MJWHM

Just received an email with the following tutorial which may be handy. No time to deal with it myself now, but if others have missed it... https://affinityspotlight.com/article/take-control-of-footnotes-sidenotes-and-endnotes-in-affinity-publisher-2/?utm_source=SpotlightEmail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=SpotlightNewsletter

Took the plunge ad bought the suite (can't resist bargains), and have played with the Publisher brefly. It is giving footnotes, and they do migrate as text changes, so that is good. Not exactly intuitive interface, but then Aff never has been for me: e.g. clicking and dragging an element doesn't move it as with other programs - you have to click an arrow and then do it. But I may be where I have been wanting to be, so a tentatice 'well-done' to the firm, thanks.

Excellent response. Good to have disagreements without vituperation.

I had PagePlus from a very early iteration, and it usually did what I wanted. But there is a significant difference - the facilities that existed in the most recent version of PP had gone through development by Serif and therefore one might reasonably hope that the ideas and methods might make it easier to adopt them in any new software. The actual programming may be different, but the logic for a particular feature must be the same, surely? If we know that the way to do a particular job is t adjust x or y then it should be transferable skill. I think the problem has been or is that the company may think that the only significant form of publication is either magazine-style or e-publication. I hope I am wrong, but in truth I have lost a lot of my faith in them and I have backed them since before 2008 (as far back as my emails go).

You aren't alone, but I am still bothered.

Or as we say here, 'all fur coat and no underwear' (we actually name a specific item of underwear, but it is possible that naming it might upset some group or other). Flash video, promising 'something we know you've been waiting for' (only one thing?), which is likely to make every group clamouring for improvements in their particular area hopeit is 'their thing'. I am wondering if the big thing is the total integratio of the products into a single one since the entire ethos of the company currently seems to be focussed on seamless integration. I prefer other programs for some of the things done by Affinity but nothing I have tried yet has come near to matching the quality, effectiveness and ease of PagePlus.

That may do the job. Thanks.

So even this feature is not available? I have used it extensively for my books in PagePlus. It surely can't be too much to expect similar functionality with the program that has replaced it?

Thank you, Ralph. Struggling with a cold at present and one is a typo but tother isn't. I actually did mean 'form' but I was trying to bring it back to the central issue, as you inferred. At my age I really do not see why there has to be techiness in these forums when we are all essentially seeking the same thing. Our differences are mainly in the comlexity which the footnotes/endnotes need to exhibit. Life is too short.

I hate to split hairs (well, perhaps not) but the use of 'users' does not mean all users, any more than saying that 'humans eat meat' means that all humans do so. The ambivalence of the form is at once its strength and its weakness. But this really does not forward the please for AP to implement the features they originally provided in Serif PagePlus X9. I am becoming convinced that the management are not interested in publications other than magazines and flyers, which is seriously disappointing if true. I still use X9, and it works. I think that of it ever is unusable because of a Windows update, I will retain a computer solely for using it.

Thanks for this alternative view to mine. How hard did you find it to feel confident with AP, please? What are the advatages that you have identified?

I think the worrying thing is that we have been told that the programmers are the same as those who programmed PagePlus. That is almost faultless in the way that is deals with endnotes and footnotes, as well as in other things. That being so, what, I ask myself, is so very different about Publisher that the same concepts cannot be applied? I incline to the belief that the fundamental logic of the Affinity suite is the problem. You don't need notes in Designer or Photo, and the whole ethos of the suite seems to be that something that works in one program will work in the others, regardless of whether it is needed. I have been cheerfully editing my images for publications in other programs and using the publishing program (PagePlus, of course) to create books, booklets, posters and other material. As for the issue of 'when', the situation does not seem to progress. Patrick thinks next year (2022, I imagine) but he is not sure, and that is still vague. Surely there is a work-flow diagram which places this feature in a sequence and has a timescale? While PagePlus functions, Affinity is an over-complicated and inadequate alternative for me. There is little to encourage me to struggle with its interface which I find is not intuitive. Maybe others are not in the same position, but that is where I am. But this is getting to be a little too close to one of those calls we all make, when the automat reply is 'We are experiencing unusually high call numbers. Please stay on the line; your call is important to us.' At least with some of those we know which position we are in the queue.

I hesitate to say this, lest things go wrong for me, but I have published two large books, filled with images and notes, using PagePlus X9. I used Book Plus, and it seems to work well for me. But youa re right about importing PDFs, and also the need that has not changed in two years.

