Search the Community

Hi. I am so happy with AP. It's sooo much better than the previous rival whom we don't mention... There is only one feature I still miss and you've probably guessed what it is from the title of this post. Sometimes I need to switch on/off features across several different pages and it would be great to have globally linked layers to do this, instead of needing to remember where the relevant linked features are in the document. An example is language translations. Often I need to do layouts with alternate languages and changing each page of a 50 page document is a chore. I know, I could have a separate file for the other languages but global layers would be better. Is there anything like this in the pipeline? Cheers, Tony

Here’s where the misunderstanding comes, namely that global layers = repeated content. First, the term “global layers” I think may be new, as we in the Affinity community are trying to reconcile the Affinity concept of layers, as they exist entirely independently on each page, with the way layers work in other software we are used to such as InDesign. In each case, they are called simply “Layers,” but their implementation is different. I think the term “global layers” has been coined here to distinguish the layer behavior we currently miss from the existing Affinity concept of layers. Or am I mistaken, that the term has existed in other software? Probably some software out there does use it. If I am not mistaken concerning the coining of a new term, then it is understandable that not everyone is “on the same page” when understanding what we mean by it. While I am not against the Affinity concept of a layer, I do occasionally miss how layers work in InDesign across all pages. And apparently Quark too (thanks for the video @fde101). So many of us, when we ask for “global” layers, we are asking for what those kinds of layers provide that are not available to us presently. So for those who don’t understand how “global” layers are different from master pages, then I suggest you first forget the concept of repeated content, because this is not what it is about. Layers in the big legacy DTP apps are about simple z-order containers that exist across all pages in a document. As others have suggested in this thread, a document could be set up with layers called “Top,” “Middle” and “Bottom” as the only global layers. Every page would have those three layers in the predefined order. What goes into those specific layers will vary for every single page, because it is not about repeated content but repeated containers. As I now work remotely from my colleagues, I would like to use the global layer concept for documents going through the editorial process. In such documents, I would have the main global layer (or layers), and on top of that I would have another global layer I might call “annotations” or “proofreading” or some such. As I go through the process, I would make various notes about the underlying content: it could be text in frames, circles, arrows, proposed alternative graphics, etc. Every page would necessarily be different content, as I am making editorial notes about things that we should consider. It could be hundreds—potentially thousands—of different objects, all of them basically independent objects that are not repeated on other pages, but the whole lot of them are contained in one single container. I can move the Z-order for the whole lot of them by simply moving the global layer if I wanted to. I can turn off visibility of all of them at once by the same eyeball icon we are used to in Affinity today and in the other apps, so if I want to view, print, or export with or without annotations, it is one click away. And if at the end of the editorial process, we no longer want to keep the annotations, the potentially thousands of unique text and graphic objects pertaining to annotations could be deleted simply by deleting the global layer they are in. The multiple languages per document is a very common use for these kinds of layers as well. It is not necessarily repeated content, as the content would often be different for every page, but you need the global layers as containers concept to be able to switch on all of the French layers and switch off all of the German content with a couple of clicks. If repeated content across multiple pages—or even all pages—is what you want, then that really is the domain of master pages. Having a “global layer” concept that is additional to but slightly different from master layers is in my view an unnecessary complication of the interface, and in the end it would still leave us begging for a solution for what Affinity layers does not provide that the other apps do. I like Affinity master pages, particularly the interesting idea that multiple masters can be applied to single pages, or even multiple masters applied to other masters, so I think Affinity master pages are quite flexible already. It seems like the main weakness of master pages in Publisher currently is that they necessarily go to the bottom of the layer stack on each page, while sometimes master page content should go over the content unique to that page, and the current way to achieve that can be a cumbersome operation that must be done on every page. Global layers would not solve that problem by being an alternative to the master pages, but it could indeed solve the problem by virtue of the fact that global layers are layers available everywhere, on every page, and that would include master pages. Some of the content of a master page could be in lower global layers, some in higher layers. On the regular pages, the master page content that went into the “top” global layer would be located at the bottom of the “top” layer on the individual page, but it would still be above all content in the global layers below. Perhaps I can sort of illustrate this concept. For those of you who are hoping global layers = repeated content, let me humbly ask you to temporarily imagine global layers as containers only, on the model of the other apps, and forget the idea of repeated content for this illustration to see if this would meet your needs. Here we will set up our imaginary document with three global layers, and just to stay consistent with our discussion, we’ll just call them “Top,” “Middle,” and “Bottom.” So those three layers (containers) are available everywhere in that order. Now let’s add to our document a model for the spread that introduces a new section. It will be a consistent format across the book, i.e., repeatable content, and that calls for a master page. So let us define a master page called “New_Section.” With global layers, remember that those layers are available even in master pages. Here is what the Layer Studio might show for our “New_Section” master: Top (Global Layer) Header (Text Frame) header_background.png (Image) Middle (Global Layer) Section Intro (Text Frame) Bottom (Global Layer) Page Number (Artistic Text) background.jpg (Image) So there is what our “New_Section” master looks like in the Layer Studio with the global layer concept. Those two images and three text objects are repeatable content that will be on every spread with the New_Section master applied. Now let’s have a look at what that would look like on a particular page with that master page applied. The text could go in the master page text frames, as always, but let’s say we have a few other objects unique to that particular spread. Just as the master pages are today applied as layers on the bottom, with global layers they would be applied as layers at the bottom of each global layer, leaving the unique content above. Top (Global Layer) section_3_overlay.png (New_Section Master) Header (Text Frame) header_background.png (Image) Middle (Global Layer) Pull quote (Text Frame) chart.pdf (Image) section_3_illustration.afdesign (Linked Document) (New_Section Master) Section Intro (Text Frame) Bottom (Global Layer) (New_Section Master) Page Number (Artistic Text) background.jpg (Image) I hope that helps. It seems to me that the kind of global layers that function as the way layers do in the other apps would work well in the Affinity model, and it could extend what is possible with master pages rather than being an alternative to them.

