Jump to content

the layer system


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Im going to be quick and to the point because its really getting on my nerves. The layer system in afinity photo is terrible. Adopt the layer system from photoshop!
1. Add eyes to hide and unhide the layers do not keep the checkmarks. And add the eyes icon on the left and not on the right.
2. When clicking and holding a layer to drag it below or higher on another layer again is terrible! It always nests the layer together. This needs drastic improvement. 

Edited by Alida
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Alida said:

When clicking and holding a layer to drag it below or higher on another layer again is terrible! It always nests the layer together. This needs drastic improvement.

You need to be careful where you drop the layer, and watch the blue highlighting that tells you what will happen.

Basically, though, if you don't want it to nest drop it to the left of the target layer thumbnail.

-- Walt

   Desktop: new:  Windows 11 Home, version 21H2 (22000.613) 64GB memory, AMD Ryzen 9 5900 12-Core @ 3.00 GHz, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090  (old: 16GB memory, Intel Core i7-6700K @ 4.00GHz, GeForce GTX 970 )
   Laptop:  Windows 10 Home, version 21H2 (19044.1706) 32GB memory, Intel Core i7-10750H @ 2.60GHz, Intel UHD Graphics Comet Lake GT2 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU.
    Affinity Photo 1.10.5 (.1342) and 1.10.5.1342 Beta   / Affinity Designer 1.10.5 (.1342) and 1.10.5.1342 Beta  / Affinity Publisher 1.10.5 (.1342) and 1.10.5.1282 Beta
 iPad Pro M1, 12.9", iPadOS 15.4.1, Apple Pencil 2, Magic Keyboard

  Affinity Photo 1.10.5 (.280) and 1.10.2 (.266) Beta / Affinity Designer 1.10.5 (.21) and 1.10.3 (.19) Beta 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Alida said:

Add eyes to hide and unhide the layers do not keep the checkmarks. And add the eyes icon on the left and not on the right.

I can't see how this is an improvement, or any reason for it other than "that's how Photoshop does it"! (Great for people just coming from Photoshop, but APITA for the many people who have been using Affinity for a while and would have to get used to a new layout with no actual benefit in doing so!)

 

Acer XC-895 : Core i5-10400 Hexa-core 2.90 GHz :  32GB RAM : Intel UHD Graphics 630 : Windows 10 Home
Affinity Publisher : Affinity Photo : Affinity Designer (latest release versions) | Affinity Photo for iPad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 6/2/2022 at 1:39 PM, PaulEC said:

I can't see how this is an improvement, or any reason for it other than "that's how Photoshop does it"! (Great for people just coming from Photoshop, but APITA for the many people who have been using Affinity for a while and would have to get used to a new layout with no actual benefit in doing so!)

Assuming that someone is completely redesigning the application and its interface because of them is even funny.
Despite the fact that using the eye symbol to control the application of adjustment layers, masks, etc. is really completely meaningless.

Edited by Patrick Connor
<moderated>

Affinity Store: Affinity Suite (ADe, APh, APu) 1.10.5.1342.
Windows 10 Pro, Version 21H1, Build 19043.1586.
Dell Latitude E5570, i5-6440HQ 2.60 GHz, 8 GB, Intel HD Graphics 530, 1920 x 1080.
Dell OptiPlex 7060, i5-8500 3.00 GHz, 16 GB, Intel UHD Graphics 630, Dell P2417H 1920 x 1080.
Intel NUC5PGYH, Pentium N3700 2.40 GHz, 8 GB, Intel HD Graphics, EIZO EV2456 1920 x 1200.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a fanboy of any software. the eye is a lot easier to click on because its bigger as a button than the checkmark.
I'm not a photoshop person, never liked adobe and photoshop and was forced to work with it. but the layer system was more accurate for me and faster. here I'm clicking on the checkmark sometimes 3 to 4 times before it register the click.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Pšenda said:

Despite the fact that using the eye symbol to control the application of adjustment layers, masks, etc. is really completely meaningless.

