Please add option to set persistent defaults for text frames (and maybe other objects)

[Lorox]

Maybe this could also be applied to other tools but I came across the topic when working with text frames:

Currently, when you change any attribute of a text frame (like the number of columns, background or stroke colour or whatever), these new properties become the default for any new text frames created subsequently (until you make new changes to these). This can can be quite unnerving, especially when you've just set some special attributes for the "odd text frame", while you would really like to use another more standard type for most anything else.

As of now it seems you have to manually reset all the special attributes to "normal" before you can get on with frames having your desired standard appearance.

I think it would be really helpful to be able to choose (e.g. in Publisher's preferences) between this current behaviour and a behaviour where you once set a standard formatting (e.g. while no document is open) and this standard/default is then used for any new element you create later in any actual document (meaning any changes made to – say – a text frame in a live document remain with that very text frame only and do not automatically affect any other frame created afterwards).

Or – maybe even better – keep the current behaviour but combine it with the option of setting an applicationwide standard beforehand which you can revert to any time you wish by just clicking on a button in the – with this example – Text Frame palette.

Edited July 24, 2020 by Lorox
typo...

[carl123]

38 minutes ago, Lorox said:

which you can revert to any time you wish by just clicking on a button

Try the Revert Defaults button in the main Toolbar

[Lorox]

49 minutes ago, carl123 said:

Try the Revert Defaults button in the main Toolbar

Oh man, this is brilliant – thanks a lot! I didn't even notice this buttons until now... And it's even got a companion button to "Synchronize defaults from Selection".

The only downside I see so far, however, is that EVERY tool seems to get reverted to default, not just the type you're currently working with (say text frames) – shapes, typopgraphy, everything. I could imagine, that being able to do this separately for the various tools (e.g. via a button on their respective palettes) would be an interesting improvement.

Edited July 24, 2020 by Lorox
mistake I made...

[walt.farrell]

1 hour ago, Lorox said:

The only downside I see so far, however, is that EVERY tool seems to get reverted to default, not just the type you're currently working with (say text frames) – shapes, typopgraphy, everything. I could imagine, that being able to do this separately for the various tools (e.g. via a button on their respective palettes) would be an interesting improvement.

It is not resetting a Tool, it is resetting the default attributes of the selected object, or of all objects in the document if no object is selected when you click the button.

[Lorox]

29 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

It is not resetting a Tool, it is resetting the default attributes of the selected object, or of all objects in the document if no object is selected when you click the button.

Hi Walt,

I think I know what you mean, but but when – after I click "Revert Defaults" – I use a tool like the shapes tool and the shapes now have default appearance to me it's like I actually reset the tool as such because future "products" of the tool will have the default apperarance. But you possibly could argue about this view.

More important:
with my Publisher v. 1.8.3 it "Reverts Defaults" for ALL kinds of "future" objects even if only  a single distinct object is selected when clicking the button. So for example, when a somewhat formatted circle is selected while clicking the button, all future text frames will also be reverted to the defaults, not only that circle.

Naturally, any object already given in the document remains unaffected if it's not selected while clicking "Revert Defaults".

This seems to contradict your statement, doesn't it? Or do I get something wrong?

[walt.farrell]

45 minutes ago, Lorox said:

This seems to contradict your statement, doesn't it? Or do I get something wrong?

Yes, it does contradict my statement. So there may be something about this that I have misunderstood.