Jump to content
You must now use your email address to sign in [click for more info] ×

Aleksandar Kovač

Members
  • Posts

    158
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Aleksandar Kovač

  1. Hi @GarryP, thank you for your thinking and sorry for incomplete information above. A screenshot incl. layer palette + example file this time. Window screenshot not used for conciseness. It would be great if you have the time to try. A hypothetical Constellations graphics scenario. There is a map of sky inside a viewport. The task: select the constellations and move the sky within the viewport so that the star labelled Alba is right in the center of the artboard, preserving the spatial relationships and integrity of the constellation groups. My workflow is: select the nested content and move as needed. The problem is that constellations South and Southwest keep falling out of my clipping shape. Of course, putting them back fixes that, but I wonder whether this is how the workflow should go? User makes grouping and nesting relationships precisely to create coherent constructs in order to use them as-one. Mere positioning of such constructs must not break them apart. The user makes them and only the user can break them. Therefore, I opine that user's explicit nesting of objects within a shape must be protected and preserved rather than let Designer assume that, by manipulating their position some of the objects should leave the parent-child relationship. ... One could group the groups within parents. In more complex situations that approach could make the problem more complex. Groups-within-groups-within-groups increase vertical hierarchical complexity, which slows down work (finding, managing...) and still the problem remains: some objects or subgroups will fall out due to this feature. I encountered this problem when: Using a complex project drawing and wanting to show only a part of it. Working with a large abstract vector graphics to fill a shape... Maybe I am fundametally wrong in my approach? Could be. Put Alba to the center.afdesign
  2. Thank you @tudor for reply and explanation. I understand what you are saying, but 🤔 wonder what would be the purpose of this approach, what benefit it brings for User? IMHO, explicit, user-set parent-child relationship must be preserved. If parent is on the artboard children are, too. If parent is off the artboard children will be also, with preserved nesting. If User sets that relationship, app must observe it on the account that the User wanted them there. Consider a scenario where a User is adding shapes to a parent object as to make a pattern. Maybe a carefully arranged, reusable pattern. Constellations, for example. Each time the User moves the constellations some stars that exit artboard fall out. So user puts the stars back in, nudges them, and they fall out again... and again... Losing user time effort and possibly the arrangement. Grouping children helps a bit here, but again, if objects are manipulated by direct selection... stars will fall from the artboard. So I feel explicit grouping rules are not observed either. An example illustrating this silliness that is below (most likely the worst constellation you will ever see)
  3. Nesting/clipping/parenting is behaving strangely in regard to the artboard. Moving objects outside artboard breaks nesting order, ruins clipping arrangements. See the image, try the file included. My expectation is that the objects within a shape MUST stay within that shape and not be taken out of it just because they have left the artboard area. breaking parent relationship.afdesign
  4. And, possibly, another connected phenomena... Have a vector shape with a nested pixel layer in it. Position that vector shape close to but entirely off the artboard. Just in case, make that pixel layer a bit bigger than the shape. Paint around. You might not see your pixels, they are clipped by your shape. Nevermind, you will adjust it's position later. Now, select the nested pixel layer and reposition it. Try positioning it so that a part of it crosses into Artboard area. Oh! It is not nested in the shape anymore! Why? Now, try this... Again, your vector shape with a nested pixel layer is close to but off the artboard. Paint pixels on the pixel layer, and paint the helloutofit. Paint so that the pixel layer enters Artboard area. Yes! the pixel layer is still safely inside its parent. Move that pixel layer a little. Oh bummer. Parent-child relation is broken again. Problem As soon as pixel layer's bounding box crosses into Artboard, parent-child relation between your shape and pixel layer is broken. The shape stays off the artboard while pixel layer becomes a part of artboard. Expected behaviour Nōlī turbāre circulōs meōs! — If a pixel layer is nested in a shape then user's simple XY repositioning of the pixel layer within that shape must not disturb the parent-child relation. Parent-child relation can be broken only by a deliberate user action (via layer palette, etc.) Why is this a problem? Who's the boss? Who established this parent-child relation? Who controls it? Artboard or User? I'd say User. Interaction inconsistency. Simple moving of an object in the workspace does not make or break parent-child (nesting) relations anywhere else. At least, I am not aware of it. Except, of course, putting an object off and on the artboard, but a nested object should listen to its parent and never break away on its own. Unclear intended effect. What is the beneficial or positive outcome of the condition right now? Why (for what purpose) is it made so? "Mother and child reunion is only a motion away..." — Paul Simon, Mother and Child Reunion, from "Paul Simon" 1972 album. Solution for this particular problem provided by @,,, in link below. Problem from the original post remains. And of course, recommendation for Paul Simon's fine song .