In existing professional DTP applications such as QuarkXPress and InDesign, ALL layers are global layers, with any per-spread or per-master content being nested within them. This is how it has been for several decades now and I have never seen complaints by their users that they do not have the option of limiting a given layer to a particular page. That is not a description of how it needs to be in the Affinity apps, it is the reality of what already exists in other apps which professionals have been using for a long time, and it works. As to whether or not the Affinity apps should behave that way, that may be an open question, but consider what could happen if they do not. Assume there are three global layers, Front, Middle and Back. As these are global, they appear on every spread and every master. Now on a single spread of the document, call it spread 2, you add a spread-specific layer between Middle and Back, I will call it Local for purposes of this example. Now we have spread 1 with layers Front, Middle and Back, and spread 2 with layers Front, Middle, Local and Back. An important point possibly not mentioned until now is that the ordering of global layers is also shared among all spreads (at least, in existing apps). What happens if I am working on spread 1 and decide to move layer Middle behind layer Back - what happens to Local on spread 2? Does it move along with Middle, presumably because it was meant to contain content that should be behind the layer you are moving, or does it stay between Front and Back, presumably because it is meant to contain content that was intended to be in front of Back? The movement of the global layer from spread 1 is ambiguous regarding the content of the layer on spread 2, because it is not visible in the layers panel and there is no way for the user to express that intent. Let's assume for a moment that the software were implemented this way and the Local layer remained in front of Back, causing spread 2 to contain Front, Local, Back, Middle. Now the user decided that Middle should have been where it was to begin with and moves it back. On spread 1, the user only sees Front, Back, Middle, but for spread 2, the software need to decide if Middle is being moved before Back or after Front - in other words, it is again ambiguous as if the layer is being moved before Back, then you could wind up with Front, Local, Middle, Back. Because the user has been working on spread 1, it might go unnoticed at this point that by manually "undoing" the move of Middle behind Back, the Local layer on spread 2 has in effect migrated from being behind Middle, to being in front of Middle. Multiply this confusion across hundreds of spreads each of which may have "local" layers with different intentions, and you might start to realize why this is a bad idea - seemingly simple manipulations of the layer stack could wreak havoc on the structure of the rest of the document, and it would go unnoticed while you were focusing on just one place. One way to resolve this would be to have the order of global layers independent for each spread - then if you wanted to move Middle behind Back it would only impact the spread you are on, but what happens when you actually WANT the layer to move on all spreads? If you have hundreds of spreads, you need to go through and make that change on every one of them (and on the masters), which reduces the benefits of having used global layers in the first place. These same issues occur for layers which are shared among some spreads but which are not present on all of them - the same issues would occur. If you want a mix of top-level layers being both global and local (and possibly shared among some but not all spreads), this is the sort of problem that the intended behavior needs to be defined for. Something needs to give at some level - there needs to be compromise of some sort, which is largely why I think @TonyB started asking those questions to begin with - to determine what kind of compromises people are willing to live with. Consider just three of the many possibilities here, just with the points I raised in this post: All top-level layers are global if any global layers are used, and the order of layers is shared among all spreads and masters. In this case, there is no ambiguity when re-ordering layers, and document-wide changes can be made quickly and easily. On the downside, a few of the global layers might not be used on every spread, so there might be a handful of extra layers cluttering the interface for the most complex documents. Possible improvement: a toggle is added to the layers panel to hide global layers which have no content on the specific spread or master, except when moving global layers. This reduces the clutter under normal conditions, but needs to be turned off when first adding content to one of the hidden layers; making them visible when re-ordering the layers helps to eliminate the ambiguity of what to do with the others, but also means that the place you are dragging to in the layers panel becomes a moving target compared to when you started the dragging action. Top-level layers may be a mix of global, shared (subset of spreads) and local (per-spread) layers, including individual object layers; the order of global layers is shared among all spreads and masters, and the order of shared layers is shared among those spreads which contain them. In this case, the number of irrelevant layers which appears in the layers panel is reduced, but moving layers which are global or shared can have unexpected consequences for other spreads of the document which may not be immediately noticed by the user. Top-level layers may be a mix of global, shared (subset of spreads) and local (per-spread) layers, including individual object layers; the order of global and shared layers is unique to each spread and master. In this case, the number of irrelevant layers which appears in the layers panel is reduced, and moving any top-level layers on one spread will not impact other spreads at all. To make changes to the layering structure of the contents of different global layers throughout the document, the layers must be manually re-ordered separately for each spread, even if there are hundreds of spreads. The need to manually re-order layers across many spreads can be alleviated by a menu command that opens a dialog box to express the exact operation desired. This could allow specification of which layer(s) to move, where to place them (after layer X, before layer X, at the bottom of the layer stack, at the top of the layer stack, etc.), and which spreads to include in the change. However, this would still be more work than simply having them all share a common layer order to begin with, and still cannot accurately express every possible scenario when dealing with layers that are not present on all spreads. Consider which of these (or some other behavior) would be most appropriate for your work, then try to consider people working on different types of projects, and realize that the one you pick will still cause problems for someone else. My argument is that the well-defined behavior of all top-level layers being global and having a shared order among all spreads and masters, something which already exists in the wild and is well-understood in other apps, is the least problematic solution of any I personally can think of for the greatest range of users with the widest assortment of projects. By all means, discuss other options if I missed something (as I am quite sure that I have).

Hm? In what way is the editability of an object related to the layer concept? The need in ID to edit image & graphic externally is due to the lack of editing tools within ID – which is solved in APub not only by single features / tools (e.g. Effects or Transparency / Fill Tool) but nearly 100% by Studio Link / Personas, which allow editing in APub with almost identical features as in their separate apps. What is the value of this statement?! To avoid confusion & mixture of very different subjects and goals. While the term "Master" names content which shall appear on every applied document's page (or just as an empty page at least) Global Layers aren't objects at all (as mentioned above by @Jeremy Bohn) and therefore don't get applied but rather deliver an element to structure (~sort, order) your objects / layers in a main, overarching hierarchy. Accordingly to their different goals also the handling of master layers versus global layers is very different. Some detailed differences (initially posted here) : I appreciate Master Pages a lot, they are extremely helpful to place + edit identical content on several pages of a document without the need to do it more than once. Master pages are related to their specific content, whereas global layers are independent of both content and master pages. Global layers are simply something different and have nothing to do with master pages – even though they have aspects in common, like saved text styles or global colors do for instance, too. We have different understandings of "global". Because I understand "global" as a property ruling absolutely (not relative within a page) + over all pages (not to certain pages only), then master page layers are not global. – Here some fundamental differences of these two different pairs of shoes: 1. APub's master pages can pretend to be "global" but don't have to: they only appear on a document page if they are applied to this page. –> Global layers do always exist for every page, master pages included. 2. APub's master page applied to a document page results in 1 certain master layer on the page. It contains all master page objects. –> With true global layers all pages show the same set of global layers. –> Master page layers appear within these global layers. 3. In APub all layers of 1 master page are limited to 1 master layer on their document page. This single layer includes all master page content layers. –> With true global layers master page layers of 1 master page can be spread over various global layers. 4. APub's layer hierarchy isn't global, thus a master page layer can have different positions within the layer hierarchy on different pages and it requires manual work on every single page to sort the order of a master page layer within all other layers in the same way on all pages. –> With true global layers their layer structure is always the same AND on all pages. –> Their global property is not caused by master pages nor is it related to them but is independent of master pages and master page layers. 5. APub's master pages are initially locked on every single page. For full access to a master's content layer you need to "detach" its specific master layer on a specific page. Once you detached a master layer it is detached on this specific page only. You neither can detach a master layer on more than 1 page at a time nor can you detach more than 1 master on a page at a time. –> Global layers don't have this concept of being locked, they don't need to get detached. They give full access at any time and on all pages synchronously. You can move any item of a certain global layer at any time to another global layer, also you can move master page items on their master page between global layers. 6. Master page layers display a visible occurrence on the layout view. If selected in the layer panel they show up as selected object on their pages, too, even if empty. –> Global layers don't show up as objects on the page layout, they appear in the layers panel only. They do not reflect their existence on the page. 7. In Apub every master page appears in every of its document page's layer hierarchy as a separate, visible and selectable master layer. –> Global layers don't display a master page on its document pages, they only display master page content, and only on the page layout view, not in the layers panel, unless they get selected on the layout view. [–> Different handling of master items with global layers: If a master page object is selected on a page layout it appears in the layers panel, too, if unselected it disappears from the layers panel. To select a master page object on a document page you simply click it with a modifier key pressed. Once selected you can edit it.] ... (tbc.)... Simplified you can understand global layers as additional, hierarchical elements in the layers panel. The lack of global layers is a lack in the entire document, their global functionality can't be achieved by any of the existing elements. With true global layers every object, the content of master page layers included, is a child of a global layer. Therefore you can't use a master page layer (child) as a global layer (parent). One major problem is the accessibility of APub layers in the layout view: As soon an object is nested in an APub layer (e.g. as group or Layer layer) then clicking the object in the layout does select its parent layer in the layers panel – whereas Global layers never get selected in the page view (main window) but get rather activated only (in the layers panel). The problem of accessibility becomes more obvious (~disturbing) when you try using Master page layers as substitutes for Global Layers: then you need to Detach them to be able to edit any containing (nested) layers (objects) whenever you want to work inside a master on a documents page. Compare this series of stepbystep screenshots :

