Is there a way to open a layered PNG file and retain layers in AD

[dizeyner]

On 7/21/2016 at 2:18 AM, Ben said:

No problem.

 

The subject keeps getting brought up by people - and most people don't understand that a lot of these "features" are not part of the global standards. I think we should write a final statement somewhere.

Ben we are not interested in global standards. we are interested in efficient productivity. We had it. Adobe removed it because they wanted us to subscribe to MULTIPLE products. We now have to create our vector design elements on one program and go to another web layout application to lay out a web page. that is a ridiculous and painful work flow. What we had was productivity that a VAST majority of web designers depended upon and is now lost.

Forget about fireworks proprietary file formats and focus on what we are actually asking for. PAGES. Not side by side pages of a printed book layout application. BUT pages that mimic how one views a website or flips between screens on a phone. End users do not view web pages side by side or the two faces of a banner ad side by side. And when we proof our work neither do we. We want master pages as well so that we can control common elements across all those pages. If I decide the company logo should be on the left instead of the right I should be able to change that across all pages and or artboards.

I cant do half of what I could do before in your program. I think we are asking you to be have your standards and give us a productivity and efficiency that print designers have. BUT to understand that we are not print. So viewing web pages side by side instead of clicking through pages and replacing one page with the other the way an end user would is not gonna work. web is not print. 

I can not judge my banner add by viewing the first screen and the second screen side by side. I need to see that transition the same way an end user would.

Print is not king. WEB is. web does not want prints productivity work flo. web has its own.
 

[R C-R]

16 minutes ago, dizeyner said:

I can not judge my banner add by viewing the first screen and the second screen side by side. I need to see that transition the same way an end user would.

Then you need to be using an app designed for that, one that (among other things) takes into account the global standards you are not interested in.

 

About those standards, whether you are interested in them or not, if you ignore them then why would you expect your web pages to perform as you want for people using browsers that conform to them? All standards-compliant browsers (technically known as "user agents") in common use are designed to ignore things they or the OS they run on can't support, to make substitutions according to certain rules to adapt the page content to make it more accessible to a wider audience, & to request alternate content from web servers for this purpose. In this sense, there is no "master" web page -- they are dynamic things built on-the-fly through a cooperative effort between user agent & server.

[VIPStephan]

13 hours ago, R C-R said:

I agree but I also wonder what the most 'modern' approach should be. Obviously, web pages & printed pages are very different things, & UI "pages" are different from either one. Affinity Designer's artboards are not exactly "pages" either, so where should they fit into our thinking?

Actually, in a broader sense, I think they aren’t that different. A printed page is a single viewable item. A web page or UI view are also single viewable items (with some dynamic elements, of course). If something significant changes in a web page or UI state then a new page could be created. The concept of “pages” needs to be thought of as more fluid than in the past.

1 hour ago, dizeyner said:

Forget about fireworks proprietary file formats and focus on what we are actually asking for. PAGES. Not side by side pages of a printed book layout application. BUT pages that mimic how one views a website or flips between screens on a phone. End users do not view web pages side by side or the two faces of a banner ad side by side. And when we proof our work neither do we.

[…]

So viewing web pages side by side instead of clicking through pages and replacing one page with the other the way an end user would is not gonna work. web is not print. 

I can not judge my banner add by viewing the first screen and the second screen side by side. I need to see that transition the same way an end user would.

Print is not king. WEB is. web does not want prints productivity work flo. web has its own.

I think you are assuming way too much. You are assuming that “pages” (in AD or APub?) are viewed side by side. You are assuming that Serif is just thinking about print first. How about you stop ranting about things you don’t even know yet and either contribute in a constructive manner or wait silently until you see an actual result.

I’m sure they will come up with something smart, as they have done many times in the past. But it might be different than we were used to for years (just like artboards in AD are different than in AI, yet useful) and you might have to change your workflow a bit (which doesn’t have to be a bad thing).

[dizeyner]

45 minutes ago, R C-R said:

Then you need to be using an app designed for that, one that (among other things) takes into account the global standards you are not interested in.

 

About those standards, whether you are interested in them or not, if you ignore them then why would you expect your web pages to perform as you want for people using browsers that conform to them? All standards-compliant browsers (technically known as "user agents") in common use are designed to ignore things they or the OS they run on can't support, to make substitutions according to certain rules to adapt the page content to make it more accessible to a wider audience, & to request alternate content from web servers for this purpose. In this sense, there is no "master" web page -- they are dynamic things built on-the-fly through a cooperative effort between user agent & server.

