garrettm30

You should not remove it, as it is included as part of the system. Here is an article about it if you want to know more: https://www.vice.com/en/article/889e3b/the-hieroglyphics-that-appears-when-no-other-font-is-available As to why it is showing up as being used in the PDF, that I can't explain.

This problem happens from time to time. It is not a bug, as it is intentional that text frames can be scaled. The problem is that the frame cannot be scaled numerically (so as to be able to put it back to 100%, for example), and there is no interface to show what the current scale is. The best we can do is to start with a different frame as I recommended. As to how it happened in the first place, presumably you must have scaled the frame in error rather than resizing it by dragging on the scale handle. Our fellow forum user @thomaso made a helpful image to explain which handle to use in t

I wonder if this is our scaled text frame issue that pops up from time to time. @nole0105 To confirm my suspicion, I suggest this test: Duplicate the text frame above the image and drag it off somewhere (anywhere) just for testing purposes. Delete the text in the duplicated text frame. Copy the text from the text frame below the image. Paste it into your duplicated text frame. Do you find that the pasted text is a different size than what you copied? If so, then that indicates the bottom text frame was scaled.

That's not quite the issue. Serif (i.e. the makers of the Affinity apps) did indeed "make booklet printing work on Mac." There are certain aspects of its implementation that may not be satisfactory to all needs (for example, no way to export an imposed PDF except via print to PDF), but it is not accurate to say that booklet printing from Publisher does not work, because it in fact does. Also, please note that this is an old thread: the post before yours dates back to before Publisher was released.

My experience is parallel to yours. I noted step 2 because the original steps pointed out in step 2 that I should then see the gradient in contextual toolbar. I did not look for a color at step one. Nevertheless, there is no color or gradient in the contextual toolbar when nothing is selected.

I agree with the general point of this thread: we need some more underline controls. I have wanted both width and position, and the optional ability to break at descenders would be interesting as well.

After step 2, or as the screenshot is annotated, it is during: after clicking on a gradient swatch, the contextual toolbar is grayed out on mine in contrast to what the step 2 screenshot indicates.

I have also tried this out in Photo 1.8.4 on macOS 14.4.6 10.14.6, and the button on the toolbar is grayed out after step 2 also in this older version of Photo.

If I understand the request, then it seems the live filter Gaussian Blur will do just what is desired, only it is not available from Designer but in Photo. Which features within the Affinity line should be available in each product is a sticky subject, and I think we will never agree on all of them. In this case, I think you just need Photo for the job, unless Serif can be convinced to bring over the live filters to Designer as well. Perhaps they could be convinced to bring over a subset of the live filters.

I wonder if it is a display issue of those buttons. Notice that the values for largeur and hauteur are actually landscape proportions.

That sounds like a good idea. But alternatively, I wonder if it would be good if soft proofs never export or print in the first place. Is there a use case for when they should export or print? I do not know because I do not often use this feature.

I like the lighthearted addition.

I agree. A similar request was made just last month, and in it I also quoted an earlier feedback of mine from a different request:

This looks nice. First impression is good.

That is not necessarily true if Publisher accesses certain library calls that are not used by other software that you use frequently, such as certain GPU routines. Another example is bad sectors on your hard drive, which only affect the files that happen to be stored where the bad sectors are. A further scenario could be that certain components are beginning to fail under stress or heat, and Publisher (whether through normal use or through some issue of its own) could be stressing it in particular ways that normally your other apps are not doing. Those are just a couple of examples how certain

This kind of sounds like a hardware issue, but if not, I would expect it to be something deeper than an app running in user space, even if it only happens when running Publisher. Serif is the company; Affinity is their trio of apps.

That is a good point, and condensing two columns down to one seems a good suggestion, since here it would be no loss in the amount of information communicated. That leaves extra room for the other columns.

None of us do, and Serif's habit is to generally not promise anything until we see it show up in a beta. I am pretty well certain we will not see it in 1.9.x, as any further updates to the 1.9 line will just be bug fixes. I think it may be a few weeks at least before we see the first beta of the next major update, whether it is styled 1.10 or a paid 2.0 update. Even then, we cannot be sure that footnotes will be in the next major round of feature updates. All we know is that they are being worked on, and that the last we heard they were not yet ready.

For me, Preview is good enough for something that is free. If I need something more, then it will be something worth paying for. I don't see why Serif would ever bother with the trouble of making a free reader.

IDML when used with apps other than InDesign is a way to provide a rough conversion, but since every app is different in the features it has or lacks, how it implements the features it does have, or even the differing nature text layout engine itself, it is not intended as a faithful interchange format, and if used as such, it will disappoint. If there were an IDML export option, you couldn’t expect to hand it off for just “minor updates with InDesign.” The file your client would receive would not look like the file you exported.

No, actually, I see what you mean. I just opened a finished document and dropped the minimum spacing on the whole body text to a crazy low value, and it made absolutely no change in text flow at all. That looks like a bug indeed. Unless I have misunderstood the point of that setting, then I think a post in the bug forum is in order.

I'm not sure I follow, and I would like to know more, because it seems you are bringing up an interesting point. Would you care to explain or demonstrate, perhaps with a screenshot or an example document? What do you mean that it does not work even though it allows negative values? I am confused, because I thought that was the point of the minimum letter spacing.

In the first paragraph, they are fairly well identical until the fourth line, where Publisher broke to a new line before the others. I don't know why, but every layout engine will have different internal calculations, so even with what seems to be identical settings, I would not necessarily expect identical flow. Of the three specimens, the only "bad" line is that fourth in Publisher, as it appears too loose compared to the other two. I would want to fix it, and in so doing, I would also hope to avoid the single word on the last line of the first paragraph that bothers me, but that is probably

The only reason I can think of about opening the same file in the same way would be missing fonts or different font versions on one of the machines. Or perhaps different versions of Publisher, though usually older versions can’t open newer versions. Otherwise, this could be a case of simply overlooking something, such as trying to import a PDF and making a different selection of text handling each time. We couldn’t say for sure without an example file.

Over on the very long footnotes thread, we got a little sidetracked when we got to discussing word processors versus layout apps, of which the main element of our discussion focused on justification quality. Finally, it was proposed to move that discussion on justification elsewhere, and as this existing thread already focuses on the very question, I have suggested continuing in this thread. For historical reference, the discussion on the other thread where we began this off-topic discussion starts with this post and continues onto the next page (along with the usual influx of new users a