DieterW

My thoughts are... anything would be better than the current solution...
I would go one step further than m.d.: Why not giving us the opportunity to apply multiple text styles as is, with all the issues there are (like wrong order, which cannot be changed in the first step). As an experimental feature, which must be activated in the settings. As m.d. mentioned, in most cases users would not apply multiple text styles with the same feature, I would say the vast majority of supporters here desperately are looking for a way to mix different features. I mean, really, this is soooo annoying...
Regarding MikeTO comments:
I do not fully understand the argument regarding the hidden control structure. There must be some form of data structure of applied styles and features. On top of the text style pane there is a box listing all applied styles and features. I assume there must be an order for this too within the data structure, or at least it should be possible to add it. At first it should be the order of application of the style/feature. I also assume that it should be possible to provide a way to change this order (instead of the current box at top, there could be a simple list of applied styles/features which can be reordered or entries deleted). That is more or less what would help greatly and satisfy most needs (with enough potential for fine-tuning later ). I am sure some issues remain, but we are looking at a 90% "there" and 10% "still not there" situation IMHO.
Regarding the issue of missing a trailing space, etc I see no difference to the situation now. In addition, I think the majority of Affinity users is aware of this and could handle it.

Alt-clicking an object/layer is not useful at all, as far as I can tell. Unless I did something wrong. It seems to be for viewing only. As soon as you click anywhere, everything is shown again. So it is not possible to isolate a group and edit it without showing/interference of other objects. Wouldn't it be useful to isolate objects like Alt-click does now, but staying in this mode unless you press ESC or something similar.
Right now editing groups is cumbersame. As soon as you deselect an object you are out of the group, and have to double-click to select an object within the group again. Having multiple nested groups is quickly becoming annoying. With such an isolation mode I would always stay within the group and could directly select the objects by just clicking them. That would be some relief....!

+1
I think this should be a function of the export persona (for all apps). Where you can add slices for the whole document, which store the current visibility of the objects.

Alt-clicking an object/layer is not useful at all, as far as I can tell. Unless I did something wrong. It seems to be for viewing only. As soon as you click anywhere, everything is shown again. So it is not possible to isolate a group and edit it without showing/interference of other objects. Wouldn't it be useful to isolate objects like Alt-click does now, but staying in this mode unless you press ESC or something similar.
Right now editing groups is cumbersame. As soon as you deselect an object you are out of the group, and have to double-click to select an object within the group again. Having multiple nested groups is quickly becoming annoying. With such an isolation mode I would always stay within the group and could directly select the objects by just clicking them. That would be some relief....!

Alt-clicking an object/layer is not useful at all, as far as I can tell. Unless I did something wrong. It seems to be for viewing only. As soon as you click anywhere, everything is shown again. So it is not possible to isolate a group and edit it without showing/interference of other objects. Wouldn't it be useful to isolate objects like Alt-click does now, but staying in this mode unless you press ESC or something similar.
Right now editing groups is cumbersame. As soon as you deselect an object you are out of the group, and have to double-click to select an object within the group again. Having multiple nested groups is quickly becoming annoying. With such an isolation mode I would always stay within the group and could directly select the objects by just clicking them. That would be some relief....!

Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
Any language, I do not care, I just want to have it.
The reason for me is: As by no doubt there is considerable lack of programming resources at Serif, such a feature would take off quite some burden from Serif, i.e. many feature requests would vanish or never be asked for. So, I think, Serif themselves would profit the most from it.
Just to add some specific points: Join scripting with macros, i.e. macros for all programs and make macros scripts (that can be edited, not like now, which drives me crazy). And I recommend to have a well designed user forum to share and exchange macros (OK, I am old school and hope this won't be NFT macros then... 😉)

I must admit I share all those concerns. I am not a professional though and for me Affinity is still the best option. However, some years ago, to me Affinity was like a shining star by taking known functions, rethink them from scratch, and in many examples made them better, more intuitive, more consistent. It cannot be overlooked that this has changed. It somehow seems to me that product management changed some time ago as such things in the end depend on very few people with outstanding analytical and conceptual capabilities. However, to me it is also clear that Serif has an enormous lack of resources since quite some time now. Sometimes I think I can feel the principle willingness paired with the typical frustration due to being overloaded too long, and not seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. So, it might well be that the current situation is caused solely by this fact. If this is really the reason I can say for my part that I would accept a higher price for sure, if this would lead to more development resources.