I don't think you understood a single thing I said. I for one wasn't talking about master pages for websites. Nor was I talking about browsers and user agents and servers. I think you jumped ahead of the key element of this topic. Which was design productivity. The act of creating web design and application design long before it becomes an actual website,  banner ad or iphone application.

[dizeyner]

9 minutes ago, VIPStephan said:

 How about you stop ranting about things you don’t even know yet and either contribute in a constructive manner or wait silently until you see an actual result. 

Your response is actually quite offensive. I should just shut up and wait and see what they come up with? instead of diligently trying to explain what I and others actually mean when we ask for pages and master elements? We should all just shut up and not ask the developers for new features? My attempts to clarify are merely rants? Thats great customer service. Sincerely hope you do not represent this company. Because that would be very telling indeed.

[R C-R]

8 hours ago, VIPStephan said:

Actually, in a broader sense, I think they aren’t that different. A printed page is a single viewable item. A web page or UI view are also single viewable items (with some dynamic elements, of course).

A web page is usually not in any reasonable sense a single viewable item. For example, as with this web page It may have no fixed width or length & its contents could be several times larger than could be viewed in any window on any device's display all at the same time. Its print equivalent could run to several pages. Depending on the browser or other user agent & OS, it may not even display text with the same font, font size, or character encoding when different users view the same page, or display graphic & text elements at the same relative sizes, even when users are all served the same content.

 

it is not so much that a "new" web page with different content is served to different users as it is that there is no viewable web page until it is assembled locally by the user agent & OS.

[VIPStephan]

9 hours ago, dizeyner said:

Sincerely hope you do not represent this company. Because that would be very telling indeed.

Nope, I’m just a regular customer. And yes, I was also asking for pages previously, but not in a condescending manner.

44 minutes ago, R C-R said:

A web page is usually not in any reasonable sense a single viewable item. For example, as with this web page It may have no fixed width or length & its contents could be several times larger than could be viewed in any window on any device's display all at the same time. Its print equivalent could run to several pages.

That’s why I said, the concept of “pages” would have to be thought of as more fluid than in the past. It might even start by not calling it “page” but “view” or “flow” or “frame” or whatever. If you’re creating something for print this would resemble a page with static measures but if you’re creating a web site that would be of variable length, for example.

49 minutes ago, R C-R said:

it is not so much that a "new" web page with different content is served to different users as it is that there is no viewable web page until it is assembled locally by the user agent & OS.

But when creating a wireframe or a concept with Affinity we’re not at that stage yet. We need to create a visual example using graphics first, that’s the whole point.

[R C-R]

9 hours ago, dizeyner said:

I don't think you understood a single thing I said. I for one wasn't talking about master pages for websites. Nor was I talking about browsers and user agents and servers. I think you jumped ahead of the key element of this topic. Which was design productivity. The act of creating web design and application design long before it becomes an actual website,  banner ad or iphone application.

You said you were not interested in global standards. I do not understand how anyone interested in designing anything could expect to be productive in any reasonable sense unless consideration of the applicable standards are part of the design process from the very beginning.

 

If I understood you correctly, you also said that in effect you want Affinity Designer to be a replacement for web page layout apps like Adobe's now discontinued Fireworks app because it is "ridiculous and painful" to have to rely on multiple apps for such things as mimicking how a website's pages are viewed on different devices. That certainly sounds like something only applicable when you actually are close to finalizing a website's design, but more to the point Designer was never intended to be a 'one size fits all' replacement for any page layout app, whether for web or print use.

 

Regardless, if you would like to see specific features added to Designer, the Feature Requests, Suggestions and Feedback forum is the place for that, not here.

[Move Along People]

-

[Mithferion]

23 minutes ago, haakoo said:

Not to be a nitpicker but the complete concept of print,webpages and even presentations are based on books anyway

Why create another concept that might be a productive workflow for some,while there are that many whom find it logical to use what's been used for centuries?

 

_Hans

Because it's productive for some, like using Symbols is productive for some folks while they are no used by some others. And it's not bad, the thing with Pages is that you have a Page, and with a single click you see another one. One overlapping the other (and can be emulated with today's features, but hey, Serif Staff promised it).

Best regards!

[Move Along People]

-

[R C-R]

Just now, haakoo said:

Not to be a nitpicker but the complete concept of print,webpages and even presentations are based on books anyway

Why create another concept that might be a productive workflow for some,while there are that many whom find it logical to use what's been used for centuries?

Because what has been used for centuries is not necessarily the most logical or most productive workflow for creating things that did not exist even 40 or 50 years ago?

 

Besides, books have never really been the conceptual basis for anything digital besides certain kinds of print work. In the digital age, the only 'complete' concept that still makes much sense is that of the document, & even that does not work very well for anything with interactive or adaptive content.

