prophet

Giving these issues and suggestions a bump as the color management is driving me a bit nuts.
Needs immediate fix…
- Ability to make an existing global color a spot
- Add alert when deleting a spot swatch that has been applied to any object AND include option to replace with another swatch
- Ability to name a swatch with color mix values AND name updates if values are changed
Would make sense to fix…
- Hover tool tip over any swatch anywhere gives all pertinent information: name, color mix, global status, spot status,
- With a color selected, click the "Add Global Color" flyout menu on the swatches palette and have the selected color populate the dialog rather than defaulting to some 4-color black.
- As suggested, have a search field everywhere a color swatch library is presented.
- Ability to remove individual or all recent swatches. Don't want to accidentally click on a old/revised swatch
- Combine "Rename Global Color" , "Rename Spot Color" and "Edit Fill". Why do these need to be in 3 separate places?
And perhaps a more philosophical point, or just difference in workflows…
- There are 2 small buttons to the right of the choose palette pull down menu. One the add swatch to palette, one to add global swatch to palette. Why would I need to add a color to a pallet and have it NOT be Global? The only reason I ever create a swatch is to be able to use and edit it globally. Maybe I'm just not thinking of a case where this would be useful.

Appropriate chastisement. My apologies.

Even more "instantly" would be to see in the transform panel that the W and H %s are not the same.
This is quickly becoming my number one request, and really does limit the usefulness of the apps for my professional workflow. Hope it gets resolved soon.

Well said @GarryP. We can't know the exact workflow and thought process of everyone. But I think we can make an educated inference that if someone has grouped items together, they have likely done some specific work to get those element to be in a particular relationship with one another. Thus, if they are scaling the group as a whole, they'd like those elements to remain in that relationship. That's a much more logical inference than assuming they'd like all the elements to remain in relationship, except the size of text.

Well said @GarryP. We can't know the exact workflow and thought process of everyone. But I think we can make an educated inference that if someone has grouped items together, they have likely done some specific work to get those element to be in a particular relationship with one another. Thus, if they are scaling the group as a whole, they'd like those elements to remain in that relationship. That's a much more logical inference than assuming they'd like all the elements to remain in relationship, except the size of text.

Thanks for bringing up this hidden oddity. A very weird and, IMHO, wrong implementation.

Thanks for bringing up this hidden oddity. A very weird and, IMHO, wrong implementation.

Found the answer myself…in the "Text Frame" panel, I had "Hide Overflow" checked. Once unchecked, double clicking the bottom (or top) handle fit frame to text as expected.

Older thread, but I have since read many comments that have this same question or variant.
It seems many people are using "Master Pages" in more of a "Master Layers" way. While this works, it does feel a bit awkward. And it really shows it's weakness when creating a new page if I have to apply multiple "Master Pages" every time. If we're not going to see Layers handled the same way they were in InDesign, perhaps adding the ability to choose multiple Master Pages at the time of new page creation would help. Or even being able to create a "Master Page Group" that would apply all Master Pages in one fell swoop?

Older thread, but I have since read many comments that have this same question or variant.
It seems many people are using "Master Pages" in more of a "Master Layers" way. While this works, it does feel a bit awkward. And it really shows it's weakness when creating a new page if I have to apply multiple "Master Pages" every time. If we're not going to see Layers handled the same way they were in InDesign, perhaps adding the ability to choose multiple Master Pages at the time of new page creation would help. Or even being able to create a "Master Page Group" that would apply all Master Pages in one fell swoop?

A few quirks and requests regarding the Value Inputs throughout Publisher.
• I believe almost all value inputs should have corresponding "up/down" arrows next to them so one can increment values quickly. They are most notably missing in the Transform palette, a spot that I use them quite frequently.
• Some measurement controls include sliders (Transform > Rotation, Stroke > Width), but still I think the up/down arrows should be an option since they are much faster if you know what value you want. The stroke weight slider is especially cumbersome to find the precise value you want since the .1 and .5 values are included. And while I can certainly select the value in the input and type "3pt", it would just be a quick 3 clicks to get there with arrows.
• The above 2 points are almost addressed by being able to use the physical up and down arrow keys on the keyboard when an input is selected, but there seems to be a bug with the inclusion of the "unit" in some of the inputs. e.g. I can select the value of the text skew, width and height, then using the arrow keys on the keyboard, change the value and see the live preview. But in the font size, tracking and leading, when I change the values, the unit (pt, %) is missing and doesn't give a live preview. The workaround is to change the value and then hit Tab or Return to jump out of the input, after which the unit reappears and the change is applied.
• Speaking of Tab jumping, that behavior is missing from the Text Frame > General > Insets group of inputs.
That's all for now.
So close to using this great program for production work! You're doing  great job Affinity!!
 

Agree with the 2 basic functions being discussed here:
- Ability to size any object by units and percentage, especially images. Once placed, if an image gets scaled, I can't find a way to get it back to it's original size.
- Easily adjust images placed in frames. Been using ID for years and I believe it has the best concept: all placed images are contained in frames. You can manipulate both or either in any number of ways. Scaling both together, scale just the pic, snapping pic to fit frame and frame to fit image, rotating image within frame. All are necessary. As mentioned by others previously, building a page layout with empty frames as placeholders is a common practice in page layout. Being able to quickly drop in and snap fit images within those existing frames is part of life. (I know those "fit content" and "fit frame" key commands in ID are a bit of finger twister, but once learned, it's second nature.) And it's obviously a feature in that odd "Properties" box, but it needs to be able to happen on the fly, not set on a frame before an image is placed in it.
tldr; ID really does have the most effective method. All images are in frames and you can manipulate either as needed.

Thanks for the tip, but I would suggest swapping those actions.
Not to be snarky at all, but I do wonder why decisions like this get made. A known modifier key that a substantial portion of your user base has likely been using for, dare I guess…decades, if they are anything like me. Yet, at some meeting, somewhere, someone said, we should change this in favor of a new behavior. In ID (and PS and AI), holding option scales from center, while holding command does nothing. Why not map "bypass snapping" to the command key and avoid confusion?
Thanks again, and I'm looking forward to the completed product.