Import text from Word

[Chole]

Hello, 

Is it possible to have more option when importing text from word? That would be useful to syncronize text styles for example when creating a book. 
Thank You. 

[walt.farrell]

Welcome to the Serif Affinity forums.

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking for.

If you save in DOCX format, and import that to Affinity Publisher, the text styles you had in Word should already transfer into Publisher.

[kfriis]

Hi walt.farrell

I have used most of today to try to do that, but found no way. I may be blind, but still - I have found no way to start a Publisher task based on a docx document. I even cannot see nor select the docx document when using “Open...” (which works for pdf).

I can use the PDF version of a docx document as a basis for a complete Publisher document (including page sizes, fonts and everything). Problem is, that I now need to define all the styles (lots) in the created document, and also combine “flow text” that crosses a page boundary into one paragraph (instead of two) and on and on and on for hours on end.

I have found no way to open the corresponding docx document (used to create the pdf), thereby avoiding defining the style of each paragraph and having no problem with text paragraphs flowing from one page to the next. All info - page size, margins, fonts, styles, images and their placement are already defined in the docx file, so opening the original docx document instead of the resulting pdf document should really not pose any problem.

Instead I’m forced to create the pdf document, open that in Publisher, and then prepare for hours and hours of adjustments, that would not be needed if I could just open a docx document, and begin work on a new Publisher task on that basis instead. It would save me lot’s of time when using existing material.

Otherwise I’ll just have to forget about Publisher for practical use in my environment and use cases.

Regards

[IanSG]

11 hours ago, kfriis said:

I have used most of today to try to do that, but found no way. I may be blind, but still - I have found no way to start a Publisher task based on a docx document. I even cannot see nor select the docx document when using “Open...” (which works for pdf).

I think you need to use "Place" rather than "Open" for docx files.

[walt.farrell]

1 hour ago, IanSG said:

I think you need to use "Place" rather than "Open" for docx files.

Yes, that's right.

[kfriis]

On 7/19/2020 at 1:11 PM, walt.farrell said:

Yes, that's right.

Ah, yes... there’s just this small problem, that the fully formatted document, produced some years ago, contains more than seventy pages. When I use Place, only content on the first page is inserted. To top it all, not as “real text”, but as several “nonscaled” text frames. Ahem.

I may have overlooked something, since this completely basic operation is not possible to execute by me.

I begin to get the impression, that Publisher is a study in - ahem - ”revolutionary” limitations nobody has dared to create and release to the unsuspecting public before - for purely long term pecuniary reasons.

Publisher is the first ever modern tool - at the time - that reminded me of the limitations of the real lead type printing I have actually experienced in real life myself sixty odd years ago - with the possibility of using hands-on “hammer enforced physical micro - ahem - adjustments”, that solved more problems, than our master printer was willing to admit.

Ah, well. I’ll scrap it for now, sigh!

Wake me, when Publisher grows up and supports docx import, footnotes and fixed format ePub export.  

[walt.farrell]

53 minutes ago, kfriis said:

When I use Place, only content on the first page is inserted.

You need to flow the text into additional text frames, which you can do by Shift+Clicking on the blue linking triangle on the lower right side of the frame.

[kfriis]

11 hours ago, walt.farrell said:

You need to flow the text into additional text frames, which you can do by Shift+Clicking on the blue linking triangle on the lower right side of the frame.

Yes, but... manually doing, what a program can do in milliseconds, for seventy plus pages, page after page of manual labor? Document after document containing from 25 to 100 plus pages? We live in 2020, and are not forced to do work on revolutionary british developed computers of the 80’s; a revolution lost to quirks, oddities and downright stubborn insistence on impracticalities.

Is this to be the legacy of Publisher too? There’s no sweatshop - to my knowledge - in Bangladesh or Brixton, where you could outsource this time consuming manual work for a bob or two per page. Maybe, just maybe, other developers have accepted, that automation of tedious manual processes is a benefit, which begs the question: why hasn’t the team behind Publisher discovered this fact? Or if they have, why have they been prevented implementing the obvious?

