Publisher picture frame

[Eddy-2]

I add a picture frame in PagePlus and when I double click on it, I get the 'Import Picture' window which allows me to select a picture to add.

If I do the same in Publisher, nothing happens when I double click in the frame.

Am I missing something or, if not, could the feature be added?

[GarryP]

Unless I’m missing something, I can’t see why double-clicking a picture frame to add the initial image would be a bad thing to add.
Double-clicking an empty picture frame doesn’t seem to do anything at the moment so, unless Serif have other plans for it in the future, that seems to be a quite reasonable suggestion.
However, I think double-clicking a picture frame that already has an image should keep it’s current functionality of selecting the image layer inside the frame.

[Eddy-2]

Thanks Garry.

I am talking about an empty picture frame (of which I've got several at the moment).

[Failix]

Coming from Indesign, it never occurred to me to double-click on an empty picture box to place a picture in it. But the idea is excellent. Should we set it as a feature request?

[GarryP]

Probably best to wait a little while to see if someone can come up with a good reason why it shouldn’t be implemented before making a request.
There may be something we aren’t taking into consideration.

[Eddy-2]

To Failix.

Unless I'm missing something with how things work at the moment or if there's a reason for it not being done, it would certainly be useful and save time.

As Garry says, best to wait.

[Dan C]

3 hours ago, Eddy-2 said:

Am I missing something or, if not, could the feature be added?

3 hours ago, GarryP said:

Unless I’m missing something, I can’t see why double-clicking a picture frame to add the initial image would be a bad thing to add.

I agree, this sounds like a great suggestion!

3 hours ago, GarryP said:

Double-clicking an empty picture frame doesn’t seem to do anything at the moment so, unless Serif have other plans for it in the future, that seems to be a quite reasonable suggestion.

I'm not personally aware of any such plans, or any reason why this would not be possible, but of course there may be something our devs have planned that I've not yet been made privy to. In either case I will move this thread to the Feedback section of our forums now, so the devs can see and consider adding this in the future

[Eddy-2]

Thanks Dan.

[Failix]

@Dan C Thank you! I'm curious.

[MikeTO]

I don't think it's a great idea from a UX perspective to have a gesture such as double clicking a frame do something different depending on whether or not there is content in it but I agree this is a special case and should ben an exception

Like you, this is something I do frequently enough that it matters how easy it is to do. I just assigned a simple keyboard shortcut. I choose my image from the keyboard anyway, not using the mouse, so it doesn't matter to me.

I find it odd that Replace Image isn't in the context menu, grouped with Frame Properties. But the context menu is already so long.

[GarryP]

17 hours ago, MikeTO said:

I find it odd that Replace Image isn't in the context menu, grouped with Frame Properties.

See attached image.
Or, if you knew it was there, can you explain what you mean by “grouped with Frame Properties” and why that would help?

[loukash]

On 5/8/2021 at 1:30 PM, Dan C said:

this sounds like a great suggestion

I'm not convinced.
If it ever gets implemented, please make it a preference option so that I can turn it off. thanks

[loukash]

Speaking of which, I'm not really getting the point of the "Place Image Tool" either:
All it does is to open a dialog sheet to select a file(s), same as the File > Place command.

That's not a "tool", that's a command. It should be a toolbar button at best.

[Failix]

This tool also irritated me at first. And it raised the question: Do I need a picture without a frame? Unless I want to work like I did back then in PageMaker ... 😉

[loukash]

2 hours ago, Failix said:

Do I need a picture without a frame? Unless I want to work like I did back then in PageMaker

Haha, memories!
In fact, in my PageMaker days of the early 1990s while I was laying out a monthly underground magazine *) I would just use frame placeholders without pictures, because there was no free hard drive space on the office 40 MB Mac si II to actually scan any images (hm, and probably we couldn't afford a scanner anyway). We'd go to a nearby photocopy shop to "rasterize" the photos instead. Then I'd print out the layout on an Apple StyleWriter (yuck!), paste those photocopied images onto the ink-printed and imposed layout spreads, and hand them over to the in-house offset print lady for making photo plates. "Handicraft" with some "digital support"…

*) Looking at their webpage, almost 30 years later they are still using my ITC Garamond Bold Italic "m" as their magazine logo! WTF? Don't the kids today have any own ideas anymore?

[Failix]

In the mid-90s, when I was working with PageMaker, we had scanners but not the money to print out all the layouts on film. Text and line graphics were printed on paper, and for the photos there was a huge horizontal repro camera in an extra room. The images were measured to be able to calculate the scaling, and then the images were photographed and output rasterized on photographic paper. Then everything was mounted and glued together by hand. Beautiful memories actually ...

Later, when InDesign already existed, but I still had to work with PageMaker, I used the masking function of PM to make something similar to picture frames. At least scaling and cropping images was easier than without frames at all.

Yes, as a PageMaker user you had to be tough and bear the scorn of QuarkExpress or later InDesign users.

And about your "m": It doesn't show its age at all. It's completely timeless, it can stay that way. Be proud of it. 🙂

[loukash]

19 minutes ago, Failix said:

there was a huge horizontal repro camera in an extra room

We had one in the print room as well, of course, but most of the time I was in a hurry so it wasn't worth it, and I'd use just those photocopies.
Speaking of which, I'm still using about two dozens of those orange Agfa Copyproof cardboard boxes as archive boxes in my shelves. Some are from my art school days, almost 40 years old…

23 minutes ago, Failix said:

Be proud of it.

Of course I am. I mean, even the magazine title change which they are writing about on the web page, from "megaphon" to "megafon", that was my idea.
But still… they should be tearing this old stuff that was developed by us old farts apart, just like we did then!

[Failix]

We were not allowed to make photocopies for screens, as we would have lost customers. It was hard enough to find the right settings with the repro camera so that the images were not too bright or even too dark.

The Agfa orange, I remember. There were also these orange canisters with developer fluid ...

And as for the youth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuWtfL8MH3s

We are completely off topic, hopefully we won't get a beating ...

[MikeTO]

On 5/10/2021 at 3:57 AM, GarryP said:

See attached image.
Or, if you knew it was there, can you explain what you mean by “grouped with Frame Properties” and why that would help?

I wrote context menu, not context bar. Replace Image is in the context bar but is missing from the context menu.

[GarryP]

Ah, apologies, I misread menu for bar.
I’ve often thought that it might be nice to have Replace Image in the context menu myself but, as you say, the context menu is already quite long.

[SymbioticDesign]

Nope, I do not get why this functionality isn't already in Publisher.  Of course, I've already complained about it elsewhere.

I personally do not come from indesign, though, as I tried indesign and I think it was these types of broken UI thingsgs that so frustrated my UX.  

I had used QuarkXpress previously, but that was so long ago that I don't even remember how that worked.  That said, it was a whole lot better than I'd.

BTW, anyone know how to Uninstall the Adobe subscription crap? I have Adobe spamming my A in the Windows start menu like crazy and the only reason to do that crap is to Spam someone.  Adobe this, Adobe that, Adobe the other thing, over and over and again and again.  I had the subscription for 1 year and I have 2 installs of everything (different years) and no way to rid myself of this spammy crap that is extorting artists, somehow legally.