Here your use of "layer" feels ambiguous to me – although you point out a need to distinguish between various layer types + a need of clear terms in your recent post: "we need to be careful about terminology". I my opinion it is in fact desired + an advantage that a "layer" may be nested within a "layer". What you possible mean: there is no global layer nested in any layer (the page as kind of the main layer excepted). But this was already mentioned various times above. So actually I don't understand for what purpose you make this statement. I think this is one of our points of divergence. An object is not a layer! A group of objects is not a layer! A layer (any layer) is a container for objects and groups of objects, any number of them, including zero. This is one of the characteristics which distinguishes a layer from "a group of objects". There are other such characteristics: layers lack a transform (either position or scale). An application can support nesting of layers within layers, but this is not essential. Applications can quite as well support a single set of "top-level only" layers, where all interior nesting comes from groups of objects (which are not layers). I strongly prefer the 2nd model: No nesting of layers within layers. At all. Now, if you want to make global layers special, so they can contain local page layers and master page layers, I can live with that. Also this thought is unclear to me. Note: on every page (master or not) each item in the layers panel will be 'nested within exactly one global layer', not only master page layers or especially master page layers. – So, it appears you confuse in this statement "master page layer" with "global layer". No, I did not make any such confusion. I was referring back to @garrettm30's example with three global layers, and master page layers from one master page assigned to different global layers. The assertion I was rehearsing was that a given, specific master page layer always and everywhere belongs to a single global layer. And while I can grit my teeth and tolerate it, I really don't see the need for local page layers to be nested within (any) global layers. 1) Why do you restrict master page layers to single objects? "It refers to single objects (each of them placed on a mater page layer)" is a substantial confusion of object and layer, in my opinion. 2) On a documents page, "master page layer" had better refer to one layer of the master page, not all the layers of the master page! The master page(s) has as many layers as the user defines it to have. They are distinct layers. They better be visible and manageable as distinct entities. In the previous conversation, the various layers of a master page would be assigned to different global layers. So you can't possibly "refer to the entire master page contents". 3) As mentioned above, I was trying to capture my understanding of the discussion. Your reply has dashed any hopes I have of claiming comprehension and agreement. Are you sure? Where do you do this? – For what purpose… a.) … should exceptionally objects newly created or moved on a master page make their layers appear in the layers panel of document pages? b.)… would we need the layers panel to select an item which is an instance of a master page – instead just click-selecting the object in the layout view / the documents window? For the purpose of assigning the content to a layer, of course. If the layer is empty (on the current page), then by the green highlighted phrase, in my preferred cleaned-up UI, the layer will not be shown. In order to assign content (for the first time on the current page) to such an empty layer, I have to see that the layer exists. I have no particular desire to see master page layers editable when the user is focused on an ordinary page/spread/artboard. If the user is focused on a master page, then obviously the content is going to go into a master page layer. If the user is focused on an ordinary page/spread/artboard, content generally is not going to go into a master page layer, and I would be happy with a prohibition against it. If you (the reader, not @thomaso specifically) believe that local page layers must be nested inside global layers, then that's where local page content is going to go. If you (the reader) believe that local page layers are not nested inside global layers, then the question becomes moot because local page layers only appear on one page, by definition. And just for completeness, there must obviously be facilities for defining new layers (of all types). I don't care whether or not that can be done as part of the create new (or move existing) content functions, as it's easy to either create the destination layer before creating content, or create the layer after creating content and move the (then existing) content into the recently created, empty layer. And that is the point of "the principal exception". If there is an empty layer, which is not being shown to me because it is empty, I need to see it in the list of potential destination layers. Full stop. In response to a) 1) I was discussing creation (or moving) of ordinary content on ordinary pages, not master pages. 2) I have no difficulty accepting all master page layers including empty ones, from master pages assigned to the current page, shown in the list of layers affecting the current page, because I expect that to be a vanishingly rare and entirely transient situation. If a master page layer has no content, it might as well be removed. 3) If a layer (any layer, from any source) has content on the current page/spread, then obviously the user needs to see the content and the containing layer. 4) If a layer (any layer, from any source) does not have content on the current page/spread/artboard, (here's that green highlighted statement again), I generally don't need (or want to) know about it. But as noted in #2 above, I am not going to gas about empty master page layers. And as noted in "the principal exception", I need to see even the empty layers when creating new (or moving existing) content. In response to b) 1) Again, I don't really understand why you are narrowing in on master pages. As I stated above, if you want to show all master page layers regardless of whether they are empty, from master pages assigned to the current page/spread/artboard, in the list of layers applicable to the current page, go right ahead. And if I assign some content to a global layer which was previously empty on the current page, then I do want to see it in the page layer list (in fact, must see it). And if I remove all content on the current page/spread/artboard from a global layer, then I usually don't want to see it (the global layer), but I will grant you a dispensation for useless empty master page layers which were assigned to that global layer. But the focus of my statement was not about master pages, but ordinary pages. 2) Assuming it's possible to mouse pick the desired object (i.e., not covered in the Z stack), yes, it is just fine to select the object in the viewport instead of the layers panel. I am not sure what I might have said to suggest otherwise. Depending on the situation, it might be more convenient to select it in the layers panel, but that's entirely dependent on the situation. ----------- I intend to take a break from this discussion for some time. I will continue to read it.

