Jeremy Bohn

The Affinity apps use a standard Mac window toolbar which you can customize yourself. Neither Adobe or Quark have this. There are pros and cons to this approach - pro: I can put what I want up there. Con: it takes up more room and doesn't change contextually like the toolbar The Affinity app toolbar is then one line below the window toolbar so technically the app toolbar itself is smaller than the others. I would like to see more tools as well but personally I find Affinity's a bit easier to read since everything is a bit bigger, and personally I find a lot of stuff way too small even when the apps are set to large UI. Changing Affinity's toolbar setup would presumably would require an overhaul of all the apps UI's.

Yes my icon was just quick and dirty. If more thought was put into it then it could be even better. Maybe even a white document icon with the app icon in the center?

I guess this goes for all Affinity apps, but what are the chances of them getting actual document icons? Right now the icons are the same as the app itself. If I've turned off document previews, all my documents would look like apps. It's kind of confusing.

I had never heard of this until you posted it. I'm not doubting it, just saying I've been doing this professionally since 1999. I was trained that there are many "hold overs" from the days of the typewriter, one of the most common being double spaces after a period. I'm sure typewriters didn't have an ellipsis character so the old way would have been to type 3 periods. And actually your posting with . . . is having the opposite affect on me. Because they are spaced out, they look terrible. They make the text flow look awful and create unnatural gaps in the paragraph. If I sit back and blur my eyes a little they ruin the flow and shape of the text block. I believe, especially if you're using a professional font, in relying on what the professional font creator made, and the proper ellipsis was created for the best visual use. Of course there are exceptions as well, like if I need to increase character spacing, then 3 periods is better. Of course none of this really matters when it comes down to it, but personally I believe it's the professional way of doing it, an extra touch that I include in all my work.

Think what you want, but that's wrong. "The benefits is that … is much easier on the eyes than ..., it takes up less characters, carries a semantic meaning instead of just being a multiple of dots and it pleases those of us that are typographically inclined." (not my words but sums it up perfectly)

It took me 15 minutes to come up with something quick and dirty. I can't imagine this being much of an investment to include...

True, but not a good enough reason to have document icons look like app icons. It flies in the face of good and standard UI practices going back decades.

THIS exactly!

This isn't true. It's possible with InDesign to assign a color using the Color palette, and not have it as a swatch. Of course when you copy and paste the item into another document, no swatch will be in the new file either.

InDesign's swatch method is the preferred method, as described by thomaso. Color swatches behave more like they are objects, and if they are being used in your document they become "linked" to those objects so copying and pasting means they come along for the ride. It's simply the quickest, least confusing and most professional way.

That behaviour is unexpected to me as well. I shouldn't matter what format you are using. Linked is linked.

In the Resource Manager, if I click on a resource that is placed in the document multiple times (it'll have the disclosure triangle next to it), and relink the item, the selection reverts to the top of the list instead of staying on the current resource. This doesn't happen with a resource that's just one item - only if I click the multiple item (and not one of the items within). ALSO, the Resource Manager window doesn't retain it's size after you quit the app. It will be in the position you left it, but the size will return to default.

Thanks, I had worked on the files before these builds were pulled. Anyway, I forgot I have my Time Machine backups.

In the previous build I had 2 files that I replaced the links and then saved. In build 337 it says both are corrupted. Is there any way to recover them?

The horror!

As a typography geek, I personally advocate for actual ellipses.

I still can't quite wrap my head around Affinity's version of Swatches as well. It seems to me like they're trying to meld what Adobe calls Color/Swatch Books into the Swatches, but it just makes it more confusing. I think the panel needs some tweaks so there are: - Document swatches (available for the currently open file only) - Application/Global swatches (available for any file) - Color Books (the system palette, Pantone books etc) Also, new swatches should by default be named by their values if not given a name (for example, C=100 M=0 Y=0 K=0).

Someone else had reported in the 377 beta thread the same result, that there was little to no size savings when using native Affinity files. It's unclear if this is intentional but I can't see why it would be.

Glad that Serif is looking into this, and I agree that right now, Layers is actually Objects. It's very similar to how Illustrator works, except that each Illustrator object in the Layers panel is a subset of a layer and is only visible if you expand the layer by clicking the disclosure triangle. Everything has to be on a layer, and if you make or paste in a new object, it goes onto the currently selected Layer. As it is right now, I can move my Publisher objects on to layers but it's a pain and if I'm not paying attention, objects can either end up on or off a layer. It's not the only feature I've found that I feel is incorrectly and misleadingly named. I still think in Photo that the Perspective feature should be named Skew, and a proper Perspective feature should be added.

This is great to hear! One less "deal-breaker" on my list!

Good luck! There are other things too that I wish were more Mac-like too.

That makes sense Sean, when I think about it. It's only at first thought that I wonder why it's white. I guess it's not a big deal to keep it in white but having a switch would be good too.

The scroll wheel has no effect in the Character and Paragraph panels. Other panels react as expected however.

Objects seem to disappear off the pasteboard if you move them high or low enough in the document. In the attached screenshot, the placed Design document is on the pasteboard and it shows up fine when dragging it around above the document but a moment after I stop moving it or let it go, it gets cropped above the bleed area. The same thing happens below the document. Then it shows up again at the bleed area of the second page. Latest beta, macOS Mojave

Also I figured out why I thought the object disappearing was a bug... it's because the whole area is the same color and appears to be a giant pasteboard, so I'd expect I can use that entire area. Compare this to InDesign (attached screenshot) where the pasteboard is a separate color (white) from the parts that are off limits. It's quite clear the space you have to work with. So my suggestion would be to make this more clear in Publisher as well.