  5. I am reluctant to call this phenomena a bug since it is present in AD1 and AD2 but I would call it counterintuitive, possibly an obstacle to workflow and... peculiar enough to suspect a bug. Description Have an artboard and have a vector shape outside of that artboard. Switch to Pixel Persona, pick Paint Brush Tool and paint inside the shape. If your Assistant is on it will inform you that a new pixel layer is created and that you are painting on it.... Except... you are not. I.e. no content is added to automatically created pixel layer. Move the shape within artboard. Paint in it now... Ahhh... Now it works! Move the shape back outside the artboard as it was before and paint on it. Still Works! Expected behaviour Pixel painting in a shape just works regardless shape is on or off the artboard. Artboard is a context not a functionality limiter. Why is this a problem? Interaction inconsistency. You cannot paint... Do a little shape dance... Put it back as it was... Poof! Now you can. (Seemingly unneeded) Obstacle in your creative flow. (Some) users use the area outside the artboard to sketch, test, doodle, try, play... be creative... The phenomena described is a bit of a gnarl there. Unclear intended effect. What is the beneficial or positive outcome of the condition right now? Why (for what purpose) is it made so?
  6. Thank you for letting me know @Hangman . I tried searching the forum, but could not find this one.
  7. Each time Publisher 2 is started, new 'New Document' dialog is displayed. The dialog is much better than before, but, take a look at the picture attached: By default, here at least, Press ready A4 preset is initially pre-selected, no user action needed. Now see on the preview side, it says: Letter. (modified Letter, judging from asterisk, although I did not move the mouse yet)... Dimensions seem fine and the document created will have proper A4 dimensions. For sheer incongruity, I do believe this to be a bug. ... Rant: Moderators are doing a lot of work, and Affinity is pushing hard... Thanks for that... but with Affinity 2 release I really do feel I have paid 40% off to be a tester. Software development is complex, and I might be oldfashioned, but I do like my dinner cooked before it is served and software tested before sales... Half-cooked is fine in opensource, where I can help. This, "Go fund me" approach to software (pay now, get proper software sometime later, or so I hope) is quickly becoming tiresome. Here and elsewhere. This release is uncomfortably close to what we used to call vaporware. Sorry, Affinitos, you disappointed me in this release with sloppiness.
  8. @Dan C, files uploaded. When I look at hidden files in template folder, I can see that only `Avery Zweckform 6115 CD label template` file has a ._ resource fork (are those called that?) and that one shows in template chooser whether Finder shows hidden files or not. One case is not much of a study sample, right? Still, I hope it helps. Let me know if I can help with anything else.
  9. I must have messed up something when replying to this thread from my phone. The reply is not here, I'll try again, and sorry for delay. No need to apologize @Dan C, I see that my post was too short and insufficient. @loukashis right. Templates are not locally stored. They are on a Samba NAS. Expected behavior here is to follow system's convention or general user's preference. In this case, file manager (Finder) is not showing fork files, and I believe Template chooser should do the same. This is why I believe this might be a bug... or a papercut.
  10. This sounds like regression of table issues from Publisher 1.
  11. See image below. Mac fork files (not sure if they are called that) are listed in Templates panel. A bug, I'd guess.
  12. I can confirm. When setting 'Font UI size' to LARGE as @Floor described, labels get truncated elsewhere, too.
  13. Thank you @prophet for taking your time to try this approach. I have been testing more. There is an elegant and trivial workaround for preserving layout on the Publication page when using additional masters. Simply put: do not resize Master page. 🤔 😂 As long as Master page is not resized, one can move about objects on it as much as desired. Master layout will be preserved on Publication page. Objects can even be positioned outside the Master page. And still everything will be displayed, editable, snap-able... In case one feels queasy about objects positioned outside the Master page, one can make an oversized Master page that will comfily contain all future resizing. Just make sure that, when adding this master as an additional Master, to click 'No' to publication page resizing query. With this workaround, additional masters are quite a sturdy and snappy tool. And, I believe, in some scenarios, superior to assets and symbols.
  14. Hi @Callum and thank you for replying. Please take a look at the attached file... And try to do some of the actions suggested inside if you can. I believe you will quickly see that, compared to symbols, using additional masters in a publication page is another thing entirely. Here, User modifies the content freely, per instance, while keeping the layout from Master. additional masters.afpub
  15. Also, I am unable to successfully assign (⌃⌥;) or (⌃⌥') in Publisher/View shortcuts to trigger Guides manager or Grid/Axis manager. Minus brackets, of course. The shortcuts are displayed fine in the input box but, once in the workspace they ignore ⌃ and act like (⌥;) or (⌥'). Shortcuts like (⌃⌥S ) (⌃⌥. ) work. No shortcut conflict registered. Ignore modifier checkbox off. Tested after clicking 'Reset' on Preferences panel AND after clearing using CTRL while starting the app. Publisher Beta 1.10.5.1282
  16. Thinking along... Perhaps the proper concept would be: partial masters? Sub constructs of sorts? I hope I am not alone in thinking this is incredibly useful?