Other than the fact that it has become a common visual metaphor for 'visibility' used not only in Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign, but also in Quark, Corel Draw, Corel Painter, Clip Paint Studio, ToonBoom, SketchUp, Figma, Sketch, Glyphs, FontLab, Linea, Spline, Blender, Aseprite, GameMaker Studio, Unity, Spine, Rive, Cavalry, etc. The only apps that I've encountered that use a check box for visibility tend to be more Apple/iOS focused apps such as; Apple Motion, Procreate and Pixelmator Pro (I'm sure there are more, but I'm not aware of them).

My point is the 'eye' icon isn't completely meaningless to many folks. If Serif decide that using the check box for visibility is their preference, that's fine—but it doesn't change the fact that many users with experience in other applications might perceive it as an unusual choice. Of course you get used to it in time, but it may create additional friction for new users from the start—especially those not heavily invested in the Apple ecosystem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Alida said:

here im clicking on the checkmark sometimes  3 to 4 times before it register the click.

If that's the case you need to log that as a bug

Just changing the "icon" from a checkbox to an eye may not cure your problem if the problem lies elsewhere

 

Due to the fact that Boris Johnson is now was our Prime Minister, punctuation, spelling and grammar will never be worried about ever again.  We now have far bigger problems to be worried about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bryan Rieger said:

Of course you get used to it in time, but it may create additional friction for new users from the start

While I can see that some new users may prefer what they are used to in other apps, it hardly seems reasonable to me that existing users should be expected to keep relearning various aspects of the Affinity apps to save new users the effort of learning to use a new app!

 

1 hour ago, Bryan Rieger said:

My point is the 'eye' icon isn't completely meaningless to many folks.

 I don't have a problem with using an "eye" instead of a tick-box, they would function in the same way, but why on earth move it to the other side of the layer panel!

One thing that particularly gets on my nerves is the way some new users (not the OP) want things changed because of their "muscle memory". What about the "muscle memory" of existing users!

Acer XC-895 : Core i5-10400 Hexa-core 2.90 GHz :  32GB RAM : Intel UHD Graphics 630 : Windows 10 Home
Affinity Publisher : Affinity Photo : Affinity Designer (latest release versions) | Affinity Photo for iPad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, PaulEC said:

While I can see that some new users may prefer what they are used to in other apps, it hardly seems reasonable to me that existing users should be expected to keep relearning various aspects of the Affinity apps to save new users the effort of learning to use a new app!

Unless you stay using the same version of the same application for the foreseeable future you are likely going to have relearn some aspect of the updated application (don't get me started on the Adobe 'properties' panels). It might be a change in iconography, an 'improved' version of a toolbar or palette system, a consolidation of menu items and commands, etc. Personally I wouldn't look at it as old users having to relearn stuff just to placate new users, but rather all of us having to adjust to what we hope are improvements in the evolution of a great product. 

Quote

 I don't have a problem with using an "eye" instead of a tick-box, they would function in the same way, but why on earth move it to the other side of the layer panel!

I didn't say that. It might make sense to move it—it might not. User testing would help to discover what is more inline with user expectations and workflows, and whether any change was deemed necessary. Honestly, there are many more pressing issues in these products than whether a checkbox or eye icon sits to the left or right of the layer name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bryan Rieger said:

that it has become a common visual metaphor for 'visibility'

For "visibility" yes, but applying live filters, applying adjustment layers, etc. has nothing to do with "visibility/invisibility". As well as turning some effects on/off in fx.
Therefore, the checkbox is much more concise for me, because it covers all other possible states/actions of the layer in addition to visibility.

P.S. Layers panel from Capture One
Image Alchemist | Capture One Layers Explained • Image Alchemist

image.png

Affinity Store: Affinity Suite (ADe, APh, APu) 1.10.5.1342.
Windows 10 Pro, Version 21H1, Build 19043.1586.
Dell Latitude E5570, i5-6440HQ 2.60 GHz, 8 GB, Intel HD Graphics 530, 1920 x 1080.
Dell OptiPlex 7060, i5-8500 3.00 GHz, 16 GB, Intel UHD Graphics 630, Dell P2417H 1920 x 1080.
Intel NUC5PGYH, Pentium N3700 2.40 GHz, 8 GB, Intel HD Graphics, EIZO EV2456 1920 x 1200.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Bryan Rieger said:

Unless you stay using the same version of the same application for the foreseeable future you are likely going to have relearn some aspect of the updated application (don't get me started on the Adobe 'properties' panels). It might be a change in iconography, an 'improved' version of a toolbar or palette system, a consolidation of menu items and commands, etc. Personally I wouldn't look at it as old users having to relearn stuff just to placate new users, but rather all of us having to adjust to what we hope are improvements in the evolution of a great product. 