The truly astonishing thing here is that Serif has not monetized its excellent PagePlus product by continuing to provide it as a kegacy product since Affinity crept onto the scene. I cannot see what possible readon they have to lose that opportunity, expecially given the length of time it seems to be taking to achieve even some of the old program's functions. I don't like Affinity, I admit. It is not user-friendly; it is not intuitive, and it does not seem to understand how my mind works. I have bought all the programs and still do not enjoy using them, preferring others almost all the time. I am truly, truly, disappointed.

Thank you for a simple, cogent and powerful post. I continue to avoid using AP because of this, especially since the ancient fore-runner was capable of doing it a decade ago. PagePlus still remains my go-to program for all sorts of functions, including PDF editing.

People have wandered off into fantasy land following my comment above, but a reader of the article should see the sort of background that Emily Goater has and her interests, which on the face of it are design-led ('glitzy' as someone said) and focussed on magazines and web-pages. It may not reflect her true thoughts, but the article suggests that the sorts of publications which need footnotes and other features suited to academic publications are not a priority. It is a pity that the conversation took a different direction. As for the link to the workbook article (#IAm Matt, above), the one I mentioned was because we had been directed to it this week. When the workbook was being first advertized I asked about its value as a manual, and was told quite clearly that it is not such, but rather a publications showing how some features of AffPub have been used in realtime publications. It might work as a manual to a degree, but had not been created as such. The 'Books Panel' image is not clear enough for me to understand its purpose, so I cannot comment on it.

PFBT said "It seems there is a lot of concentration on magazine-y stuff with lots of clever Designer & Photo integration, BUT that's not nearly as important to many of us as essential DTP features like footnotes." Readers may be enlightened by the interview with Emily Goater to which we were directed in the "Spotlight: 50% off True Grit content packs on the Affinity Store" which reached me on 19 March.

"IAmMatt" you may be, but I am seriously impressed by this clear and well-expressed posting. Thanks.

It is one reason why I tend to prefer footnotes, but of course that needs sophisticated software if one changes text at all.

Perhaps this is the answer. If Serif were to resurrect the availabiity of PagePlus X9, which is presumably simply making it available again to buy, that would answer the immediate need. It could be sold with the caveat that official support is unavailable, but that there is a user base of expertise which may help. It would show goodwill, and provide a first-class DTP. I have (yet again) today been recomending PagePlus yet again, but without a clear idea of where the individual may find a copy.

I didn't think it was a conversation. I was simply revisiting your statement. I agree. The question of the code and future or not of PagePlus (and other legacy programs) is not the issue here, except insofar as the new programs do not manage the same functions. In this case, footnotes and endnotes. I am pretty sure sidenotes never featured in PagePlus. STrange as it may seem, we are all on the same side here. We all want a good and fully-featured program.

I may well have misunderstood the same coders between the two programs, but if the 'the implementation and architecture are not similar' it surely would not be an issue to either put it into the public domain like Libre Office and the like, or sell it to another company? I certainly don't seem to be wrong to say 'the current Serif team consider to be a dead-end program.'

Fair enough. My issue is not that you are not content, but rather that you are missing aspects; I am sorry if you missed the nuance. There is no doubt that Affinity programs are inexpensive, but then so were the more fully-featured predecessors. Perhaps you are realtively new to the program, but I d not recall any hint of missing features when I bought. I don't object to the expenditure. It is a long time back and was not vast. My annoyance, which may or may not be fair, is in the abandonment of PagePlus. And even that is not because it was abandoned, but because there appears to have been no attempt to pass the code to others who might have continued to develop what the current Serif team consider to be a dead-end program.

Sorry, but this is simply not true. Serif has axed PagePlus, in which the algorithms work well. I would have thought there might be some lessons to be learned from the programming behind them, but I am not a programmer. I am a researcher, writer and publisher among other things. It was ill-advised to axe one program before its replacement was anywhere near as versatile. I do not use AffPub, because it is much less user-friendly than the predecessor, has a less-inviting appearance, and singularly fails to provide the range of tools I require and find in PagePlus. So your premise that it is 'a pleasure to use, and that it is being used' is flawed. I also take issue with the statement that AffPub has 'most of the features I need.' Even you are acknowledging that it is lacking. I wonder whether PagePlus included the other features? If so, what benefit is AffPub? I don't like AffPub at present. It is not fit for my purpose, and I seriously doubt if it is fit for the purpose it claims, but put that to one side. I DO like Serif. I am therefore not turning my back on a company I have supportes for decades probably, just because they are a little lost. It does not mean I am using the Affinity programs though. Page Plus is better for publishing, I use several imaging programs which are generall more user-friendly as well. Sadly, I live in hope....

That is fair comment. Some of us have been waiting in hope, but that hope is fading. I will again say what I have said before. Serif PagePlus is a brilliant program which is still far better and more powerful than Affinity Publisher. It was folly to kill it off before the new kid on the block could compete.