[Mithferion]

5 minutes ago, haakoo said:

But pages should be used in a way which is logical

Create page>your designs on it >duplicate page>alter (global) colours/fonts/images

Export as html presentation or multipage pdf with page/bookmarks.

Show products/concepts to clients.

Seems easy peasy to me.

 

_Hans

Yeah, but at that specific stage, overlapping seems to be a key part of the process, the same with Master Pages. In the Mockup AFDESIGN file I made, I tried to replicate that workflow and seemed good for that purpose: comparing Pages and making one change in the Master Page (I emulated that using Symbols).

So, it's not a bad approach, in my opinion.

Best regards!

[Move Along People]

-

[Mithferion]

14 minutes ago, haakoo said:

I said books are the base of showing a concept/idea

By this i mean pointing with an index to the specifics.

Putting all possible designs on top of another you'll need a dedicated viewer.

Why do this if a browser or pdf viewer(or browser plugin) would suffice.

I get what you say, but the thing about Pages is that it's not for the client, it's for the Designer who is working on them and while working on the design.

To present to the client, you can do a Presentation, a Mockup, a Prototype or something else.

Best regards!

[Mithferion]

That's why @dizeyner mentioned productivity (for the Designer). Well, that's what I think about this topic.

Hope you have a great weekend.

Best regards!

[Move Along People]

-

 

[R C-R]

1 minute ago, haakoo said:

Why one way to create and another to show?

Don't you think it should be wysiwyg in the first place?

Because there is no 'what you see is what they get' other than for printed media, & for that only if everyone is viewing it under the same lighting conditions?

[Mithferion]

Well, for example, here is my approach of Pages using Designer (imagine every Layer is like a Page in Fireworks):

Then, I can export and I have the end result: each "Page" as a separate object.

   

If I show theses images in a simple Viewer, the Client wouls see one after the other and not "side by side" as seen on the Sneak Peek for Publisher, for example.

Best regards!

[Move Along People]

-

[R C-R]

24 minutes ago, haakoo said:

With your computer settings are different  and therefore not representing the true outcome.

But because of that there is no one "true outcome." Diligent designers must take that into account, for example by using different browsers to see what web pages will look like to different users.

 

Many browsers have built-in features intended specifically for that purpose. For instance, Safari for Macs has a "Develop Menu" option that among other things allows it to emulate other user agents (basically, other web browser apps) & a "Responsive Design Mode" for rapidly switching between what a web page looks like on different (mostly Apple) devices. I assume similar features are available for Windows users.

[Mithferion]

For that kind of work, like actual HTML/CSS Websites, I prefer to make the prototype directly, and you can fine-tune there, like pre-building it, if that makes sense.

Best regards!

[Move Along People]

-

 

[Ben]

On 09/03/2018 at 11:41 PM, dizeyner said:

Ben we are not interested in global standards. we are interested in efficient productivity. We had it. Adobe removed it because they wanted us to subscribe to MULTIPLE products. We now have to create our vector design elements on one program and go to another web layout application to lay out a web page. that is a ridiculous and painful work flow. What we had was productivity that a VAST majority of web designers depended upon and is now lost.

Forget about fireworks proprietary file formats and focus on what we are actually asking for. PAGES. Not side by side pages of a printed book layout application. BUT pages that mimic how one views a website or flips between screens on a phone. End users do not view web pages side by side or the two faces of a banner ad side by side. And when we proof our work neither do we. We want master pages as well so that we can control common elements across all those pages. If I decide the company logo should be on the left instead of the right I should be able to change that across all pages and or artboards.

I cant do half of what I could do before in your program. I think we are asking you to be have your standards and give us a productivity and efficiency that print designers have. BUT to understand that we are not print. So viewing web pages side by side instead of clicking through pages and replacing one page with the other the way an end user would is not gonna work. web is not print. 

I can not judge my banner add by viewing the first screen and the second screen side by side. I need to see that transition the same way an end user would.

Print is not king. WEB is. web does not want prints productivity work flo. web has its own.
 

 

Sorry, but you seem to have bombed into a conversion about PNG and have taken it off on a tangent about productivity.  This thread is about why we don't open "layered" PNG files, and I've answered that question.  And, it is everything to do with the difference between proprietary additions and the common standard for PNG files.  Actually, as far as not being interested in what are common standards - users who have only worked in the Adobe ecosystem have been quite ignorant about what is "standard" and what is specifically "Adobe".  This is one of those examples.  The Illustrator closed file format is another.

 

As for all your other points - these have been raised before, and answered before.  We are working on Publisher which will be our app that deals with pages and layout.  Once that is in Beta you can see what support we are adding for pages.