I could be off here, but I am interpreting a linked spread to be what a master page is now - renaming the current master pages - which appear as a single local (non-global) layer on each page they are applied to. This would preserve compatibility for existing documents as there is no clear way to represent the existing master pages amongst the global layers of a page once they are added. Then a new master page would be introduced which would have the same global layers as the normal pages of the document, which would not need to appear as a layer itself in the document since its content would simply be rendered at the bottom of each individual global layer on each page the master is applied to. If this assumption is correct: They open essentially as-is, with no visible global layers, and with current master pages renamed as linked spreads. Should existing Master Pages be converted into a new Linked Spread and would this feature be useful for other things Yes, maybe. Should Master Page items be visible in the Layer panel for the current spread Suggest yes when editing the items is enabled, no when it is disabled, but the names of the layers from the master page(s) should appear in some different color or some similar mechanism should be provided to distinguish at a glance from the layers of the spread itself. Should we replace multiple master pages per spread with Master Pages that can inherit from other Master Pages I see no reason why these would need to be mutually exclusive, but I think that inheritance would be preferable to multiple masters if we need to choose. For linked spreads (assuming I am correct that this is a renaming of the current master pages) the current behavior should be maintained for compatibility. Should Global Layers be the default for Publisher Suggest adding a checkbox to the new document window, much as there is one for creating an artboard when a Designer document is being created. What would be the benefit, and how would they be layered around the global layers that did exist? The global layers are always at the top of and are the only thing at the top of the hierarchy. Everything else inside them. They effectively create the overall layering structure of the entire document, so for something to exist on the page which is not in a global layer implies that it is not a visible entity. If you were to have non-global layers outside of the global layers, how would they be layered on the page amongst the global layers? Each would in effect need to be in an implied global layer of its own - in which case it may as well not be implied but be actual... Yes, in effect the product currently behaves as if there is one global layer that everything is inside of, that layer is invisible, and there is no way to make it visible or to add another. I would think the preferable behavior would be that when the first global layer is created by the user, the existing hidden one becomes visible instead, that being the newly "created" global layer, with the existing content of each spread or master page contained within it. Then the second global layer that is created is created as empty. That's just me though... While not really essential, these would certainly be very nice to have, as would layer FX, compositing mode and opacity for each global layer (much like the existing per-spread layers) to add something of a special touch.

There are really several ways you could go with this, and my suggested answers to the questions change based on what route is taken. This one question I think has a consistent answer for all of these options: When creating a new document from a template, the situation from the template is applied. When creating a new document from a preset or from scratch, a checkbox on the New Document window determines if a global layer is created automatically by default. When opening a document which precedes the existence of this feature, no global layers exist initially, but they can be added manually by the user. I will provide my suggested answers to the other questions based on three different options here. OPTION 1 One option is my earlier proposal to have a drop-down on the layers panel to determine whether the page or master layers are currently displayed. This should be simpler for users, but it makes importing existing documents more problematic. With this option: The layers on individual pages and applied masters representing the master pages disappear and the master page content is forced to either the top or bottom of the layer stack (whichever is closer). A new "Applied Masters" panel (or whatever it is called) provides the order in which the master pages are applied to the current page, listing the page as "Page 4" (or whatever) and giving the name of each master, allowing the masters and page content to be dragged in order and establishing what order within each global layer (when in use) the master page content appears in. Individual master pages can also be removed from the page using the new panel. If the page is selected in the new panel, then the layers panel shows the layers specific to the page under each global layer in the layers panel; otherwise, it shows the layers of the selected master underneath each global layer. A drop-down list is added to the layers panel which matches the selection in the new Applied Masters panel - thus, what content is displayed in the layers panel. This has the disadvantage of potentially changing the content of some documents due to forcing the master page content out of position. Not for this option, at least not on its own. Yes, when that master is selected in the drop-down list or in the Applied Masters panel. No, though allowing master pages to inherit from other master pages could still be added and remain compatible with this approach. For example, the Applied Masters panel could display them hierarchically in its list, allowing the inherited master from the selected master to be selected to have its layers displayed. OPTION 2 The intriguing suggestion of a "Linked Spreads" option. With this option: Existing master pages get converted to "Linked Spreads" which have layers on each page exactly as current master pages do. This maintains existing behavior and layer order for documents which predate the existence the new feature. Yes, and potentially. A new "Applied Masters" panel (or whatever it is called) provides the order in which the master pages are applied to the current page, listing the page as "Page 4" (or whatever) and giving the name of each master, allowing the masters and page content to be dragged in order and establishing what order within each global layer (when in use) the master page content appears in. Individual master pages can also be removed from the page using the new panel. If the page is selected in the new panel, then the layers panel shows the layers specific to the page under each global layer in the layers panel; otherwise, it shows the layers of the selected master underneath each global layer. A drop-down list is added to the layers panel which matches the selection in the new Applied Masters panel - thus, what content is displayed in the layers panel. No, though allowing master pages to inherit from other master pages could still be added and remain compatible with this approach. For example, the Applied Masters panel could display them hierarchically in its list, allowing the inherited master from the selected master to be selected to have its layers displayed. OPTION 3 Continue to show master pages as per-page layers underneath each global layer on a page they are applied to. This has the disadvantage of slightly bloating the content of the layers panel and of potentially being the most confusing option for new users to come to grips with. With this option: Existing master pages remain as-is and behave as they do already. The document behaves as if a single global layer already exists and contains all of the existing content, but it is hidden from the user. No value with this option. Yes, exactly as they are right now. global layer would have the master page listed as a child layer, just as it is currently listed for the page as a whole. The content of master page within that global layer would show up underneath the master page layer. The master page layers cannot be dragged between global layers, but they can be arbitrarily re-ordered within the global layer amongst the per-page content. Removing any of the master page layers from underneath a global layer removes the master from the page, along with ALL of the master page layers of that master which would be shown underneath the global layers. No.

I am pretty sure I've described this document setup in another thread, so forgive the repetition if you read it elsewhere. Using CorelDRAW, which has a single master page with global layers, I created a set of about 50 documents, each of which contains the content for one digitally-sold product. Each product is made in several variations, by turning on or off various combinations of per-page and global layers. Most of the global layers are positioned below all the per-page layers, but a few are positioned near the top of the Z stack, below just a couple of per-page layers. In a typical file, there are 7 per-page layers on odd pages, 2 per-page layers on even pages, and 7 global layers. In this application, I use global layers like master pages, for content which is identical on all pages on which they appear. The global layers in this set of documents include: guides, registration marks for my automated vinyl cutter, manual cutting guides for people using scissors, feature boundaries, a printable background grid, an internal-use positioning grid, and the document-wide pasteboard. On a per-page basis, every even/odd page uses exactly the same layer setup. Odd pages have two layers of labels or text content, and two pairs of boundary and fill layers, plus a layer of guides. Even pages have one layer of labels or text content, and a layer of guides. For this situation, I could use the "global layers with per-page content" feature that I believe thomaso is describing. However, I find it comfortable to have the truly replicated content on the global layers, and a parallel but independent set of layers per-page. Assuming a sane UI for duplicating pages or copying global layer content between pages, I could work either way. Using global layers with per-page contents would definitely speed up the process of turning on/off the necessary layers for a variation of the product. (If you are wondering why there are so many guide layers, these are a built-in feature of CorelDRAW. Every page has one, and there is also a master one. The master page pasteboard is also a built-in feature.) One feature of CorelDRAW's layer system that is a bit unpleasant: The ordering of master page global layers can be different on each page. So I have to visit each page and drag the global layers to their proper positions in the Z stack, interleaved with the per-page layers. I only have to do this once, during document setup. But I have changed my mind after the first dozen or so documents were created, so had to revisit every page of those documents correcting the stacking order. This problem presumably would be eliminated using global layers with per-page contents, as there'd be a consistent master page stacking order for the global layers. In the CorelDRAW object manager (which is basically like the Affinity suite layers panel), you can choose to display a list of all the pages (master page included) with the Z-stacking of layers per-page, or just the current page with the interleaved Z-stack of per-page and global layers. Both views are convenient. I normally use the all-pages view, but when correcting the interleaved stacking order (see previous paragraph) it is necessary to use the current page interleaved view.

