Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Indeed … :(

 

But when you look at the impressive list of typographers and designers I provided through the (already well-known) link in my last post, Dave, I believe that rethinking the Typography panel would be a huge chance to win the hearts of professionals worldwide.

 

Don’t misunderstand me, Dave. The current implementation is definitely a step forward compared to other approaches, but it is not “just right” either. Why not take up the suggestions of the folks at Klim? You found so many smart solutions elsewhere, so I am sure that you will be able to come up with a perfect solution for this sore spot as well. These are the small details that make an application suite outstanding … and really useful for daily work.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my perspective as a (very) non-professional user, I have a few comments about the Klim suggestions:

 

1. The proposed UI does not seem well suited to small displays where the text & the OpenType Features panel must be visible at the same time, particularly if the "must be persistent" & "must be dynamic" rules are considered unbreakable.

2. The dependency on selected text does not actually answer the "What are the OpenType features in this font?" question. It can only show which features are available for already entered text.

3. The dependency on selected text will complicate the UI considerably if there is more than one font in the selected text.

4. The 'use plain language instead of icons' suggestion will make internationalization more difficult & will increase the amount of screen real estate the UI requires.

5. A comprehensive OpenType UI is likely to be quite useful in a page layout app, but is it really that necessary for apps like AP or AD?


Affinity Photo 1.7.3, Affinity Designer 1.7.3, Affinity Publisher 1.7.3; macOS High Sierra 10.13.6 iMac (27-inch, Late 2012); 2.9GHz i5 CPU; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M; 8GB RAM
Affinity Photo 1.7.3.155 & Affinity Designer 1.7.3.1 for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 13.1.2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What an incredible opportunity for Affinity to provide the best typesetting program available. InDesign is very good at typesetting--but Affinity can make typesetting GREAT!

 

Go for it, Affinity!

 

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a typographer’s perspective, the folks at Klim are very right on three points. An Open Type user interface should always provide the means to answer at least the following questions:

  • What are the OpenType features in this font?
  • How do I apply the OpenType features?
  • Where have the OpenType features been applied?
When you look at the current implementation, you will note that you cannot even decide the first question on the basis of your approach.

 

First, thanks for the feedback. It seems to me that we do answer the second and third questions. On the first question, we show the features that you can use for the current selection, and we show what their effect will be if you apply them. It sounds like you also want to see features that you can't use. Klim suggests listing them, greyed out and disabled. That shouldn't be hard to do, so I'll try to get that done in a future update.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much for your quick reply, Dave! :)

 

This is very appreciated … it is so great not to have to sign a petition in order to be heard by the developers of your favorite apps. But let me just add some remarks about the questions from the mentioned article.

 

First question. Yes, indeed I would like to see all Open Type features that are present in a font regardless of the text I am working on. Although I know the features of the fonts that I use on a regular basis, I am unable to remember the features of the several hundred other fonts that I use less frequently. The only way to see them at the moment is to create an empty text frame, which is a bit cumbersome. So it is really great to hear that you are going to care for a better solution here. Thank you very much.

 

Second question. I believe you are right. This feature is already implemented quite nicely. Personally, I don’t need much more information than is provided by the previews.

 

Third question. On this point, I would like to disagree. As far as I understood the question, this feature is not yet implemented. I would like to have the option of clicking an entry on the Typography panel, while a text frame is active (or the caret cursor blinks within the text), and Affinity Designer should highlight all the parts of my text, where this feature is applied, just like it is the case in the animated GIF from the Klim page below. (The animation is a bit slow, so it needs some patience to be properly understood.)

 

A simple and very common use case for the last feature would be the search for typographically wrong ligatures. We could simply click the entry “Standard Ligatures” on the Typography Panel or an icon besides this entry, and Affinity Designer would highlight all parts of the selected text, where this feature is in effect. So it would be much easier to spot and correct “leaflet” and “Auflage,” as shown in my own screen shot. It would be outstanding, if you were able to implement these features.

