competitors to allow the market forces to prevail. Ex: $60/10K views. Site is generating 2MM views monthly, and the site has four font families. That's $800/month just for fonts. Dreams sometimes come true, and one like that if 20,000 sites use those four families, it's $16,000,000/month gross. Plenty of room under that level for lesser pricing and other agreements to sneak in and undermine it all. Personally, my opinion is the majors offering free fonts will do the same thing with variables that they did 30 years ago when Adobe thought they owned the typeface industry.

I do think that will create a backlash where if those are the options, the majority of content developers will recoil back to the non-variable libraries.

Deja vu with respect to the lcommercial use side of the image industry.

Very good questino (how do we plan on using them...). As I puruse the various foundries who are offering variables I'm finding the pricing structures to be a possible nightmare on their own. Ex: $60 per, webfont has limit of 10K views. That could take all of an hour on some sites, if that long. Anyone have an opinion on that aspect??

One of my extended family provided me with a scan image of a photo of our grandfather taken in ~ 1912. I've had another photo taken on that day which I had pretty good success cleaning up and restoring. This one however looks like the settings on the scanner were set for black and white, though as I've started to play with it, appears to have shadowing on one side of the face as well as the background on that same side. That shadowing is presenting as a rouge-like hue. I've asked if he has the original photo this scan was performed on and am awaiting a response. Until then, I always like a challenge I can learn from; and that's where you come in..... Anyone have any resources online they can point me to, be it tools, techniques, or insights??? The other photo I had luck with, taken of grandfather and his brother on grand dad's wedding day started out with a lot more information to work with. The background, assuming both photos were taken on the same day and at the same photographer, as well as the color, highlights, shading all have tones around a CMYK value of 60-74-69-82 (RGB hex of 1f 07 06). The highlights on the faces are brightest at CMYK of 4-4-30-0 (RGB Hex: F3 ED CD); with brightest points on white shirt collars of CMYK 4-9-29-0 (RGB Hex: F3 E2 BD). I have to believe those tints were due to the film of the day. My goad is to improve the facial tones as well as darken the impression of the suits they are wearing. I'm assuming that will give me a start on any trailing effects. Any imput appreciated. RickyO

Digital media is NOT the entire purpose of the Affinity products. Some of us do graphics layouts, documents layouts. How about you stay on topic as compared to taking a left hand turn into a different topic? I, for one, find JAME's post perfectly on-target with the subject of the thread. Sarcasm does not help you out.....

Thanks! Excellent explanation. Appreciated.

Fine. Then don't worry about it any longer. Sounds like the point is moot for you. Moving on.

Review:

Serif, Could you please adopt variable fonts?

I don't think your 'imagination' is quite accurate. I have not seen any 'converters'. Probably because the technologies are very different. Better to stay with one technology, best if you use the currently most useful.

I'm just curious what the purpose of your comment is? Seems a bit severe.

I ran into the same issue. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the default setting for inserted filler text be in the 'expanded field' state and make the option be to 'de-expand' it (or a better choice of option title)? This is the first time I've seen it this way. Just a thought. Thanks in advance.

Please Serif, add this to your apps.

Honest! I did a search before creating this post; but didn't find anything related. Just wondering, with all the various text editor apps, which ones produce text which requires the least amount of corrections, modifications, adaptations, consistency, etc, when taken into Publisher. Just thinking, "if" there is a difference between the text produced in the various sources, and how much time is spent in layout and all the other adjustments, it might be a considerable time-saver if it be knownst to everyone. (Maybe there aren't any differences; and that would be good to know as well.) Just a thought, .... Thanks in advance.

Thanks for the clarification!