I didn't say that. It might make sense to move it—it might not. User testing would help to discover what is more inline with user expectations and workflows, and whether any change was deemed necessary. Honestly, there are many more pressing issues in these products than whether a checkbox or eye icon sits to the left or right of the layer name.

I do take your points, and I have no problem with changes being made if they are also improvements. What I have a problem with is the number of people who ask for changes to be made simply to make Affinity apps more like other apps (usually Adobe ones!) without actually improving anything.

Acer XC-895 : Core i5-10400 Hexa-core 2.90 GHz :  32GB RAM : Intel UHD Graphics 630 : Windows 10 Home
Affinity Publisher : Affinity Photo : Affinity Designer (latest release versions) | Affinity Photo for iPad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is a bit hubristic to demand that Affinity Photo should be a copy of Photoshop, but for a low price. Not only that it would possibly cause legal problems, but also you should concede the developers to have their own style and to be free to improve their software and make inventions. Many people are of course accustomed to Photoshop, because it is still the market leader. But that doesn't mean that it does all things better. E.g. the layer management of Affinity software is a really interesting, user-friendly and cool thing. You only have to get used to it a little bit. Who wants to work with Photoshop should better work with Photoshop. If he/she purchases Affinity Photo anyway he/she might have reasons for it, I think. Probably even good reasons.

Edit: By the way, a Journalist who works for a magazine about photography and image editing recently told me that before Photoshop conquered the market, there was a software named ColorStudio, that was much better than Photoshop in the beginning. Photoshop overtook it because it made some things different and after a while even better. I would like to give Affinity the chance to do the same. For the benefit of us all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 6/2/2022 at 2:19 PM, walt.farrell said:

Basically, though, if you don't want it to nest drop it to the left of the target layer thumbnail.

Awesome little trick. For me it has been a kind of ignorant trial and error operation to get a layer to drop at the right place. Simply knowing to move it to the left to not get nested is so easy - now my movements are purposeful!

Crazy, how tiny bits of knowledge can have such a great impact on one's workflow 😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The layer stack UX design is indeed problematic, and it has less to do with the choice of a checkbox as an indicator for layer visibility, and more with the positioning of the checkbox to the far right of each layer row.

Placing the checkbox near the right causes a number of issues:

  • users tend to focus on the thumbnail and/or layer name to identify the layer they would want to select or work with. Because the visibility checkbox is located to the far right, it is impossible to tell in one glance whether one or more layers are visible: first the user checks the thumbnail or layer name to identify the layer, then the user's eyes must follow the layer row to the right to check if that layer is visible or not.
    Our eyes can only focus on a very small area and see details. In this particular case it is biologically impossible to identify the contents of a layer via the thumbnail AND identify whether that layer is visible or not.
    This is not an issue in other design software, because the visibility icon/indicator is always placed directly left to the thumbnail.
  • Vice versa, it is also problematic when the user needs to identify which layer contents belongs to a hidden layer. First the eye must identify the empty tiny checkbox, then follow the layer row to the left.
    This action is problematic not only because of the aforementioned issue, but also breaks a common rule that Western languages are written from left to right: to move from right to left with our eyes to identify information breaks that basic rule and causes cognitive friction.
  • The above issue is exacerbated due to the tiny checkbox: the on/off state is not clear enough. It takes true cognitive effort to visually identify which layers are visible and which are hidden when a number are hidden and others are visible. Our brain is forced to jump right to left and left to right in the layer stack for each layer, and up and down, double-checking along the way - rather than a simple downward traveling eye movement, capturing both the content and the visibility state simultaneously.
  • An additional issue is quickly identified when layers are locked and layer effects are assigned: those icons are also placed to the right of each layer stack row. There are multiple issues with this: for one, the meaning of the checkbox becomes ambiguous: is the layer FX active or inactive? Or the lock?
    More problematic however is the cognitive noise that occurs: our brain is forced to differentiate between these various icons near the right, increasing cognitive friction.
    One more issue is that the layer visibility checkbox is placed to the far right and the lock and fx icons to the left of that checkbox, creating an additional visual obstruction for the eye to travel to the left over the layer row to check which layer contents it belongs to. It all adds up to a rather high cognitive effort on the part of the user.
  • From a function perspective the layer visibility and layer properties (lock, fx, blending, opacity, etc.) are distinct and separate. Placing both the layer visibility indicator in the same area as the layer properties only serves to create more cognitive friction and noise. The two should be kept separated.
  • When layers are selected the checkbox colour is kept: a light gray. But the selection colour is a light background blue. In this context it becomes quite hard to visually differentiate between layers that are selected and identifying which are selected and which are not. Yet another hurdle to what should be a simple cognitive task.
  • Placing the visibility indicator to the left introduces a visual cue that organizes the layers better when multiple embedded groups are present in the layer stack. It is well known that readers have trouble understanding a paragraph of text that is set to ragged right aligned (left to right languages): it vastly reduces readability.
    It could be argued that without that stabilizing visibility icon column the users' eyes are forced to follow the indented groups - further reducing visible understanding of the layer stack.
  • placing the checkboxes to the far right does not seem to be consistent seeing that checkboxes in the Effects panel are placed to the left - which is more readable, of course. And which then brings to the fore: for what rational reason did the developers decide that placing these checkboxes to the far right would be a good idea? Because they obviously felt that it is more natural to place these to the left of the effects entries.
  • when the user widens the layer panel horizontally, placing the tiny checkboxes to the right begins to make even less sense. Fitt's law anyone? Why make life so hard for your users?
  • Which brings up the last point: should checkboxes have been used in the first place to indicate layer visibility? A checkbox basic meaning is "(not) active", rather than "(in)visible". An argument could be made against the use of a checkbox to indicate visibility, again from the standpoint of consistency: the aforementioned Effects panel seems to use checkboxes within the context of "an effect is either active or not". The meaning of a checkbox to indicate layer visibility seems somewhat ambiguous then. In particular seeing that in most design software with a layer stack an eye icon is used, it seems preferable to yield to common sense and accepted UI practices and accept the prevalent conceptual model, i.e. the eye icon.

All of which means this:

image.png.20715b3334ef79da47f1847d6eefbd1a.png

It is quite problematic to the user to figure out which layer is visible, and which is not. Even harder to understand which layer contents belongs to which visibility indicator. Our eyes are forced to jump all over the place.

Time someone other than yourself and ask them to identify which layers are visible and which are not.

Simply moving the checkboxes to the left and inverting the colour for selected layers resolves many of the above listed issues:

image.png.17b4be41658f7909c77034423b10b5fd.png

Now perform the same test with a bunch of users. Time them again.

I expect that the result will be thatit is FAR easier to complete this simple test with the second version. In my opinion the Affinity devs have never properly tested the user experience, and merely went by gut decisions, or whatever.

There exist a number of additional usability and functionality issues with Affinity Photo's layer stack;

  • customized blend options assigned to a layer are not indicated by a visual cue in the layer stack
  • it is not possible to drag over the visibility indicators (check boxes) to hide or show the content of layer in one motion
  • opacity value is not indicated
  • only three settings for thumbnail size
  • no option to alt-click visibility indicator to hide or show selected layer only (it is really different behaviour compared to the Solo mode)
  • layer colour tagging: similar issues related to the fact that the visibility indicator is positioned to the far right. Colour tagging again is more useful and easier to identify when pushed closer to the actual content thumbnail.