 

Thanks again for your great work!  :)

Alex

post-1198-0-62776200-1460839060_thumb.gif

post-1198-0-28574400-1460839067_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still thinking about the first question. Maybe it would be great to have a “See all” toggle button. This would solve the small displays issue mentioned by R C-R, and of course, we don’t always need to see all the Open Type features implemented in a font. It is just necessary to have the option of seeing them …  :)

post-1198-0-17311900-1460881621_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So by "applied" and "in effect", you mean where the feature has made a difference to the text, rather than where the user has switched it on. The latter will probably be covered by a generic Find and Replace option, along with searching for colours, fonts etc. The former would be somewhat harder to do but I'll bear it in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So by "applied" and "in effect", you mean where the feature has made a difference to the text.

 

Yes, that’s right. The switch should highlight exactly those parts of text within a paragraph or a text frame, where, for instance, a glyph substitution has taken place by selecting an OT substitution feature for the paragraph or the text frame as a whole.

 

When you try to do microtypographic corrections in Indesign today, you will most always have to perform a tedious find and replace process, and I would like to believe that we can get a better solution here. And the Klim suggestion as shown in the animated GIF is very intriguing to my eyes. I believe this would certainly be a point, where Affinity Designer and Publisher could stand out from the crowd …

 

Thanks for considering, Dave!  :)

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Affinity Publisher should be in beta by the end of this year with a launch likely in first half of 2016 if everything goes as expected.

 

 

I can't find anything on the Affinity site about Publisher -- is it out yet? Can't wait!

 

EDIT: I see in another post that it is still in development -- patience is a virtue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That video shows  a rather old Amiga Pagestream doing what needs to be done ..and oh yeah "Open interface"..yep u dont have true type fonts Yeah the video is grainy .With a child able to do all the work. The point is what everybody is wanting has been done before..Yes, It is running in ram by the  way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe he means that all what is needed was already in Amiga. ;)


Affinity Designer and Affinity Photo licenses, Windows 7, i7  860 (2009) 2.8 GHz,  8 GB RAM, GTX 1050 2 GB, HD 7200 RPM.  Wacom Intuos 4 XL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe he means that all what is needed was already in Amiga. ;)

The Amiga was a capable machine for its era, but it is easy to forget its limitations, like a maximum 4096 color palette (& that only on a very low resolution analog display), or that the Amiga OS runs only on PowerPC processors.


Affinity Photo 1.7.3, Affinity Designer 1.7.3, Affinity Publisher 1.7.3; macOS High Sierra 10.13.6 iMac (27-inch, Late 2012); 2.9GHz i5 CPU; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M; 8GB RAM
Affinity Photo 1.7.3.155 & Affinity Designer 1.7.3.1 for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 13.1.2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a Spectrum 48k (one of its rubbery keys in my avatar) and was often jealous of those having an Amiga 2000 or even 500. But I even coded basic games (basic code, and some parts with "tricks") with the Spectrum. Just 4096 colors was amazing  compared to only 15 ;D (and 128×192 screen, I believe) , and much lower resolution. For the times, it was like a graphic workstation(Amiga) compared to a crappy web browsing netbook these days.  A publishing tool today handles a bazillion other matters today, and has to deal with huge amounts of stuff, so is surely quite a lot about performance optimization, too. No comparison can be made with those times, is useless now... Nostalgy? Yep... a lot. I was super happy when I had the luck of working making games from that era (80s - 90s) but just ten years ago. Other than for that purpose, we are entirely in another story now...

 

Edit: I say this because I hear quite this saying that before it was done better, both in code or in my area, graphics...And nope, I believe despite the limitations, before it was much easier (you were more limited in what you could do, of course). In my area, lots of graphic artists had not even a fraction of the training and skills that are needed now, both traditional and digital. Same has kept happening. It was relatively easy to make all the characters in a game in low polygon count back in the 90s, by only one person in short time  (still is for some low powered mobile phone targeted games) , and has become a daunting task today (a multi million polygons model, an uber complex shader system to make what before was a simple well optimized texture, etc. ). Back then a lot was about crazy optimization in code and graphics,  but applications and games could be made with really small teams in way less time. Everything now is way more complex, I don't buy the excessive glorification of those times. It was cool and great tho, yep.