I appreciate Master Pages a lot, they are extremely helpful to place + edit identical content on several pages of a document without the need to do it more than once. Master pages are related to their specific content, whereas global layers are independent of both content and master pages. Global layers are simply something different and have nothing to do with master pages – even though they have aspects in common, like saved text styles or global colors do for instance, too. We have different understandings of "global". Because I understand "global" as a property ruling absolutely (not relative within a page) + over all pages (not to certain pages only), then master page layers are not global. – Here some fundamental differences of these two different pairs of shoes: 1. APub's master pages can pretend to be "global" but don't have to: they only appear on a document page if they are applied to this page. –> Global layers do always exist for every page, master pages included. 2. APub's master page applied to a document page results in 1 certain master layer on the page. It contains all master page objects. –> With true global layers all pages show the same set of global layers. –> Master page layers appear within these global layers. 3. In APub all layers of 1 master page are limited to 1 master layer on their document page. This single layer includes all master page content layers. –> With true global layers master page layers of 1 master page can be spread over various global layers. 4. APub's layer hierarchy isn't global, thus a master page layer can have different positions within the layer hierarchy on different pages and it requires manual work on every single page to sort the order of a master page layer within all other layers in the same way on all pages. –> With true global layers their layer structure is always the same AND on all pages. –> Their global property is not caused by master pages nor is it related to them but is independent of master pages and master page layers. 5. APub's master pages are initially locked on every single page. For full access to a master's content layer you need to "detach" its specific master layer on a specific page. Once you detached a master layer it is detached on this specific page only. You neither can detach a master layer on more than 1 page at a time nor can you detach more than 1 master on a page at a time. –> Global layers don't have this concept of being locked, they don't need to get detached. They give full access at any time and on all pages synchronously. You can move any item of a certain global layer at any time to another global layer, also you can move master page items on their master page between global layers. 6. Master page layers display a visible occurrence on the layout view. If selected in the layer panel they show up as selected object on their pages, too, even if empty. –> Global layers don't show up as objects on the page layout, they appear in the layers panel only. They do not reflect their existence on the page. 7. In Apub every master page appears in every of its document page's layer hierarchy as a separate, visible and selectable master layer. –> Global layers don't display a master page on its document pages, they only display master page content, and only on the page layout view, not in the layers panel, unless they get selected on the layout view. [–> Different handling of master items with global layers: If a master page object is selected on a page layout it appears in the layers panel, too, if unselected it disappears from the layers panel. To select a master page object on a document page you simply click it with a modifier key pressed. Once selected you can edit it.] ... (tbc.)... Simplified you can understand global layers as additional, hierarchical elements in the layers panel. The lack of global layers is a lack in the entire document, their global functionality can't be achieved by any of the existing elements. With true global layers every object, the content of master page layers included, is a child of a global layer. Therefore you can't use a master page layer (child) as a global layer (parent).

1. What happens to existing documents • Affinity documents: They open as currently without a (visible) global layer, means they appear in the layer panel as before, assuming the new feature will treat a document without any created global layer as an existing but visually hidden global layer. An object can not be outside a global layer, so at least the page appears/works as the basic global layer). • IDML: They open according the layers in the .idml. (currently ID's global layers appear in Affinity as Layer layers) 2. Should existing Master Pages be converted into a new Linked Spread and would this feature be useful for other things • (What do you mean with "Linked Spread"?) • If you mean "linked" like a placed, linked resource of a page of an Affinity document: We can do that already, can't we? (though, self-linking an .afpub used to be buggy some app versions ago. I haven't tried since then.) 3. Should Master Page items be visible in the Layer panel for the current spread • I would not need them to occur in the Layer panel in general but definitely if they got edited on a page. Edit also includes placing text inside an empty master text frame. • If the decision would make them show up in general in the Layer panel of document pages, then NOT like currently, (nested in a Master Page layer) because objects of master pages can be spread across several global layers. • In any case they should be marked as children of master pages (e.g. orange bar). • If they do not show up in the Layer panel there must be a new way to select + detach them to enable local editing, e.g. select-detach via click + modifier key. Please no separate right click menu & no separate "detached" interface during editing (such as currently). EDIT: since @prophet says "- Certainly.": How about a panel cog menu option, e.g. "Show all Master layers" / "Show only edited Master objects" / "Hide un-edited master objects" ? 4. Should we replace multiple master pages per spread with Master Pages that can inherit from other Master Pages • Yes / Advantages: A.) less confusion with different masters on document pages. B.) multi-master managing reduced to the Master Page section in the Pages panel. (May we set the heights of this two sections in the Pages panel independently of each other, please?) C.) compatibility with IDML. • I'd appreciate a new way to indicate visually when a master page is applied. Th current need of hovering is quite cumbersome & never allows an overview over various spreads. Could be a visible marker on/around the pages panel thumbnails. For instance: A.) as text (= the 1st char / beginning of a custom named master pages), B.) as auto-number (in the order of the master pages, showing this number there, too), C.) as colour marker (spot, edge, frame) if master pages may get colours assigned. 5. Should Global Layers be the default for Publisher Not sure what you mean. In my understanding if Global Layers are implemented they have to be the only way & therefore the default. If you mean whether every document must have at least 1 visible Global Layer, then No. I would prefer a single Global Layer to be auto-hidden. Compare AD with / without artboards. This also touches the way how Global Layers get created. If the basic/default global layer does not show up and I create my first global layer then all existing objects would have to go in this 1st created layer. That might immediately require to create a 2nd global layer. So the shortcut would be: if I create my 1st global layer all objects are moved there (= the default GL gets visible) AND I actually create a 2nd GL with my action. EDIT: another option could create a new GL depending on the users current layer selection in the Layer panel, e.g. if layer 3-5 of totally 6 existing layers are selected when the command "create global layer" gets triggered than layers 1-2 will get moved into the now visible default GL and 3-6 will land in the new created GL, or 3-5 will land in one, and 6 in another new GL created automatically (while in particular the latter maybe appreciated by experienced but confusing to other users). _ In any case I would appreciate for creation of Global Layers A.) auto-highlighted its default layer name for immediate custom naming as soon the new layer occurs in the panel. B.) automatic layer colorisation: No GL without color + accordingly colored object bounding boxes. C.) easy access to customise the color (not at the bottom of a long right-click menu).