Moving the checkboxes to the left is "low hanging fruit". It simply improves usability and UX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Alida has two valid points:

  • The eye icon is a de facto standard in all applications. There is no reason to deviate from it in Affinity.
  • The algorithms and visual feedback for drag and drop need to be drastically improved. Dragging a layer under a layer (for clipping) is particularly problematic. Few pixels determine if it will be a success or failure and the visual feedback is weak, for the same reason we who work fast can make many unwanted moves of layers.

And a note: it's possible it's late and I'm exhausted and cranky... But Serif, I'm just tired and annoyed by the random civilians patrolling the forum. They are hopefully not employed by Serif and represent the company. We (the company and the employees I represent) may have a different profile than the average customer in here (with our commercial background), but we definitely expected a more professional forum. In some threads I see more emotion than in a political youth club, and when the debaters so often clearly do not have a professional background - or even understand the basic needs of professionals (big or small) - the forum is more of a scare and warning for professionals: "this is not for you".

Thanks to @Medical Officer Bones for a serious and well-researched post. And no, I will not spend any more of my time in this thread. I just wanted to note that Alida did indeed point out a significant problem - and my response is to Serif.

/Eddie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Customer Feedback said:

The algorithms and visual feedback for drag and drop need to be drastically improved. Dragging a layer under a layer (for clipping) is particularly problematic. Few pixels determine if it will be a success or failure and the visual feedback is weak, for the same reason we who work fast can make many unwanted moves of layers.

There are three drop zones: left of the thumbnail, on the thumbnail, and right of the thumbnail. 

And there are three kinds of feedback (different blue lines) to tell you what will happen.

I don't consider the feedback weak. A little practice, and a bit of observation while dragging, and it seems reasonable to me.

I do find it difficult, sometimes, to move a layer to the top of the stack or the bottom of the stack, so I probably need a little more practice in that area, myself.

-- Walt

   Desktop: new:  Windows 11 Home, version 21H2 (22000.613) 64GB memory, AMD Ryzen 9 5900 12-Core @ 3.00 GHz, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090  (old: 16GB memory, Intel Core i7-6700K @ 4.00GHz, GeForce GTX 970 )
   Laptop:  Windows 10 Home, version 21H2 (19044.1706) 32GB memory, Intel Core i7-10750H @ 2.60GHz, Intel UHD Graphics Comet Lake GT2 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU.
    Affinity Photo 1.10.5 (.1342) and 1.10.5.1342 Beta   / Affinity Designer 1.10.5 (.1342) and 1.10.5.1342 Beta  / Affinity Publisher 1.10.5 (.1342) and 1.10.5.1282 Beta
 iPad Pro M1, 12.9", iPadOS 15.4.1, Apple Pencil 2, Magic Keyboard

  Affinity Photo 1.10.5 (.280) and 1.10.2 (.266) Beta / Affinity Designer 1.10.5 (.21) and 1.10.3 (.19) Beta 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, walt.farrell said:

I do find it difficult, sometimes, to move a layer to the top of the stack or the bottom of the stack,

I usually find it easier to use a keyboard shortcut for this, rather than trying to drag the layers. (Bottom: "Ctrl+Shift+[" - Top:  "Ctrl+Shift+]")

Acer XC-895 : Core i5-10400 Hexa-core 2.90 GHz :  32GB RAM : Intel UHD Graphics 630 : Windows 10 Home
Affinity Publisher : Affinity Photo : Affinity Designer (latest release versions) | Affinity Photo for iPad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
12 hours ago, Customer Feedback said:

....warning for professionals: "this is not for you".

Thanks for your late night thoughts. I have now moderated this thread a little and I am closely monitoring it going forward. This forum should absolutely be a place for professionals to feel comfortable. I also mirror your appreciation of Medical Officer Bones thoughts and efforts to make the tone of this thread more appropriate.

Patrick Connor
Serif Europe Ltd

"There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man. True nobility lies in being superior to your previous self."  W. L. Sheldon

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just one small point regarding whether the layer visibility checkbox should be on the left or the right, (personally I don't really care if it's a tick box, an eye, or whatever). As it is, on the right, it is with the layer lock and fx indicators. Not only is it easier to "scan" if all three indicators are together, but it also means they line up vertically, which makes it easier to check which layers are visible or not. If it were on the left it would, I assume, shift it's position slightly on any offset child layers.