As it seems to me that devs are only reading bug forums for the time being and feature requests are more or less ignored entirely I do not hope for a solution soon. Therefore I am afraid workarounds are all we have ...
The aforementioned method from ''' works, although the details took me a while. A short description to save others time:
(In my case I wanted to divide an image in a grid with 10 columns and 7 rows)
Open the image to cut Create a rectangle in the size of one cell of the grid in the upper, left corner (in my case with a width of 1/10 and height of 1/7 of the image size) Delete the image layer (it just served as an easy method to get a new document with the right size) With Duplicate and Transform it is quite easy to copy it many times so it covers the whole image as a grid (in my case 70 rectangles) Select all of them > Gradient tool > Type: Image > Choose the file of the image to cut Turn Snap on with options: Snap to spread and Include spread mid points Move the center of the Gradient tool handles to the center of the image, which should be easy with snapping Disable the "Maintain fill aspect ratio" option of the Gradient tool (strangely enough the image will be distorted when this is enabled; I assume this is due to the extreme scaling we will need to do) Move the horizontal handle of the Gradient tool to the right border of the image, while holding Shift (again will snap) Move the vertical handle to the top of the image in the same way Switch to Export persona and set your export options On the Layers tab select all rectangles and click "Create Slice" On the Slices tab click "Export Slices" (below the list of slices (took me a while to find it... 😉)

As it seems to me that devs are only reading bug forums for the time being and feature requests are more or less ignored entirely I do not hope for a solution soon. Therefore I am afraid workarounds are all we have ...
The aforementioned method from ''' works, although the details took me a while. A short description to save others time:
(In my case I wanted to divide an image in a grid with 10 columns and 7 rows)
Open the image to cut Create a rectangle in the size of one cell of the grid in the upper, left corner (in my case with a width of 1/10 and height of 1/7 of the image size) Delete the image layer (it just served as an easy method to get a new document with the right size) With Duplicate and Transform it is quite easy to copy it many times so it covers the whole image as a grid (in my case 70 rectangles) Select all of them > Gradient tool > Type: Image > Choose the file of the image to cut Turn Snap on with options: Snap to spread and Include spread mid points Move the center of the Gradient tool handles to the center of the image, which should be easy with snapping Disable the "Maintain fill aspect ratio" option of the Gradient tool (strangely enough the image will be distorted when this is enabled; I assume this is due to the extreme scaling we will need to do) Move the horizontal handle of the Gradient tool to the right border of the image, while holding Shift (again will snap) Move the vertical handle to the top of the image in the same way Switch to Export persona and set your export options On the Layers tab select all rectangles and click "Create Slice" On the Slices tab click "Export Slices" (below the list of slices (took me a while to find it... 😉)

I've recreated this and logged an issue

I already wanted to post a bug report, as for me clearly this is a bug. If I select multiple objects and then select to transform them separately then I do this to transform each of them "separately", just in a single step to save me some work. And if I then enter an exact dimension, then I cannot expect anything else as that all those separately(!) transformed objects will get exactly this entered dimension.
Right now they do get scaled relative to each other. But if I wanted that, I could enter a percentage, which is possible already. So the current behavior could be achieved by entering a percentage (would be perfect if I could enter the math directly, e.g. "30/25%", but anyways), but the intended behavior cannot be done at all. What else should be needed to say?
(I am just referring to the resize behavior, as I do not agree with the OP regarding the "bounding box issue". Although I would not mind a setting where you can define that "transform separately" is the default.)

Alt-clicking an object/layer is not useful at all, as far as I can tell. Unless I did something wrong. It seems to be for viewing only. As soon as you click anywhere, everything is shown again. So it is not possible to isolate a group and edit it without showing/interference of other objects. Wouldn't it be useful to isolate objects like Alt-click does now, but staying in this mode unless you press ESC or something similar.
Right now editing groups is cumbersame. As soon as you deselect an object you are out of the group, and have to double-click to select an object within the group again. Having multiple nested groups is quickly becoming annoying. With such an isolation mode I would always stay within the group and could directly select the objects by just clicking them. That would be some relief....!

Alt-clicking an object/layer is not useful at all, as far as I can tell. Unless I did something wrong. It seems to be for viewing only. As soon as you click anywhere, everything is shown again. So it is not possible to isolate a group and edit it without showing/interference of other objects. Wouldn't it be useful to isolate objects like Alt-click does now, but staying in this mode unless you press ESC or something similar.
Right now editing groups is cumbersame. As soon as you deselect an object you are out of the group, and have to double-click to select an object within the group again. Having multiple nested groups is quickly becoming annoying. With such an isolation mode I would always stay within the group and could directly select the objects by just clicking them. That would be some relief....!

Alt-clicking an object/layer is not useful at all, as far as I can tell. Unless I did something wrong. It seems to be for viewing only. As soon as you click anywhere, everything is shown again. So it is not possible to isolate a group and edit it without showing/interference of other objects. Wouldn't it be useful to isolate objects like Alt-click does now, but staying in this mode unless you press ESC or something similar.
Right now editing groups is cumbersame. As soon as you deselect an object you are out of the group, and have to double-click to select an object within the group again. Having multiple nested groups is quickly becoming annoying. With such an isolation mode I would always stay within the group and could directly select the objects by just clicking them. That would be some relief....!