I’ve included an example of docx import (only 56 pages in this example). These feeble results (a few pages) took around 5-10 minutes (forgot to time the horror) to produce, and why I was forced to have two empty pages, I still do not know.

This is in no way acceptable (I gave up after a few pages). If I print the docx to pdf, before adding as pages, no problems occur. Everything gets adjusted, sized and placed correctly, but now I have to add styles manually to each and every paragraph in the pdf based Publisher document, as well as manually combine paragraphs split into two at page breaks. Also a hell of a job, and quite unnecessary. If only I could import the actual docx master document instead of the printed pdf.

Is this hassle at all acceptable? In 2020? Why are the Publisher developers prevented from doing better?

I’ll scrap Publisher.

If it takes more than a few months, before Publisher grows up and supports docx import, footnotes and fixed format ePub export it will be permanently. Life’s too short to wait for “Brits” to grow up

[Joachim_L]

31 minutes ago, kfriis said:

Life’s too short to wait for “Brits” to grow up

Your comments gave a good laugh or two. In my years working for a prepress company I "experienced" many "professionals" delivering word documents for high-end print products. What should I tell ... they all failed miserably. From my point of view Word or sorts are good for delivering the text ... nothing else (perhaps additionally as a scribble). So what is the point here? Do you want a clean, good-working document? Sorry for you, but you'll have to invest some work. Even the usual current competitors do not manage to get a 1:1 result after importing a word document I guess. APublisher is young product - lame excuse? - so give time and room for improvements. Yes, we are spoilt by ID, QXP what it is now possible, but they won't share their efforts, so Serif has to aquire all by themselves. Even ID in the beginning (more a joke) needed some years of development.

[walt.farrell]

1 hour ago, kfriis said:

manually doing, what a program can do in milliseconds, for seventy plus pages, page after page of manual labor?

It is one click (or, rather, Shift+Click), not page-after-page of manual labor. You should try it.

[kfriis]

2 minutes ago, Joachim_L said:

Your comments gave a good laugh or two. In my years working for a prepress company I "experienced" many "professionals" delivering word documents for high-end print products. What should I tell ... they all failed miserably. From my point of view Word or sorts are good for delivering the text ... nothing else (perhaps additionally as a scribble). So what is the point here? Do you want a clean, good-working document? Sorry for you, but you'll have to invest some work. Even the usual current competitors do not manage to get a 1:1 result after importing a word document I guess. APublisher is young product - lame excuse? - so give time and room for improvements. Yes, we are spoilt by ID, QXP what it is now possible, but they won't share their efforts, so Serif has to aquire all by themselves. Even ID in the beginning (more a joke) needed some years of development.

The problem is, that Publisher did not exist at all, when the documents were produced.

In most cases, you had the options of producing the results in Word, Microsoft Publisher or Apple Pages or iBooks Author (a lot of also rans were not really options) for private use. Of these options I used Word as the most compatible solution for non standard page sizes (smartphone screen presentation - you know: 4 to 5 billion users - in short “everyone”) alternatively iBooks Author, where the target audience was limited to only iPad and iBooks (fixed ‘Apple’ adjusted ePub 3 format).

Publisher is one of the extremely few potential “bigger boys” that normal private citizens can license with good (economical) conciense for both Apple and Windows 10 Platforms. The only real alternative is InDesign, and then I have no use for a new, de-facto “non-standard”, severely restricted afpub format based tool. Adobes price bracket is a bit steep for my purpose, and Affinity Publisher has showed far too restricted for my use cases.

I’m not working for a prepress company, and I do not care, that you have a limited format use-case outlook. I use the most compatible tool with best possible future support, when possible. Until now, that was a severely restricted selection of tools for my use. That you are fine with even less capabilities is no concern of mine. When my decisions were made Affinity had not even introduced Designer and Photo!

