Resource Manager – Inefficiency when multiple instances of same resource exist

[Paul Buccini]

Hello,

I wanted to highlight an inefficiency I'm encountering with the Resource Manager in Affinity Publisher. Specifically, when there are multiple instances of the same asset.

With the Resource Manager dialog open, if you select an asset on the page then the Resource Manager will automatically "jump" to that asset and auto-select it, as expected. You can then perform any tasks you'd like, i.e. "replace", "embed", etc. This all works as expected.

However, when you have multiple instances of the same asset present in the Publisher file, the auto-selection in the Resource Manager no longer works as expected. Each occurrence of a redundant asset is grouped together in the Resources Manager and it has to be expanded in order to see the individual instances. When you select an asset on the page that has multiple instances, not only does the Resource Manager fail to select the specific instance, it also fails to select the group. This means that the user has to scroll through the Resource Manager manually, and expand each group. Only when the correct group is expanded does the auto-selection of the specific instance occur.

This becomes very tedious in certain workflows. For example, If I want to create a couple of pages with the same grid-structure of imagery (using various images all images of the same size) then it would be typical to build and populate the first page in its entirety. Then duplicate the page (in turn duplicating all the assets) and access the Resource Manager to select each asset individually on the second page and hit the 'Replace' button to find a new asset. However, with the issue I described above, this becomes quite cumbersome as it takes time to locate each individual asset in the Resource Manager once they become redundant.

I understand there are different approaches that could work here, such as setting up a Master Page. However, I still feel this is an oversight and can be improved upon. Typically, if I was creating a smaller document with only several pages that maintained the same structure, then I would avoid using a Master Page and use the method described above.

Thanks, and great job with the software. I wanted to highlight this issue as a professional user who has come from a competitor suite and who is excited for the future developments of Affinity software.

Thanks again!

[walt.farrell]

37 minutes ago, Paul Buccini said:

For example, If I want to create a couple of pages with the same grid-structure of imagery (using various images all images of the same size) then it would be typical to build and populate the first page in its entirety. Then duplicate the page

You might consider a different workflow, where you do your initial layout using an empty Picture Frame, so you don't end up with anything in the Resource Manager. Then when you duplicate the page you're not duplicating a resource, too, and won't have the problem you're describing.

[Paul Buccini]

20 hours ago, walt.farrell said:

You might consider a different workflow, where you do your initial layout using an empty Picture Frame, so you don't end up with anything in the Resource Manager. Then when you duplicate the page you're not duplicating a resource, too, and won't have the problem you're describing.

Yes, understood there are adjustments to workflow that could help negate this. But, ultimately I think it is something that could be improved upon. 

The scenario you've described works well if building a set number of pages. But, for example, what if you need to add an additional page at a future date with the same structure. You either need to duplicate the page and then delete all the images from the frames, reset/redraw all the picture frames, or deal with the cumbersome Resource Manager issue i've described. Of course, as previously mentioned, I also understand that you could just use a Master Page in this case.

However, there are also other scenarios as well where I would typically use the Resource Manager to "replace" or "relink" files. So, I do think some improved user-experience is merited.

This issue is by no means unmanageable. I was just thinking that a fix may be "low hanging fruit". 

Thanks for your feedback.

[walt.farrell]

4 hours ago, Paul Buccini said:

Of course, as previously mentioned, I also understand that you could just use a Master Page in this case

Yes; a Master Page is good for the situation you describe.