[Choosing the right computer for Affinity Designer]

no, I agree. I am happy as a clam with my even non-retina 13" MB Pro. I can and have worked all day for days on end on that great machine.

 

if there becomes and iPad that can do what that MB Pro does, there will be one in my toolkit.

 

fairly exciting idea...

[Choosing the right computer for Affinity Designer]

OK..so, a question for all tablet users:

 

If you were plopped into a new job, contract or permanent...or working for a client, and the only tool you could use was a tablet and whatever software you need and is available for that tablet, could you do your job?

 

..Or, could you not do your job on that tablet? Right here, right now?

[Choosing the right computer for Affinity Designer]

drawing on the screen has always been appealing to me..more like paper. I've also always liked the iPad, but from what I know of its capabilities today, it doesn't seem to me to be a "real" computer capable of doing real work of the kind I do.

 

It looks like it is getting there, especially as serious apps are written for it..apps like AD and others. Then combined with the  size and light weight it becomes compelling..I assume it's very conservative on energy, too..

[Could the key command for Magnify be "relaxed" ?]

when I say "magnifier" I mean zoom...a little magnifying glass with a + sign where the glass would be.

 

or more accurate, click with this tool to zoom, or marquee an area to zoom in on.

[adjust saturation of different-color objects at the same time?]

Is this even possible? say you have 2 or more objects differing in color and you want to adjust their saturation at the same time but without altering their respective colors.

 

maybe this idea has other applications..

[Choosing the right computer for Affinity Designer]

the iPad version is extremely encouraging news...helps move the iPad much closer to serious work platform, in my mind..

[Using the AD betas?]

OK..cool

 

for the record, I didn't mean to imply that AD is buggy. Actually, I find it much better-behaved than many other "mature" software applications.

 

I only meant that with beta versions, one accepts a certain amount of potential "issues."

 

grabbin' the AD beta now..

[Could the key command for Magnify be "relaxed" ?]

I guess that could work, too..I think I happened upon that in adobe by accident and found it to be pretty useful.

 

it's the on-the-fly, temporary tool function which needs a "quick release" too

[Using the AD betas?]

I get that, once a document is created or saved in one of the betas, it can't be opened by a previous version of AD...

 

However, what do people actually do, when choosing to use the Beta? I personally don't have any extra "experimenting" time; when I use AD, it simply must be for real, finish work.

 

So, do beta users simply accept that, and stick with the beta regardless of whatever problems might occur with the beta?

[Could the key command for Magnify be "relaxed" ?]

OK..let me get clear on this.. A) Using the beta version of AD, and turning off or changing the key combo that invokes Spotlight will correct the key command producing a temp magnifying glass?

 

I've already changed my spotlight command to Ctrl-Space..one of the first things I do upon installing OS X..mainly because I want CMD-Space to be for magnify, in various apps..

 

thank you!

[Could the key command for Magnify be "relaxed" ?]

the key combo to get a temporary magnifying glass for marqueeing around a selection you want to zoom in on is  CMD-Space, but the order matters: it must be Space first, then press CMD.

 

I have 25 years' worth of muscle memory for CMD-Space, regardless of which order. If you don't get the order correct in AD, you're left trying again, swiping, not zooming..very time wastey and frustrating.

 

Could AD be modified so that it doesn't matter what order you press those keys, that you still get the magnifying glass anyway?

 

If you press CMD, THEN space, you get a hand tool but the hand tool already has it's very own key: the Space bar, which conforms to years of convention.

 

Thank you!

 

vcat

[Choosing the right computer for Affinity Designer]

My 2 macs are older...2009 Mac Pro, 2010 Mac BOOK Pro.

 

I am very happy with the speed of AD on both, and while faster macs obviously run the same software faster, I feel that apps like AD give my hardware new life.

 

What they say in their promos is right: by the time Illustrator gets done loading, I'm already working in AD. The question of which computer? For Affinity Designer: the mac you have. For adobe? Next years's Mac.

 

;-P

[Why are "personas" even needed in the AD workspace?]

I dunno about AI, but I guess I've used both types of apps..ones where all the tools are in the same space, and ones where different functions have different spaces.

 

Lightwave 3D has different "spaces"

 

I guess I can see merits to both. maybe it's just my getting used to how AD does it.

 

Thank you for entertaining my question.

[How to resize a text box without distorting the type inside?]

heh..