  17. Yes. A multi-page Publisher file and not Designer multi artboard file. For example, work in Publisher on a multi-page file, hit 'Edit in Designer' (not Designer persona) ... use those arrows in the bottom left corner to switch between pages in Designer. You should be able to add discrete slices to each page. When done, hit 'Edit in Publisher'. Edit some more. When you go back to Designer, the slices should be where you left them, per page. Hm, come to think of it... I have never tried to put slices on Master pages in Designer 🤔 ... maybe that would lead to some beautiful solution/destruction?
  18. Thanks @Old Bruce and @prophet for your replies. Symbols are reasonable path to consider, but symbols have two-way synchronization which includes content. In effect, prohibiting customization of each symbol AND retaining master layout control. Once broken, synchronization will not be active anymore. Assets are not good either, they have no synchronization. On the other hand, adding additional master pages (as described in Help documentation) allows for customization of content (image frames, text frames with styles, etc.) while keeping the layout. Masters are synchronized one-way. I.e. modifying master page objects will change the publication page objects but not the other way around. And it will not replace content user placed on the publication side. This use case makes it quite different from symbols. To put this in ice-cream packaging series scenario: Adding multiple individual masters to one publication page allows for placing a different image to each of the image frames for each master applied onto a huge publication page (e.g. place a Chocolate image in 'main-image' frame, then Vanilla cream image to 'main-image' frame next to it, and so on... ) AND having a continuous ability to e.g. widen 'main-image' frame in master page and see that all of the frames have been widened accordingly with discrete images! That (I believe) is powerful.
  19. Yes, please try ... I have been using slices in a multi-page context for a quite some time to my advantage. One example being exporting in one click: custom-sized/custom-named bitmap slices for 3D texturing, PDF for prepress and trimmed JPGs for client preview. From my experience, slices behave fine and reliably in a multi-page context. One small inconvenience perhaps 'Continuous export' option being applied per-page rather than file-wide and user should go through pages and check 'Continuous export' for each page. This is an inconvenience in a relative sense, really. Rather a control feature. Since a file-wide 'Continuous export' in a file with a lot of pages could hypothetically produce an immense amount of unwanted files. Somehow I expected slices to be propagated on newly generated pages since I consider slice definitions to be a part of the original page definition just like margins, guidelines, baselines or bleed. And there is a reasonable purpose for propagation: slices on newly generated files would help me achieve multiple exports described above much faster. ... I might be wrong in thinking this. It is only my expectation.
  20. Yes, @Old Bruce thank you. That indeed would be the quickest way to re-construct lost work and, following your idea, I did use it. However, it is my expectation (belief?) that unnecessary, and perhaps workflow ruining, loss of user work should not happen to begin with.
  21. ...And I really feel that disappearing column guides when adding a master page to a publication page could be a bug.
  22. Case 2 would be something like the ice-cream packaging series workflow mentioned above where this: ...once a slight master spread adjustment is made, turns into this: While I am expecting something like below, instead... Akin to what I would get with any placed page or graphics.
  23. I am using it because it is there 😃. But, above all, it is a very convenient way to work, really. When working on 10 ice-cream packages (vanilla, strawberry, chocolate, stracciatella, etc.) all 10 packages are displayed in front of me. Seeing the whole series at once helps me in achieving design consistency overall, spotting gnarly layout spots. If any master adjustments are made, the effect is visible at the same time. No page scrolling. Add to that a layer of Data Merge Layout and it becomes ... amazing. Masters provide editable structure, data merge variables... Export via Designer slices for print, for preview... @prophet splitting each ice-cream in it's file (or per page) is a valid way to go, but it implies file hopping when adjusting master. Using assets is also not an option. InDesign allows multiple pages per spread, which can be used for ice-cream packaging series scenario. @Old Bruce, regarding expectations when using mismatching spread sizes between master and publication page: Since a master (layer set) once applied on a publication page can be: positioned (X,Y), rotated, scaled, skewed on a publication page using conventional Transform methods, like any other object. assigned an Anchor point, like any other object, renamed, scaled, hidden and locked as any other object, I would expect it to behave like any other object. User operations should be preserved. Just like position, scale (in relation to anchor point) etc. are preserved when we are working with symbols or placed graphic. Imagine this case: 1) One master is applied across pages, but positioned differently on each page (gray). Corrections made to objects within the master propagate across pages but do not disturb positioning and rotation. This is entirely doable and works beautifully. 2) Now, let's add one more master to this publication's pages (reddish). This works beautifully, too. One can even flow text between masters on one page. 3) Master is changed, a detail was added that requires a slight spread size adjustment (green). Now, this happens. The content is moved to the center of the publication page. Some user work is lost (and Undo does not work): 4) I feel the above should not happen. Instead I would expect this: I am aware anchor points are not object-level persistant.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.