You guys are aware that you can stack multiple master page layers on your layout pages as you see fit, right? set up your "to-become-global" layer(s) on (a) separate blank Master Page(s) apply the "Global Layer(s)" master page to all your pages; do NOT replace existing master page(s)! add content to the global layer(s) either on the master page, or individually on pages while temporarily detaching the parent master go to the corresponding master page to disable the layer(s) globally, be it 4 or 400 pages… Of course I've been using "global" layers in InDesign for almost 2 decades as well (hm, there was nothing else but global layers, and sometimes I thus hated them). Multiple languages, yada yada. I still can't think of a global layer scenario that I wouldn't be able to reproduce in Publisher by use of the method outlined here. But since the Affinity master page concept is so flexible, you have to plan carefully. Example (in Publisher 1, as I'm not at my Catalina MacBook): apu_global_layers_on_master_pages.mp4 As you can see at the end, usually you wouldn't necessarily want to enable or disable your parent "Global Layer" while editing the master page content detached. It will then disconnect from its "global" attribute. But you can always undo.

I'm also disappointed to see that there is still no "Global Layers" support in Publisher v2. I bought Publisher v1 when it first came out and it didn't even cross my mind that DTP software would not have a global layers concept. I was so excited when I heard about the v2 release as I thought global layers would have been included for sure this time. I am a big fan of the Affinity Suite in general and I am very grateful to Serif for providing an excellent and cheaper alternative to Adobe. I switched to Affinity when my CS6 apps would no longer run on macOS when 32-bit support ended. I have some complex documents that have multiple layers that I need to be able to switch on and off across the whole document. Global layers is the one thing I'm missing and then Affinity would be perfect for all my needs. I'd even be prepared to pay double the price for just this feature! Having read the posts on this thread, the Master Pages suggestions just won't work for me unfortunately. So, if it is going to take a long time to implement global layers fully, would it be possible to add the following simple feature... Right-click on a layer in the list on any page and select an option that says something like: "Hide Layers Globally By Name" and "Show Layers Globally By Name". As the titles suggest, this feature would switch on/off all layers in the document that match the name of the one clicked on. This would be fine for my documents, which have imported ok into Publisher with all my layers intact, but I just need to be able to switch the layers on/off on every page with one action as they contain hundreds of pages. If that feature could be quickly added it would really save the day for me as I just can't delay my projects much longer waiting for full global layer support, and I can't afford Adobe or Quark subscriptions. Many thanks, Stewart

Just no artboards and global layers in the same document. You already can't have artboards and multiple spreads in the same document. The whole point of global layers is to exist across all spreads and masters so there is no real value in them anyway when you are working with artboards. Currently, a layer is added representing the master page. With global layers existing across spreads and masters, the master could have layers of its own spread across multiple global layers. The problem then is where the layer representing the master page goes, and I am arguing it should go away (disappear). Then if you want to access the layers which exist on the master page, you would need to switch to the master page - but that introduces a problem for per-page overrides if you want to select the layers from the master in order to manipulate them for the current page. Without the specific layer representing the master being present in the layers panel, you would need some other mechanism for accessing the layers of the master - and I am suggesting that a drop-down list be used for that. The drop-down list would change the layers panel to show the layers of the master even though the normal document spread is selected (one that the master is applied to), instead of the current scheme of listing them under a pseudo-layer of sorts representing the presence of the master on the spread. The global layers themselves would exist on every spread and master, but their content would be distinct for each spread and master. In other words, consider you have three global layers in the document: "Front", "Middle" and "Back". Every master and spread would then have those three global layers, but each would have its own per-spread/master layers organized underneath them. Adding a new rectangle within one of the global layers would not automatically add it to all spreads and masters. Any spread-based document could be thought of already as having a single implied global layer - one layer to rule them all, which is not shown in the panel, with all layers organized underneath it. What we are asking for is to break that up and have multiple named global layers, so that something on a master which is in "Front" will be in front of the spread's content which is in "Middle", which will be in front of that same master's content which is in "Back" - but then also the ability to hide an entire global layer so that anything in "Front" on any page is hidden, then shown again when its hidden status is revoked. The content of a global layer is per-spread (or master), so you would still have the per-page layers, they would just be inside of global layers.

Okay been thinking about this.... A question that must be asked (and answered) is how is this Global Layer system is going to work in Designer and Photo. Will I be able to have a Global Layer Effects layer in Photo? Will symbols still work if they were made with no Global Layer or ones with the same Global Layer name as ones in the document? If they (Global Layers) are somehow not available in Designer and / or Photo what would happen If I open and save a .afpub file in Designer or Photo. Will the global layers still exist? Couple of things I wonder about from the Resolved Part: Normal layers still exist but are children of Global Layers I don't like that, I may want to have a layer on a page that is not part of any global layer. If you don't use Global Layers then they will not be shown in the Layers panel I think this may conflict with the previous item. Also wouldn't there would be an implied default single Global Layer? That one may not need to be shown, but as soon as I add one Global Layer then both should be shown, the default, previously invisible one, and the new one which I have named My First and only Global Layer. Now for the Discuss Part: What happens to existing documents Damned good question. I have worked with Master Pages with Fields from the Data Merge system. I can see these getting messed up quite easily. ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== Should existing Master Pages be converted into a new Linked Spread and would this feature be useful for other things What is a Linked Spread? I am thinking it sounds like a new improved Master Page. Sure, in for a penny in for a pound. Change them all. ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== Should Master Page items be visible in the Layer panel for the current spread Yes. I like the current implementation of having them collapsed but visible. I can see no benefit at all with having them applied but not visible in the Actual Pages's layer panel. Most likely there would be problems with them being not visible, how could I turn on/off the visibility of an item like we can do now with the Edit Detached functionality. ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== ======== Should we replace multiple master pages per spread with Master Pages that can inherit from other Master Pages I really like the method of adding Master Pages to other Master Pages. Please keep that functionality. Adding multiple Masters to Actual Pages with Facing Page Spreads is rather broken as it is currently implemented so perhaps the inheritance would be an improvement. A more robust replacing method would be better. Perhaps there could be an Inherit and Remove/Replace system. Should Global Layers be the default for Publisher I honestly have not been able to see any consensus from those who have been most adamant about their necessity as to what Global Layers actually are (and what their functionality is). So I would say I maybe have a firm possible no real opinion on this. If their use is to be optional then by all means have at it. A function many people have asked for is Non Printing layers, I am thinking this would be easier to implement with a Global Layer system. Another feature some people have asked for is Printing in a 'slug' area. This may be easier to implement with a Global Layer system.