I will not invest my time in transferring my old documents to Affinity Publisher. That will be far too costly in real terms (money can be earned again, time never

I’m not even offended by your condescending  views; I’ve met “blinkered” people everywhere in my nearly three score and ten lifetime. At best, I pity their limited, inflexible world view 

It’s In a way a variation on the sudden, very dramatic fall in the camera market, where some “old geezers” of my age or older fight nail and teeth - or at least complain loudly - against modern cameras including video capabilities. THEY don’t need it, so the rest of the world obviously have to accept their “religion”. Flexibility is not on their agenda in any way. That a broader audience could save their preferred products from sudden or even certain demise seems not to enter their mind. They’re to all intends and purposes “blinkered” (playing their own fetish and religious games to the detriment of everyone else).

It would not harm Affinity, that Publisher catered to a broader audience. All parties could benefit, and the survival of the company in an uncertain, smartphone oriented future would probably be more likely. You may disagree, but... someone have to buy the products, and if being limited to serving mostly the “blinkered” clientele results in to few paying customers to support the continued development, then... you draw your own conclusions

 

[kfriis]

29 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

It is one click (or, rather, Shift+Click), not page-after-page of manual labor. You should try it.

Just af different case of “not usable” (target master page is iPhone 8...). Design master page around the same. Not that you would suspect that, when looking at the resulting Place (with shift). I.e where does the empty page come from? OK, only one, but that’s the least of the work, that now has to be done. Manually... result = unusable in real life!

[Fixx]

1 hour ago, kfriis said:

I’m not even offended by your condescending  views; I’ve met “blinkered” people everywhere in my nearly three score and ten lifetime. At best, I pity their limited, inflexible world view

Maybe you should invest some effort to study how layout tools like ID, QX and Publisher really work. Your expectations show that you do not understand the field. Even more important, if you aim to publish electronically you should study tools meant for that market, (for which Publisher is not).

[kfriis]

44 minutes ago, Fixx said:

Maybe you should invest some effort to study how layout tools like ID, QX and Publisher really work. Your expectations show that you do not understand the field. Even more important, if you aim to publish electronically you should study tools meant for that market, (for which Publisher is not).

You’re entitled to your view. I do not agree, that limited flexibility is a plus in the long run.

But I agree, that Publisher is completely unusable for my purpose, which is not necessarily a good thing (since a lot of users have at least some, if not completely identical, needs). I have followed the both the requests and silly excuses - especially from the “blinkered” clientele with limited use cases - In the forums for a very long time.

I paid my dues for all platforms - to test in earnest without restrictions in time. Publisher is dead in my world. It may be revived, who knows, but if - I.e. the not too far away version 2 - a guess - does not support docx import, footnotes and fixed ePub export, I’m not renewing my two licenses. If other current licensees decide likewise - who knows for certain - there may lie trouble ahead, if the remaining “secteric congregation” is not sufficient to support a future existence outside a possibly vaning customer base.

Publishing is changing too... One example is printed airline magazines becoming scarce, at least for now. Maybe even permanent (saving a lot of costs for cash-starved Airlines in the harsh years coming). And if printning is not needed to the same extent, or at all, the need for “traditional publishing” may also decline dramatically - even quickly. Publisher even contains indication of that, possible, direction in their predefined format setups for new productions. You may consult the options to revise your views.

Tell me, why iPhone targets are included in Publisher, if electronic publishing is not a part of the near future direction of the product. That your use case is centered around “yesterday” or even “years before yesterday” does not alter the fact, that iPhones as target formats (as well as tablets) indicate a clear attempt to support electronic publishing. I don’t suspect, that physical paper print in iPhone format will dominate in the future - you may of course disagree, but...

So, I beg to differ.

[walt.farrell]

5 hours ago, kfriis said:

where does the empty page come from?

If you'd like to provide the DOCX file that you're placing, and the .afpub file that was created, we might be able to tell you. Possibly you've found a bug in Publisher, or possibly you've made some mistake in your Word file that's causing it.