Acer XC-895 : Core i5-10400 Hexa-core 2.90 GHz :  32GB RAM : Intel UHD Graphics 630 : Windows 10 Home
Affinity Publisher : Affinity Photo : Affinity Designer (latest release versions) | Affinity Photo for iPad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, PaulEC said:

If it were on the left

My opinion - when orienting in the layers panel, I primarily use the name and thumbnail of the layer, not whether or not it is active / visible. It is therefore quite logical that the supplementary information about the layer's state and activity, like the information about its locking, is only in the second sequence, not immediately at the beginning of the layer. I just need to find the layer first - identify it in the layers panel, and only then perform some operations with it - for example, set its activity, fx, lock it, etc.

Affinity Store: Affinity Suite (ADe, APh, APu) 1.10.5.1342.
Windows 10 Pro, Version 21H1, Build 19043.1586.
Dell Latitude E5570, i5-6440HQ 2.60 GHz, 8 GB, Intel HD Graphics 530, 1920 x 1080.
Dell OptiPlex 7060, i5-8500 3.00 GHz, 16 GB, Intel UHD Graphics 630, Dell P2417H 1920 x 1080.
Intel NUC5PGYH, Pentium N3700 2.40 GHz, 8 GB, Intel HD Graphics, EIZO EV2456 1920 x 1200.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Patrick Connor said:

I have now moderated this thread a little

If the contributions are adjusted (censorship of contributions is probably understood here as a sign of professionalism), so it would be appropriate to cancel the reaction to this devalued contribution. In all probability, the reaction could have been about a passage that had just been removed, so that they completely lost their meaning. Thank you.

Affinity Store: Affinity Suite (ADe, APh, APu) 1.10.5.1342.
Windows 10 Pro, Version 21H1, Build 19043.1586.
Dell Latitude E5570, i5-6440HQ 2.60 GHz, 8 GB, Intel HD Graphics 530, 1920 x 1080.
Dell OptiPlex 7060, i5-8500 3.00 GHz, 16 GB, Intel UHD Graphics 630, Dell P2417H 1920 x 1080.
Intel NUC5PGYH, Pentium N3700 2.40 GHz, 8 GB, Intel HD Graphics, EIZO EV2456 1920 x 1200.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
11 minutes ago, Pšenda said:

If the contributions are adjusted (censorship of contributions is probably understood here as a sign of professionalism), so it would be appropriate to cancel the reaction to this devalued contribution. In all probability, the reaction could have been about a passage that had just been removed, so that they completely lost their meaning. Thank you.

If you feel your moderated post has lost it's meaning you, like all members, have the facility to hide it.

To all readers: Anyone thinking of posting contributions who is bothered about (or in order to get) "reactions" from others, should be posting on twitter, not this forum.

Patrick Connor
Serif Europe Ltd

"There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man. True nobility lies in being superior to your previous self."  W. L. Sheldon

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A properly conducted usability test should provide useful insights here.

From a functional perspective, speaking for myself and from observations of students while working in Photoshop, hiding and showing layers is an action performed many times more than locking a layer or opening the layer effects via that icon.

I stand by my hypothesis that moving the visibility function to the far left will allow a user a more convenient and efficient workflow. At the very least Affinity is (as far as I am aware) the only design app that positions the layer visibility function to the far right, which does seem to go against most designers' conceptual model that they created based on prior experiences with design software.

Notice that Capture One (example posted earlier in this thread) also sticks to this convention.

In UX design it is considered bad practice to break accepted conventions unless that new approach affords a clear advantage over the older method. In this particular case I struggle to see such benefits, and it is rather obvious what the disadvantages are.

From personal anecdotal experience, when I work in Affinity Photo I notice that I am slowed down by that right aligned checkbox. As for the exact reasons? Well, that is why a simple usability test would bring some clarification in this matter 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note there is currently a delay in replying to some post. See pinned thread in the Questions forum. 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.