Indeed, it sounds helpful for .IDML imports and their names of global layers. But it appears cumbersome for a pure APub document which would require first to create the Layer layers and/or rename them manually, right? You didn't have to use them. Similar to AD where you can work with or without separate artboards you can work with 1 Layer layer only (= 1 global ID layer) which will contain all objects without any global hierarchy amongst them. Concerning layout / look that's true … and can get achieved with many other apps and quite less features. But in terms of efficiency – for which both Global layers & Master pages were developed – the need to detach multiple times and repeatedly page by page for individual, non-master-like objects during the layout creation process in APub makes this statement rather untrue. Even worse, if you use master pages as a substitute for global layers, the efficiency / advantage of such a layer handling shrinks massively as the complexity of the layout increases – quite the opposite of using Global layers.

Thanks loukash and carl123 for explaining the progression of the "select same name" feature which has culminated in a workable compromise for me now and hopefully others. As explained in a previous post, like many others who have wanted to adopt Affinity Publisher coming from Adobe InDesign, we've been hampered by the lack of global layer support. I have a number of documents that have hundreds of pages with separate layers for different content, such as the original scan of a document on one layer, the transcription of the text on a second layer, an English translation on a third layer etc. I need to be able to switch each layer on and off on all pages across the whole document at once. I've always been able to import the document into Publisher but until now there has been no way I could show or hide each existing layer across the whole document with a couple of clicks. So after over three years of owning Publisher it is only now capable of doing what I need it to do, which is why it is a big deal to me but I understand why others may not be as excited, and of course proper global layer support would be ideal. Using master pages is not a solution that has or will ever work for me. At least now I have a way I can continue to work on my documents from InDesign in Publisher, but I still look forward to the day that we get proper "global layers". To answer your exact question quoted above though: I don't want to change anything on pages globally, each page is unique (different typefaces, sizes, colours etc), which is why master pages are not a solution. However, if I wanted to, having used "select same name" to select all my layers with the same name on every page, I can change properties such as opacity, colour etc. The reason InDesign and other desktop publishing software has "global layers" is to have grouped content across pages that can be switched on and off, reordered and locked/unlocked. Now in Designer I can switch the layers on/off and lock/unlock across the whole document, I just can't reorder the layers globally. Again, this is now a workable compromise for me, and I expect others, until layers finally become truly global.

There are various features already which don't exist in all of the 3 Affinity apps – nevertheless, Serif found their way to circumvent / solve such possible conflicts. Concerning Global Layers, you can already import an .idml file containing global layers, while Affinity has also for those a way to handle them without being able itself to the global layer properties of an .idml. – For further aspects you might read this thread, this possible, Affinity internal in-/compatibility got discussed before, especially since Nov 2021. "Linked layers" have a quite different functionality than Global Layers. They are much more similar to Master Page Layers and their linking behavior to objects. These links must be created individually for each object that is to be linked in this way. Whereas Global Layers are no objects visible on a documents page (e.g. like Master layers) but general items of a common hierarchical structure and higher-level layer order throughout an entire multi-page document. Once created they exist on every page, independent of eventually objects. They don't have the goal to cause a link between specific objects, instead any object modification does neither touch Global Layers nor gets reflected by Global Layers. Only modification to Global Layers affects other Global Layers (incl. containing objects), e.g. changing a position within the global hierarchy. But therefore they don't need to get linked by the user, they are linked by their functionality by default.

I don't see the need for per-spread local layers so much in Publisher-like applications, but do use them quite heavily in Designer-like applications. This is a situation where Affinity's choice to have a common document model and file format for all apps in the suite is a double-edged sword. Any solution for Publisher needs to be a satisfactory solution for Designer. I would find the "all layers are global layers" decision to be very distressing as a user of Designer. As a user of Publisher, I probably would not notice. Yes, I mentioned this in the context of CorelDRAW, where the ability to set a mixed local/global Z stack order independently on each page is usually unnecessary, sometimes a benefit, but frequently a nuisance. If you just use the default layering, no problem. If you make any overrides to the layering, you have to manually confirm that you ended up with the correct layering on each page. The UI component that shows the mixed local/global ordering only shows one page at a time, unlike the normal layer view, which is much like Designer's layer view in artboard mode, showing local layers within each page and the master global layers within the one master page. CD does not have the concept of global layers with per-page/spread content. In CD, all layers shared across multiple pages are master page layers. All other layers are local per-page/spread layers. So this is an area where, if the flexibility is offered, then a better UI is required to manage the mixed local/global Z stack order. That's one of the reasons we are having this extended discussion, yes? As @garrettm30 points out, we need to be careful about terminology. Letting "page" stand for either page or spread, depending on document setup, I would suggest: Master pages are about replicated content. All layers of a master page are added to the effective layers of any page where the master is assigned. Content in a master page layer is replicated across all pages where the master is applied. Global layers are about consistent layer structure and management across the document. All global layers are added to the effective layers of all pages. Content in a global layer is independent for each page. Local layers are about local layer structure within a page. Local layers only appear on a single page. Content on a local layer is necessarily local to a single page. Currently, the Affinity suite supports master page layers and local layers, and allows assigning multiple masters to a given page. Are we at least in agreement on those descriptions?

You will have both options and the choice because you do not have to create global layers, instead you will rather create them if you like their structuring support. If you want such an additional structure on certain pages only you use the already existing type of "(Layer)" layers. They appear only on that page where you created them, if you want them on 2 pages than you create them on 2 (or copy/paste). If you don't create a global layer (or maybe have 1 app's default only) then all objects respectively their layers will be within/on this single main level (= as currently). About your fear of a "cluttered interface": in my experience 3-6 global layers will do it, for instance in your example 1 info&guides, 2 text, 3 illustration, 4 background. If you feel disturbed by any basic set then reduce them or create only the amount of global layers you feel comfortable with. – [ p.s.: have you noticed that in AD's Layer panel ALL artboards always are visible layers, regardless of the artboard you currently work on? No way to get rid of them. I assume there are usually more artboards in an .afdesign Layer panel than global layers will ever be in the Layer panel of an .afpub. ] Accordingly global layers will not "make it harder to find actual content", instead they make it easier by 1) their bounding box color in the layout (= global layer color) and 2) by less need to have all global layers unfolded permanently and 3) you would need to look into the layers panel less often: For instance story text layers usually don't overlap in the layout, aren't nested within other layers and don't have mask or adjustment layers nested. Therefore you sufficiently can work with the layout / page view only and don't need to care as currently for the layers panel because all objects will be more organised in their hierarchical order, respectively you will use it mainly to switch between (collapsed) global layers to select / activate one for creation of new objects, or to unfold a global layer to for a nesting operation with a containing object.