[kfriis]

To be frank: Affinity Publisher is the ONLY application of several (both macOS including Catalina and Windows 10), that is not able to handle a docx file correctly.

I suspect - from the visible results - that Publisher does not interpret the docx page size, gutter and margin etc. specifications correctly - or at all (would be typical for “Place” in contrast to “Add page(s)”. In most pages this is quite obvious, as well as it is obvious, that images are not scaled and positioned according to the source specification (clearly visible too).

Try create a non-standard page size in docx (I.e. similar to iPhone 8 or 8 plus or) and work with different sizes and positions of images (both placed absolute relative page, column or paragraph (for embedded images I.e. centered in its own paragraph). Etc. In reality, the source page size is not that critical, but it’s really clear to see, when iPhone 8 settings are involved, as shown in my images.

Also remember, that standard units in Word are twips (unless specifically altered) - equal to 0,05 part of logical points (defined as 1/72 inch by Microsoft in the Tech Ref’s).

It’s far quicker, and easier for you, that you define your own test material (where you have full control over settings and variations). And then use the same approach for reading and interpreting the content, as you use in “Open” or in “Add Pages” when handling PDF (where you also have to “adjust” source environment to target environment. It works one hundred percent for PDF files, and as seen not at all for docx files (delivering the working pdf file).

Define some docx files with varying contents, images etc. Output to PDF. Compare results. That way, you have full control over source and target environment, and where problems are especially tough, it’s both quick and relatively simple to test various aspects of a specific problem - often within minutes in good and proper developer environments. Install Word on the same machine, you use Publisher, and let the programmer best at thinking “outside the box” do the bug hunting/code design.

if you choose the right person, you’ll probably have a solution within a few days - maybe even an easy path to also allow “Open” and “Add pages” based on docx files (where you again can compare results from both docx file and the associated pdf output to your hearts content).

It’s “simple” if you know, what you do, and you have full and complete control over the test material. Outside material only complicates the job in this case - at least that’s my own experience - I’ve been there dozens of times during the last 25 years or so 

[wonderings]

To expect any application outside of the one that originally created the file to open that file without issues is dreaming. Apple Pages does not even open docx files with formatting issues and that is an application in the exact same market, being a word processor. When customers supply Word files for their print work I warn them that it will possibly open different on my computer (which it always does). If they want to keep the formatting and how they set it up in Word then they need to save as a PDF. If you want to use Publisher then I would suggest you either put in the time of converting your Word files and adjusting as needed or simply start over in Publisher as that is sometimes easier. Publisher is not a Word processor replacement, it is a page layout program. It is a very light version of Indesign in its current state. 

 

[Fixx]

12 hours ago, kfriis said:

Affinity Publisher is the ONLY application of several (both macOS including Catalina and Windows 10), that is not able to handle a docx file correctly.

I suspect - from the visible results - that Publisher does not interpret the docx page size, gutter and margin etc. specifications correctly - or at all (would be typical for “Place” in contrast to “Add page(s)”.

This shows you do not quite understand the purpose of the layout tools. Layout tools (Publisher, ID, QX) do not import settings of content tools (like Word). Content (text, images) is meant to be separate from layout (page, margins,  columns, typographic styles). Content tools create content, how that content is presented depends solely on layout tools. For many publisher users even Publisher trait of bringing in Word styles is unnecessary complication.

[kfriis]

37 minutes ago, Fixx said:

This shows you do not quite understand the purpose of the layout tools. Layout tools (Publisher, ID, QX) do not import settings of content tools (like Word). Content (text, images) is meant to be separate from layout (page, margins,  columns, typographic styles). Content tools create content, how that content is presented depends solely on layout tools. For many publisher users even Publisher trait of bringing in Word styles is unnecessary complication.

Or it shows, that I have actual experience in using PUBLISHING tools, that cover a broad spectrum of uses. You may have a far narrower view, than I, but that does not necessarily make it the only true road to salvation, or...?