Mark Oehlschlager

@fde101 So, likely that this won't happen in the first release, but let me point out that the use case for this is in preparing books and magazines for professional offset printing. The trim size of the book/magazine and the dimensions of either foldout pages or narrow half-pages would be described in the AF Publisher file, and not determined by a desktop printer driver. Also, if you imagine a right-facing page (recto) folding out to the right (when open, two panels facing, two panels on the reverse side), then you can see that this impacts two spreads: Spread 1: a single left-facing page/panel to the left of the spine; and two right-facing panels to the right of the spine representing one side of the foldout. Spread 2: two left-facing panels to the left of the spine, representing the reverse side of the foldout; and a single right-facing page/panel to the right of the spine. Currently, setting this up is not possible. But this is the feature that I am requesting. I would just add that currently Publisher will allow one to modify the dimensions of a specific spread, but it always assumes a perfectly symmetrical spread. That doesn't work for the asymmetry that occurs when shifting from two-panel leaves to four-panel leaves and then back to two-panel leaves. Hope to hear from the Affinity team on this, and I do look forward to the first official release of the application.

I don't see a features roadmap for Publisher on the forum, so I don't know whether or not this specific request has been acknowledged, but it would be highly desirable for Publisher to be able to account for custom page sizes that deviate from the standard trim size for a publication. For example, a book or magazine may include a four-panel fold-out, or an eight-panel gate-fold for a special map or illustration. For another example, a book or magazine may occasionally include a half-page insert for an advertisement or a special overlay. I realize that this may not get rolled into the very next version of Publisher, but I would appreciate knowing that the Affinity team is aware that this is a requested feature, and that there appears somewhere a published roadmap of planned features for Publisher. Thanks.

@Fixx @melriksdesign Yep. That's the solution to those two problems. And the Text Frame panel is accessed from the View > Studio > Text Frame menu item.

Roger, If this is with regard to your large Geman language textbook project, I wonder whether or not Publisher is choking on the large file size, and whether or not breaking up your book into individual Publisher files for each chapter or section might help. I don't think Publisher yet has the Book Files feature of InDesign, but perhaps that's not too big of a stumbling block. You can use the Section Manager in Publisher to start pagination in each subsection of your book at the proper page number. Just a thought.

@Roger terry Hey, Roger. Thanks so much for your feedback. It's very encouraging to hear stories like yours, and I'm hopeful that the Affinity team can bring all this home for a big win – for them and for us. My biggest worries are not so much with delivering files to printers, but in being able to exchange working files back and forth with clients and collaborators who are invested in the Adobe suite. Affinity Photo is in the best position to roundtrip Photo/Photoshop files. Designer can import Illustrator files, but can only output PDF files in return, and then the layer structure is lost. I'm hoping that Publisher will be able to import and export InDesign IDML files. Best of luck with your big book. Alles gute!

I understand that AF Designer's node Transform Mode allows one to select the bottom two nodes of a simple rectangle and distort the shape to suggest 1-point perspective (see illustration below), but this does not appear to work for circles and other complex shapes. In Adobe Illustrator, one can use the Transform tool plus keyboard modifiers to transform any shape and related nodes into 1-point perspective. (See the video below, and note how the left and right nodes of the circle and their control handles are repositioned and redirected to achieve correct perspective for the shape.) Am I missing something in AF Designer? Is it actually possible to transform any vector shape in perspective? Perspective Transform.mov

Here's an illustration of how one can select objects that share common properties in Adobe Illustrator: 1) Select a model object. 2) From the Select menu, choose the command to select other objects in the document with a shared property.

Here are a few illustrations from the Adobe method described above: 1) Green circle is selected on artboard. 2) Corresponding colored dot occurs on the object's layer and it's parent layer in the Layers Panel 3) Dot can be dragged from one parent layer to another.

Suppose you're working on a complicated AF Designer file with scores of layers. Suppose that you have an object buried in a sub-layer with 30 other objects, and you want to move it out of that sub-layer and into the sub-layer of a different parent layer. Is there a way to move objects within a large layer structure without having to go through the cumbersome process of drag-scrolling the object through 30+ object layers? In Adobe Illustrator, a selected object will reveal a colored dot on it's layer as well as on it's parent layer in the Layer Panel. This colored dot can then be dragged into a different parent layer in the layer stack, and thus move the object within the layer stack. That's Adobe's solution to the problem. Can Affinity add a similar feature? Is there a better solution to the problem?

Suppose one has a complicated illustration with scores of small objects that share a common fill — or perhaps a common stroke color. Is it possible to select one object (say a circle filled with blue) and then issue a command to select all objects in the document that also share the same blue fill? Equally, is it possible to select one object (say with a purple stroke) and then issue a command to select all objects in the document that also share the same purple stroke? This would be a very helpful feature to have in Affinity designer. It would save the user from hunting and pecking around.

Certainly, the old triangular shape differentiated the Affinity apps from the Adobe apps at a glance, but the triangular shape is also very limiting as a canvass for icon art when you begin to think about coming up with art for a suite of related apps beyond two or three. Perhaps the cutout motifs for each icon could be redrawn a bit to make the designs a little bolder. Perhaps the color scheme for each icon could be enlivened a bit with a broader range of values (dark to light) like the older icons. But I'm okay with the square canvass and the unique cutout motifs for the icon art.