[Can text in text frames re-flow when box is re-sized?]

thank you, MEB

[Can text in text frames re-flow when box is re-sized?]

as it is now, I'm stuck inserting and removing line returns to get my text to break properly. I may need to do that anyway, to get the kind of rag I want, but at least if the text reflowed auto, it would take some of that burden off the User editing the text.

 

thank you!

[Why are "personas" even needed in the AD workspace?]

Again, don't mean to be nitpicking, but why is it necessary to have "personas" which form in a sense, different "tool spaces" or function spaces in AD?

 

Can't the tools simply know who and what they are, and behave accordingly, and enable the User to avoid still more clicking which is required to get into the different-tools spaces?  Can the tools simply just be there?

 

Maybe there's a great under-the-hood/programming reason for compartmentalizing this way, but to me, it just feels like more horsing around to get things done.

 

Speaking for myself, what really takes its toll in wear and tear on me using computers in general are:

 

1. excessive clicking. it's tedious and I have this "alright already" feeling, or going through a maze, or jumping through hoops every time I must click, beyond a click or two.  I've been mouse clicking now for about 30 years, so that perhaps lends a little perspective. I probably have 12 billion clicks under my belt by now.  :D

 

2. What I call "tweezing."  Imagine not having the wonderful hands we have to interact with our physical world, and to manipulate objects, but instead, tweezers. Imagine gripping things with tweezers, adjusting, moving, adjusting, ad nauseum.   Tweezers are great for some things, but if they're all you have, working can be a PITA in short order.

 

When I have to "tweeze" too many things in an interface to get something done, I call that "tweezing" and it gets annoying for me.

 

Dunno how peculiar to me this is, but I have heard and read that in UX studies, fewer clicks = happier users.

 

AD already does an amazing job of reducing the User Hoops to jump through in a lot of tools, especially the ones that work in real time...I see fewer clicks and less tweezing as a logical extension of that ethos.

 

just my 2 pesos.

 

Vcat

[How to resize a text box without distorting the type inside?]

any way to do this?

 

I need to make the box containing the text larger, but without changing the type inside the box.

 

adjusting the control points doesn't do this, and I see no other tool that could help me.

 

Thank you for any clues!

 

Vcat

 

PS: never mind; answered my own question; it's a matter of selecting Text Frame versus Art Text. Pretty sure I've encountered this before, but since I don't do a lot of text-handling in AD, I guess it got chuffed off my "stuff to remember" list.

 

;)

[After object is rotated, can it "forget" it's original orientation?]

when an object is rotated, it appears to "remember" its original rotation, which can be highly useful, but could there be an option to allow rotated objects to "forget" their original, also?

 

User could decide on the fly which one they need for the purpose..

[Allow guide placement w/o de-activating selected items?]

As it is now, if you drag a guide while a selected item is active or selected, you get control handles for that object, but you don't see the points, and with what I'm doing right now, it matters where the guide is placed relative to the points of my shape.

 

So, I have to do it trial-and-error, rather than nailing it on the first go.

 

Thank you,

 

vcat

[Less clicking, please?]

I have *finally* gotten some time to play a bit more with AD..explore the tools, etc. It's looking infinitely capable, but I'm aware that I am clicking a lot (too much) to do certain things, like deal with fill/stroke, gradient, line weight, etc. 

 

most/many things in AD are "right up there" meaning no burrowing or tunnelling into the interface.

 

to deal with a gradient or stroke fill takes about 5 clicks, assuming the object is selected. changing a node color is a 2-click deal...

 

I realize that this might sound like nitpicking, but as I worked with gradients yesterday, I was extremely aware of my click activity and it got tedious.

 

I'm also clicking a lot selecting items in the layers palette. sometimes, "click through" works, and other times, no amount of clicking will select an item, so you have to make a trip to the layer palette, open groups, etc.

 

I don't want this to sound like I'm unloading, because I'm not. This is just a suggestion about making things better.  I already regard AD as my go-to vector tool.

 

Thank you for reading.

[can gradient panel be resized to be longer?]

I like the gradient tool and think it would be even more effective and empowering if it could be made longer so that gradient nodes aren't all crammed together..is this possible?

[Joining paths the way we want them to join?]

makes sense to me..that's what I'm after, too!

[Joining paths the way we want them to join?]

From the sound of that, you can't join ends without changing the shape of the paths involved, am I correct?

[Joining paths the way we want them to join?]

OK..it seems that in AD, you have to begin with a closed shape, then cut off the bit you want, and close THAT. rinse and repeat for as many paths as you're doing.

 

I'm accustomed to getting all the little path segments cut loose first and THEN joining those...