Jump to content

garrettm30

Members
  • Content count

    96
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About garrettm30

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I did try that. It successfully went to the intended link. I just included the popup in my screenshot to show what part was interpreted by Preview as the URL.
  2. If I understand your description, it sounds like you have full justification selected rather than left justified. The left justified icon is the one I have selected in this screenshot: Full justified is the icon on the farthest right. Edit: here is the view from the context toolbar:
  3. That at least does work on my Mac in Preview: I think it is an issue with the installed font, as Wosven suggested.
  4. It seems a reasonable guess that it will also work in Designer when that product also gets through beta. Usually shared features between the Affinity apps work in the same ways. It's good for user consistency, but also I think it has something to do with shared code bases.
  5. I think it is actually a reasonable strategy to specifically target that crowd at the start. Although there are some advantages to Affinity Publisher as compared to InDesign, and some things it does better, the fact is still that it will not yet be a mature product even when 1.7 is released, and understandably so. I don't think we can expect it to be truly a "professional" solution from the outset. For the hobbyist crowd, what it does provide is an exceptional value when considering the asking price. Serif has mentioned before that they need to get it to a point where it provides enough value for a segment of the market so they can start selling it to fund continued development. Truly, they have to start somewhere. For my part, I fully intend to buy a copy for my personal work from the very outset. On the other hand, I will not be recommending to my boss that we make the switch from InDesign for our professional work, not yet. We are a small operation, and I think we can make the switch sooner than others who need to have InDesign collaboration. Nevertheless, there are still some quality of output issues. For me, the most notable is the lack of a multiline composer, which results in justification being higher quality in InDesign than Publisher. But they can't do it all at once. InDesign import is another such example. So in my case, they will get money from me as a hobbyist at the beginning as they work toward eventually pulling in more and more pros, such as me in my professional capacity.
  6. I second this request. The Find/Replace feature as it is now is a good start, especially with regex. The ability to limit scope, and, I might add, save frequent searches, are two improvements that I would like to see as the software matures.
  7. This is a tricky issue, I think, and I wouldn't know what to suggest. I certainly wouldn't want to bloat the file size for web, but on the other hand, I can easily see myself using "export for web" and blissfully being ignorant that all my ligatures (which I always use when available) are not showing errors on mobile devices. I take the presets as "recommended" settings for each situation, and in this case, it would have led me astray, and I wouldn't have even known that this were an issue had I not read this thread.
  8. I don't think I follow exactly what you are saying, but I think that advanced pen functionality is best fit in Affinity Designer rather than Publisher. Maybe your suggestion could go in the Designer forum.
  9. I agree. There are workarounds, so this feature may not be a dealbreaker, but it would be nice to have later on the roadmap. I would use it very often. Based on my current work, well over 50% of my documents would use this feature.
  10. I'm not so sure. The default Mac implementation (Preview and in browser PDF) only considers the first line of the text-only URLs in your sample file, and they are visually formatted differently. The ones on the left are clearly link (blue text with underline), while the ones on the right are just plain black text, with the only difference from standard text being that the pointer changes to the hand cursor when hovering over the first line of each URL.
  11. That is a real advantage indeed for foreign languages! In the past I have resorted to tricks like [a-zéèêëïîôàùç]. I am so glad to understand this distinction. Thank you.
  12. This is what was said in the beta where the feature was introduced: Source Thread In this mode, somehow regex takes into account the language encoding that the searched text is in. I am struggling to think of any examples of when or how to use it, so I am eager to see what the others say.
  13. I thought I might follow up with some specifics. I think part of what attracts us to Publisher is the reasonable (or outstanding, rather) non-subscription price, but there are other various things that are positive advantages as opposed to InDesign. To balance out our "Why won't Publisher be like InDesign?" feature requests, maybe we can point out some things that are Publisher advantages even now. One of the things I am excited about is the fact that bold, italic, underline and superscripts are not treated as local formatting when applying a style. In InDesign, when I want to clear out local formatting (my predecessor did not ever use character or paragraph styles), I still need to preserve these things in body text, because they are essentially semantic markup rather than mere formatting style. So I create a mundane set of character styles: I apply those with a series of find/replace based on format. Then, with those attributes that I need to keep are safely marked off as character styles, I go back and apply fresh paragraph styles with "clear overrides," so that weird spacing and other overrides are gone, but these attributes are preserved. Publisher's behavior makes all of that completely unnecessary. I can clear out most overrides while still preserving italics, bold, underlines, etc. without needing to define character styles. And similarly, Publisher seems to know what is bold, italic, etc., even when the font style names are something different. If I want to change the font from, let's say, plain old Georgia to ITC Garamond Condensed, then it just knows that anything that was Georgia with the font style "Italic" is now ITC-Garamond Condensed with the font style "ITC Garamond Book Condensed Italic." InDesign is not so smart. It just throws up its hands and says that there is no "Italic" font style in ITC-Garamond Condensed. So then I have to redefine my "Italic" character style to use "ITC Garamond Book Condensed Italic" font style instead of just "Italic." That took a lot of explaining, but in Publisher, it just works. So that's one (or two) advantages that come to mind. I could list others, and maybe later I will. How about you? Are there other particular advantages that get you excited about Affinity Publisher?
  14. Every font is different, so I can't really tell (and I assume you are not doing manual kerning also). My guess is that the one on the left is "metrics" and the one on the right is "optical." If such is the case, then the font you chose is a case where the font as designed leaves more space after the apostrophe than optical kerning, while Minion Pro is the opposite in that the designers did not leave enough space. In fact, either of your examples would be better in my mind than what Minion Pro (and some others) does in this case, and the easy fix in InDesign is to use optical kerning. I assume it is because a well designed font should typically be better kerned by the designer than a kind of automatic spacing algorithm. I probably use optical kerning less than half the time, but it always depends on the font. I usually try both options to see which is better, and sometimes "better" must simply be better on the balance. In my case, I am looking for a solution for a specific problem (globally tweaking poor kerning) rather than a specific solution (such as optical kerning). A different solution that lets us tweak kerning pairs (perhaps like QXP? I am not familiar with it) could be better. If it had to be one or the other, I think I would prefer being able to tweak the kerning pairs rather than an optical kerning.
  15. In InDesign, I very often do use optical kerning, and I would be glad for the same in Publisher. We publish in French, and when it comes to kerning, the first thing I look at is where the apostrophe appears in cases such as "c'est." Many fonts do not have ideal spacing in these cases (which are very frequent in French), and not just the freebie fonts. Even InDesign's default font Minion Pro is an exampl e where optical kerning does better; without it, there is not enough space: However, an automatic "Optical Kerning" is only one way to solve this issue. I actually would be happier to have some way to tweak kerning pairs as part of text styles. Perhaps some interface similar to the approach of the current "Optical Alignment" in text styles, except applied to kerning. That way we could have the benefit of the human-tuned kerning tables of a font and override only in pairs where necessary given the current language or scenario.
×