Actually I already made the suggestion (cannot find the post though) a long time ago to implement CSS functionality, as this is a well thought, widely known and all-you'll-ever-need concept. Maybe this was a bit too ambitious, at least it was completely ignored 😉. But nevertheless it would be a good idea to follow the CSS principles here too.
The basis is already there: If you apply a combination of paragraph/character style/local format Publisher shows you the applied styles and formats in the heading of the Text Style studio. For more complex formatting you can click the arrow on the left side to see full details on applied styles and format to the selected text (see image).
With my suggestion all applied styled could be listed here and the order tells you which one is prioritized (last as with CSS). Of course, we could also wish for a format inspector similar to the CSS inspectors of some browsers. That would tell you in detail which style applies which formats and which formats are ignored (normally striked-through) because they are overwritten by other styles. But let's save this for version 3 or 4 😁.
Regarding usage I would suggest to keep the current behavior: clicking on a style applies it, and only this, thus removing other styles (of same category, i.e. a new character style replaces other character styles only). To apply an additional style without removing the current one(s) you would CTRL+Click a text style. This would ensure that nobody needs to change the way working with Publisher as everything works as it does now.

The skeptic in me does not see this happening, but I could really get behind it if it were. I really like the CSS approach where multiple rules can apply to the same element, and I can imagine something like multiple character styles applied to the same selection of characters. I would organize my styles differently than I do now, and although it would allow greater complexity, I also think in certain respects it would also make text styles more clean.
For example, in my present style sheets, I usually have character styles for bold, italic, and underline, as well as the various combinations thereof. It takes seven different sometimes-nested character styles, where if it were like CSS it would only be three characters styles that could be mixed. And presently, if I need to change something about italic, I have two styles to edit; if I change something about underline, I have four styles to edit. 
 

Should Serif ever consider something like this, I think it could be implemented without harming the existing systems: just because styles could be compounded do not mean that they have to, so people who want to still use them like the current system would stil be able to.
Note that for my part I am not really recommending a full CSS approach; just the cascading aspect. It would still be different CSS in these areas:
It would still use the basic UI of the Text Style studio rather than written stylesheets (I would actually use the stylesheets if it were possible; but I suspect it would not be a good fit for the average user in this particular target audience). The selector concept of CSS would have no place here: we should still apply styles by selecting directly and applying styles as we do now. The sometimes complex rules of precedence in CSS would be overkill here. Probably just the basic concept of the order in the studio would be all that is needed. I personally don't care whether lower styles takes precedence (as in CSS) or if it is reversed, so that the highest priority are those at the top of the list. I would adapt either way.

I am impressed how far ahead of time your planning goes...
I wanted to do an arc with arrow heads, but so I can easily change the angles later. It should look like the blue arc (I created with cutting a circle, so angles are fixed). I tried to use the pie tool and set the hole radius to 100%. Works in principle, but not in regard to arrow heads. When doing this both arrow heads overlap and only one is seen. This is how AD treads the start and end of the line, as can be seen with the red shape.
By the way, the same is - of course - true for the line caps. You cannot get butt cap equivalents on the pie, as neither bevel nor miter join would achieve this.
My suggestion is to tread the end of the line differently, when hole radius equals 100%. For this special case, I suggest to not draw the inner circle and the connecting lines, just the outer circle. Then the arrow heads should be shown correctly automatically... and the caps too.
Maybe this can be implemented easier than the arc segment pen tool...

I love Affinity Designer and the great wonderful people behind it. I'm an early adopter and devised many of my studio's workflows around it. To the point that when a client requests a 'last-minute' change in the style guides I don't hesitate in assigning an intern, when there's one around, just to go through the time consuming and the painstaking chore of changing all the objects that need to be changed. Some of our projects can be huge. We have teams of designers and illustrators working on year-long projects that generate hundreds of artwork crammed artboards. I don't even get the chance to open all those files. Now, when the client requests us something seemingly simple as: "guys, the school computers have really bad screens. We need to increase the line thickness a bit". That makes my stomach drop. In many projects that means entire days of grunt work. Unhappiness ensues. Interns blame their fate. The less organized creatives become scapegoats for not keeping their layers in order. I struggle to outsource this burden and keep this evil out of the door. Sites like Mechanical Turk is not an option because very few users know of Affinity. Most often I end up hiring a freelancer, buying them an Affinity Designer copy, teach them the ropes in 15 minutes, pat them in the back and hope for the best. The only reason I endure this is just that I am a data freak and I measure everything: Affinity is so good that the performance gain is still worth this pain. But... guys, honestly, it's about time we have a Select Same [property] feature. Don't know any producer, project manager, director or anyone who has the responsibility to deliver work to clients who I have shown Affinity to that haven't scoffed at this omission. Let's be frank about what 'software reliability' means to an agency or studio: the features to implement that $%#! last-minute infuriating client change request without missing the deadline or derailing the budget. The reason why I don't understand why this feature is not a priority is that, as not only a creative but also as a business owner, I tend to consider anything that causes loss of productivity and eventually money, a priority. And honestly, I'd really love to be able to convince my clients to adopt Affinity Designer too so I don't have to go through the other—and last—grievance I have: conversion to Illustrator. I really dream about the day clients stop to ask me to convert the source files to AI. Please, let's make this happen. I really love the tool and admire your work but can't hold this back anymore. I think it's about time I share this.