Affinity Designer and Affinity Photo licenses, Windows 7, i7  860 (2009) 2.8 GHz,  8 GB RAM, GTX 1050 2 GB, HD 7200 RPM.  Wacom Intuos 4 XL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this for nostalgia? The first "personal computer" I ever saw was an early MITS Altair someone from MITS brought into our shop in Albuquerque, complete with toggle switches for setting addresses & data input & LEDs for output! About 10 years later, I bought a Commodore VIC-20, then a C=64, & eventually a C=128 (complete with the plug in 512 KB RAM expander that hung off the back). I thought the 128 was way cool because I could attach it to a "real" CGA monitor & run it in 80X50 column text mode with 16 RGBI glorious colors to choose from.  :lol:


Affinity Photo 1.7.3, Affinity Designer 1.7.3, Affinity Publisher 1.7.3; macOS High Sierra 10.13.6 iMac (27-inch, Late 2012); 2.9GHz i5 CPU; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M; 8GB RAM
Affinity Photo 1.7.3.155 & Affinity Designer 1.7.3.1 for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 13.1.2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, the c64 was also better than my poor Spectrum...  :/. Maybe even the Amstrads where better....


Affinity Designer and Affinity Photo licenses, Windows 7, i7  860 (2009) 2.8 GHz,  8 GB RAM, GTX 1050 2 GB, HD 7200 RPM.  Wacom Intuos 4 XL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Amiga was nice in it's time, but I personally prefer my Mac Pro a lot to it nowadays :)

Its still way better/best .When you find out how arcane your systems really are you will be pissed .Then to boot when you find out that ur mac is a pc always has been yeah thats even worse.

Yeah ..Amstrads if you recall where sued by commodore.Yet.they had a pretty good system back in the day . Just because its "new" doesn't make it better. Lets add to the fact a PPC cpu was added to the c64. Now try that on for size.

 

In summary i was pointing out that pagestream already was doing what was asked.  Also Image FX another Amiga paint program could do what hasn't been done yet with Affinity. Not that it was needed  to get these programs. This is just a bit of reference. I dont expect anyone to get these programs or Amiga.. :D Granted this is a great program Which by the way I have bought ,and the workbook.So then but then again Why does one have have to do such a thing to prove such a thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@amigatheone:

 

I don't know where you are getting your info but much of it is incorrect. (Warning: what follows is computer geek stuff most readers will probably want to skip!)

 

For example, Macs are not & have never been PCs in any meaningful sense. Unlike PCs made by Dell, HP, etc., Apple uses very few COTS (commercial off the shelf) parts & assemblies. They even use a lot of chips manufactured to their specifications & often collaborate on their design: you may be aware that Apple was the "A" the AIM Alliance; was a founding partner in the company that eventually became ARM Holdings; & that Apple now designs the "A" series of SoCs (systems on a chip) used in their iDevices; all of which gives the company a huge amount of "in-house" expertise no PC maker can match. Apple also has developed & patented proprietary manufacturing techniques & even developed unique alloys to use with them like in the cases for the ultra thin iMacs.

 

Commodore never used PowerPC CPUs in any of the C-series computers. They used various 6502 family CPUs (& in the C-128 a Zilog z-80 CPU to run the CP/M OS). All of these were much older & far less powerful designs than IBM's Power line of RISC CPUs or the variants used later in PPC Macs. Likewise, the Amiga 2000 used another old 1980's era CISC CPU (the Motorola 68000) that while powerful for its era is millions (or maybe even billions) of times less powerful than any modern 32 or 64 bit CISC or RISC CPU architecture running either Macs or PCs.

 

Basically, "new" isn't just better, it is so much better that it is hard even to quantify how much better it really is.


Affinity Photo 1.7.3, Affinity Designer 1.7.3, Affinity Publisher 1.7.3; macOS High Sierra 10.13.6 iMac (27-inch, Late 2012); 2.9GHz i5 CPU; NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660M; 8GB RAM
Affinity Photo 1.7.3.155 & Affinity Designer 1.7.3.1 for iPad; 6th Generation iPad 32 GB; Apple Pencil; iPadOS 13.1.2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.