Why on a "Master Page"? – Walt, this topic is about Global Layers! So the question would rather be: What can you change on a Global Layer which can't be done via Master Page? (below I mention details) Keith was asking for applying changes (not specified) and appears disappointed by APub's layer feature. He did neither miss nor ask for changing "Master Page" content, although he seems to be experienced with InDesign, which offers both, Master Pages AND Global Layers. Because those functions are not related to layers, and thus not related to what Keith asked for. He asked for a layer that would reflect changes to all pages. Every object in APub is related to a layer. So a change on a text layer can be reflected to other pages, e.g. a change of a specific layer's text style, or a change of any vector object's layer with its specific global color. Besides style properties also a layers visibility and/or hierarchical position within the entire document can be a wanted change done to a layer. A global layer is not at all related to a master page, although every master page object belongs to a global layer there is no specific global master page layer: Master Page objects can share Global Layers with all other objects. I understand that you feel happy with the workaround of using master page layers + their need of detaching again and again. The point of Global Layers is that they don't require at all exactly this detaching. They are used to increase efficiency, they don't slow down the workflow like your recommended master page workaround does. The sense of global layers is their kind of "1-click" solutions. In a global layer layout app you can work with just a few layers. Every object is created inside a global layer. Global layers can be created on any page + appear on every page, regardless on which page they were created or changed. A change of a global layer's property (hierarchy, visibility, lock) applies to all pages. It can be done on any page at any time and does not require any additional action or special preparation (different to the need of selecting + detaching of master page layers to get access to their containing layers on document pages in APub). Since in a global layer layout all objects are created in global layers, master page objects are too. Master page objects don't have global layers of their own but use the same global layers as the objects use which are created on document pages. You can move a global layer from any page without extra action, just move it from wherever to wherever in the layers hierarchy ("1-click"), regardless whether it contains master page objects or document page objects or both. This way global layers have nothing to do with master pages, these two are different things and entirely independent of each other. That's their advantage.

@Hens While I love a good chart, I think the shared file format requires some different thinking. In your hierarchy, I would suggest the Global Layer belongs directly under the Document. The next level down would then address how the Global Layer is handled/seen/manipulated depending on the Application. In Publisher, how is the Global Layer dealt with on a Page. In Designer, on an Artboard. In Photo, on a…Canvas? If we didn't think Global Layers would work well in Designer or Photo, I think using the current "convert Artboards to Spreads" workflow as seen in Publisher would be a reasonable model. When opening a Publisher file with Global Layers in Design/Photo, we would see in the Layers panel a message like "This document contains Global Layers. To continue working with it, confirm conversion of Global Layer into… (page layers? , local layers? whatever we call them)" As for 2-way conversion between what you call Base Layer and Global Layer, I'm not sure that would work well. If I converted 2 Global layers to Base Layers, presumably all those elements would be intermingled together with no "container" holding them. How would the application then return them to their original Global layer should I want to convert back to Global?

Like APub's current layers also for global layers the hierarchy in the panel determines the stacking order on page. Like APub's current layers also global layers may be arranged entirely free in their hierarchy. Different to APub's current layers every layout object would belong to 1 global layer, there are no layout objects between global layers in the layer panel. If layout objects of different global layers get grouped then the group merges selected objects inside 1 global layer. If a group gets ungrouped then its containing objects either remain in the current global layer or get removed to their initial global layers (option via preference setting or quick checkbox). Visually a global layer might occur in the layer panel similar to a "(Group)" layer: With the arrow button to unfold + collapse its containing layers – but possibly without a global layer thumbnail. A global layer selection in the layer panel would determine where in the layer panel's hierarchy new page layout objects, new layers and new global layers become created. To change the position of a global layer in the layer hierarchy you select + drag it to the wanted position above, below or in between other existing global layers. To change the position of a containing layout object you select it on page or in the (unfolded) global layer + drag it onto another global layer entry in the layers panel. Possibly you even don't need to unfold the global layer in the layers panel which contains the selected object: If the global layer would display an icon, which gets auto-highlighted to indicate a selection of containing objects, you could click-drag this icon to move the according object(s) from the current to another global layer.

In my understanding / idea: IF a user created global layer(s) then every object will be in one of the global layers. If there is only 1 global layer then all objects are inside this single global layer. If there is no global layer in the layers panel then the page is the (invisible) global layer so-to-say (= the current state). So, WITH global layers there is no object or layer which does not belong to a global layer and no object is outside a global layer. Again, compare AD: there you can currently work a) without artboards or b) are allowed to place objects outside of artboards in both layout & layers panel but those don't show up on any artboard but are hidden in the layout view (by Clip To Canvas which can't get deactivated when using artboards). That means there is no practical use for objects outside artboards although the UI does allow to place objects there. Or, vice versa: I can not imagine of any advantage if objects of specific pages only may get positioned between global layers. – You seem to see this as a must have, right? For what specific use / what disadvantage if they couldn't, what would not work if all objects are in global layers? However, this question might be already answered / decided by the developers and therefore irrelevant for us to discuss. At least it appears not to be a question in TonyB's post from friday.

Add to this: Global layers must be at the top level and may not be children of other layers. Global layers are probably not compatible with artboards? I vote for a flavor of #4, though this may complicate importing existing documents into the new scheme and some may not import cleanly: Add a drop-down at the top of the layers panel which lists the spread and any masters applied to the spread. Whichever of those is selected in the drop-down, the layers from the spread or the selected master are then listed in the layers panel, organized under their global layers. A new panel should list the masters applied to the page and allow them to be re-ordered or removed, and masters could be dragged from the Pages panel to a specific position in the new Applied Masters panel (or whatever it winds up being called). Within a given global layer, spread-specific content is at the top, with content from masters underneath it, in the order in which those masters appear in the Applied Masters panel The documents from the current scheme which will convert most easily to this scheme are those for which all masters still have their master layers at the bottom of the layers stack, as it is by default. As long as the master layers are not children of other layers and there are not top-level adjustment / live filter layers which could impact them, a clean import to the new scheme can be made by adding global layers each time a master layer appears above a non-master layer in the layers panel and distributing the content of each spread such that the master content retains its relative position in the stack. The ones that may not be possible to convert cleanly to the new scheme (thus the reason that this should have been done BEFORE Publisher was released, to avoid breaking existing documents) are those with masters that might be impacted by adjustment or live effect layers, and those with masters which are not at the top level of the layers stack (such as those which are in groups with other layers). Personally I think it is worth breaking existing documents which use those obscure constructs in order to get this feature in place, as it really should have been there from day 1, but now that Publisher is released and people may have documents which could be materially altered by conversion to this scheme, you may need to consider keeping the current behavior for existing documents but with the option to "convert" to the new scheme when people first add a global layer to the document, which they would need to understand may have ramifications in such cases. I think you will run into that issue with ANY attempt to implement global layers in any reasonable way now that you have implemented it the way that you have.

Correct, top level, meaning no parent layers. In a "normal" use of global layers, all other layers would be inside of global layers, so they would in effect be used to determine the Z stacking order of all other layers relative to other global layers (just not to each other). Thus one global layer would by definition be on top of the Z stacking order, one on the bottom, and the rest in between, with all other layers having their relative Z order positions organized within the stacking order of the global layers. The scheme I presented above basically relies on that assumption as any layers of a master page which were not inside global layers would have no where to go on the pages the master is assigned to. If Serif were instead to allow global layers to intermix with non-global layers at the top level, then you are correct that the Z stacking order would not be able to be locked at the top - but they still must not be children of other layers or the entire scheme breaks down.