@melriksdesign @Steps I'm one of those who have stuck with Adobe CS6 all these years to avoid the trap of the Adobe CC subscription model (the threat of an arbitrary rise in monthly fee; threat of losing access to one's own work if one ever ends subscription). It's Apple's move to an all 64 bit OS X that has really motivated me to take a serious look at the Affinity suite to replace Illustrator, Photoshop and InDesign. The Adobe CS6 software is 32 bit only. The Affinity software is already built as 64 bit software. So far, I'm favorably impressed by the Affinity tools. It seems that the Affinity suite may be my way out of the Adobe subscription trap. The only nagging thought I have is whether or not I'll be able to use the Affinity suite exclusively in my own practice. A lot depends upon Affinity's ability to import and export the Adobe file formats, since clients and collaborators often assume the ability to exchange Adobe files back and forth in a collaborative workflow. If one can work within a bubble and control the entire workflow in-house, moving over to Affinity is a no-brainer. But I don't work within a production bubble, and so I'm afraid I may have to finally succumb to subscribing to the Adobe CC suite and build the monthly fee into my pricing. How are you guys planning to manage this problem? Better yet, how is Affinity planning to help the design community get beyond the file exchange problem? If they can solve that problem, designers will abandon Adobe in droves.

In the Paragraph Style dialog box used to define a paragraph style, there is a panel titled, "Initial Words". (See illustration below.) There you can program a "nested character style" that you've defined to be applied to the first X number of words (or characters up to a termination character), but at the moment Affinity Publisher does not allow for more than one "nested character style" within a paragraph style. I'm hoping that the development team will add the ability to program multiple nested character styles within paragraph styles by official launch. There are certain applications where this would be very useful (e.g., product catalogs, where product photos are captioned with a short paragraph of key attributes: a short description, a color availability, a SKU number, a price, etc.). Applying a single paragraph style with multiple nested character styles would make short work of formatting these repetitive items. Affinity Team, here's my plea for the capability to program multiple nested character styles within a single paragraph style in the "Initial Words" tab of the Paragraphs Style dialog box. Perhaps consider renaming that tab to "Nested Styles". Thanks.

I've just watched a video introducing the feature of using mathematical equations to design custom Macro operations. Very intriguing. However, I have no idea what variables and expressions are valid. Is there comprehensive documentation somewhere that a newbie could access to learn all there is to know about creating valid expressions?

@fde101 The default of flat curves means they have no effect on the layer blending. No change is the default behavior. Semantically the same thing as having no Blend Options applied. What I'm looking for is an indication that a particular layer's advanced Blending Options have been intentionally changed/manipulated for effect. Let's have the Affinity team weigh in here.

@fde101 By default, there are no Blend Options applied to one's layers. Say you're working on a fairly complex photo-composite with many layers, however. And say that you've applied Blend Option curves to three or four of those layers in the course of your work. But now you find that something isn't quite right with the overall result, and what you want to do is quickly track down the layers to which you've applied Blend Option curves. In that scenario it would be helpful to see a Blend Option cog symbol on the layer item in the Layers Panel, just has one can see the "fx" symbols on the layer items that have Effects applied. I suppose another solution would be to wrap the Blend Options into the Layer Effect dialog box (as Adobe does), and just have the presence of applied Blend Option curves signified by the "fx" symbol.

Working with Affinity Photo Beta 1.7.0.106. When one applies layer effects to a layer, the fact that effects have been applied to a layer is signified by an "fx" symbol on the layer name within the Layers Panel. However, when one makes adjustments to the Blend Options for a layer via the cog icon in the Layers Panel, there is no corresponding symbol on the layer name to signify that a Blend Option has been applied. It seems that this is a UI oversight. It would be helpful, in particular for multi-layered documents, for there to be a cog symbol on any layer within the Layer Panel for which Blend Options have been applied. Is this a UI behavior that could be added to the next shipping version of Affinity Photo?

You're mistaken. The cog tool shape can be dialed up to 48 teeth and beyond.

@walt.farrell Thanks for the reply. Why would one want to export an oddly shaped artboard? There must be a practical use for this. Or maybe not.

@R C-R @toltec Guys, thanks for your response. All of the use cases you cite are pretty standard. I get those applications. The part of the video tutorial that puzzled me was where it was suggested that one could turn a free-formed vector shape (non-rectangular, e.g., a twisted star-like shape) or a typeset word into an artboard. How would one make use of such non-standard "artboards"? I guess a followup question is this: since it's possible to set up a document of any size without an "artboard", what is the purpose of artboards within Affinity Designer?

I've just watched a video tutorial that explains how to convert objects to artboards, and vice-versa. In that video, the presenter demonstrates that any drawn vector shape, and even live text, can be converted to an artboard via the Layer > Convert Object to Artboard command. Puzzling. I've always thought of artboards as trim limits for artwork to be printed on paper. Can someone from Affinity, or another user in the forum, explain what practical use cases there are for converting custom vector shapes and live text into artboards?

@MEB @KipV I would hope that Publisher remains focused on the use case of Desktop Publishing, and that if Affinity wishes to create a Web/App UI/UX prototyping tool, that they would either extend Affinity Designer or, better yet, create a stand-alone application dedicated to the purpose of Web/App UI/UX workflows.

Hi @Jon P The steps were quite simple: Launch Publisher 1.7.0.206 on my iMac running OS X 10.13.6 Create a new 4-page, facing-pages document with margins (See attached screenshot) Attempt to reset ruler origins to top-left corner of page margins by dragging with move tool from corner of rulers to the corner of the page margins. Just now, I've tried to add shapes and text frames to the pages, and tried to relocate the ruler origin to the upper-left corner of these objects, but I experience the same error.

@Matthias Agreed. The key use case differentiator for Publisher should be the need to layout books and long documents. For Designer, the need to produce charts, illustrations, and layout for simple print collateral (i.e., posters, stationery, etc.) and UI designs for apps and websites. But even as these specific use cases would differentiate Publisher from Designer, still there are features that both tools should share (e.g., threaded text frames, capability to manage linked and/or embedded images., etc.).

@Patrick Connor Why is it unlikely for Designer to manage both linked and embedded images?