MJWHM
-
Posts
81 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by MJWHM
-
-
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.
-
10 minutes ago, PatrickOfLondon said:
Your point is well made and well understood.
But at least the modern motorcycle still has a braking system, just like the old bicycle did – and probably an even more effective one...
it hasn't completely thrown away its braking system, in the process of becoming "new".Anyway, that's enough moaning from a nostalgic PPX9 user. Let's hope November 9th brings enough benefits and features to keep (most) people happy.
☺️
Excellent response. Good to have disagreements without vituperation.
-
4 minutes ago, Pedrober said:
I like the Apub interface, much more than the PPlus one. PPlus had a very long history. Apub is still in the 2.0 version (nearly). Please remember what InDesign was in its 2.0 version.
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).
- Ramon56 and PatrickOfLondon
-
2
-
1 minute ago, Ralph said:
I'm getting too old now to be bothered any more!
You aren't alone, but I am still bothered.
-
9 hours ago, Will Wallace said:
The video tells us exactly NOTHING. Judging by the video, I expect the new version to be "all hat and no cattle" (as they say in Texas).
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.
-
1 hour ago, AllanP said:
Take a look at the Serif video tutorials on "Sections" - https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/tutorials/publisher/desktop/video/337265458/ and "Merge documents" -https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/tutorials/publisher/desktop/video/389996014/
Does that provide the functionality you are interested in?
That may do the job. Thanks.
-
-
32 minutes ago, Ralph said:
I think @MJWHM's last post had a couple of typos which, if I'm right, gives a rather different slant to the sentence:
"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."
Change "form" to "forum" and "please" to "pleas" and the sentence focusses on the objective (as I see it) of the forum - what Affinity can (or can not) do. Apologies @MJWHMif I have mis-understood you.
In my opinion, Serif should have (in the distant past!) provided a basic (open to interpretation) set of actions for all the functions of a DTP and then progressively "dug deeper" into each. What I see is some functions with incredible depth - some so deep that I have never heard of them! - and others (like Footnotes) which have been ignored.
Of course I would like Footnotes with the detail raised by a number of correspondents, but I don't want to wait till the twenty second century until every detail is incorporated. I am happy to modify my working practices to accommodate Affinity's short-comings.
Long Live PagePlus.
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.
-
38 minutes ago, LondonSquirrel said:
You obviously did not read your previous post. My emphasis:
I accept that you wrote a succession of notes on the same line does occur, but you immediately contradict yourself with your use of the word 'all'.
You can't have it both ways. 'All' in English does not mean 'nearly all' or 'most' or 'the vast majority'. 'All' means every single instance. It is a common error that I see here in the forums when there is a call from some people asking for a feature when they write something like 'users want...'. Without qualification, 'users' means 'all users'. It would be better if they wrote 'some users' or 'many users', both of which would be fair and probably accurate. But '[all] users' is usually not accurate. In your sentence above with the use of the word 'all' you seem to have made this mistake.
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.
-
15 minutes ago, Pedrober said:
After having used PagePlus (for years) and Affinity Publisher (a year ago), I think the opposite: I feel more at ease in APub. The feature I miss the most is footnotes. In fact, all my work for publishing will be done in APub when this feature is supported. For the time being, it's impossible, because footnotes are essential for me.
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.
-
-
33 minutes ago, PatrickOfLondon said:
" PagePlus still remains my go-to program for all sorts of functions..."
I couldn't agree more..
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.
-
11 hours ago, rparmar said:
I am responsible for the purchases ........ Can we have some information with which to make informed purchase decisions?
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.
-
2 hours ago, LibreTraining said:
First, a direct link to the actual article: https://affinityspotlight.com/article/interview-with-emily-goater-affinity-publisher-product-expert/
There is no mention of footnotes at all.
How is this relevant to this discussion?
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.
-
1 hour ago, IAmMatt said:
As one of the many people ......
.....
... I don't have a solution for this problem but I also don't want this thread to die because it is a useful reminder that this is still a pressing problem for many people.
"IAmMatt" you may be, but I am seriously impressed by this clear and well-expressed posting. Thanks.
-
2 hours ago, J@HWC said:
That should be an option, as it is in say LibreOffice. But on a bit of a side note, I put the annotations for my first book at the end of each chapter and it's been the result of nearly all my less than 5 star reviews.
It seems a number of people find it annoying to try to find the end of the chapter when it's easier to find the end of the book.
It is one reason why I tend to prefer footnotes, but of course that needs sophisticated software if one changes text at all.
-
1 hour ago, cyberlizard said:
does not look like footnotes, endnotes or sidenotes are arriving any time soon. If you need these features then its Serif's old PagePlus, Xara or InDesign. Could not agree with you more though. For me, footnotes and endnotes are essential, so for now I am using Scribus - excellent software but interface is somewhat dated to say the least.
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. -
24 minutes ago, Patrick Connor said:
This is is simply an incorrect understanding. The same team who wrote PagePlus are writing Affinity Publisher. These programmers can access the legacy code (if desired), but there is no need, they wrote it and know how they wrote it. Legacy code and the Affinity code is not shared as the implementation and architecture are not similar. This feature needs writing using the current language spec and using the current OS independent architecture and algorithms. Code like this is not simply plug and play
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.'
-
1 hour ago, Kevin Scally said:
My experience of using flakey apps is that nobody cares what features they have, or makes demands of the programmers; they just get quietly abandoned. This makes it a reasonable assumption that—for whatever purposes they need it—some users find its current feature set and price acceptable. How could you possibly take issue with another person's assertion that a program has most of the features they need? You are entitled to say that Affinity Publisher is not fit for your purposes because it doesn't include footnotes; though I discovered the absence of that feature during the free trial, before I paid any money.
As a counter example, while MS Word has footnotes and endnotes, it is an application that I avoid like the plague. I prefer to use a combination of Scrivener and Pages to write. When I need accurate page layout Affinity Publisher is doing enough.
Regarding PagePlus, the code for every program is independent. Each new version of a program is an opportunity to build in new bugs. Some features delve into the guts of a program and can affect thousands of lines of code. Quark, with Xpress, had the advantage of seeing what Aldus got wrong with PageMaker (no text frames) but, as XPress grew, adding features became more complex and more difficult. Sometimes the only solution is to rewrite a program from the ground up, but of course that introduces a whole cohort of new bugs. Consider that Adobe bought Aldus and with it owned PageMaker but they decided to build InDesign from scratch. They also had the benefit of seeing Quark's mistakes on Xpress. Now they too have a behemoth of a program where every major feature takes weeks or months to QA.
I too live in hope that a robust footnote feature will appear soon, but I have observed that management harassment of coders has never produced a better software product.
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.
-
3 minutes ago, Kevin Scally said:
... Even the demand for footnotes here confirms that the rest of the program's feature make it a pleasure to use, and that it is being used. ... Affinity Publisher is a robust product with most of the features I need. I have avoided projects with footnotes and—where a choice was available—opted for endnotes and bit of elbow grease. It's fine until they get the feature working 100 per cent.
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....
-
22 minutes ago, Peter Falkenberg Brown said:
I'm just suggesting that at the very least we can be respectful and polite toward the Affinity company staff. No one is forcing anyone to buy the product, and the product has many good points, in spite of the lack of footnotes.
Also, new forum users should at least skim the thread of now 22 pages so that they can see what's been discussed already.
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.
Footnotes/Endnotes
in Feedback for Affinity Publisher V1 on Desktop
Posted
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