Solve page numbering problem please

[Australopithicus]

From the enclosed screen shot you can see the upper two pages 98 and 99, have continued to next, lower pages as double numbering: 10/0 and 10/1. This double numbering continues throughout.

Clearly, I have somewhere duplicated Master page numbering but I cannot figure out where to correct the pagination/numbering requirements.

As always, any help appreciated.

[joe_l]

18 minutes ago, Australopithicus said:

As always, any help appreciated.

Your text frame for the page numbering is simply not wide enough. Just make it a bit wider.

[Australopithicus]

Hi Joe,

Silly Me!

Thank you for pointing that out.

Best Wishes,

 

 

[Pšenda]

2 hours ago, Australopithicus said:

From the enclosed screen shot you can see

I recommend providing images that will really "display" the problem. These huge images, which show completely insignificant parts of the screen, make orientation difficult.

P.S. the crossed-out red eye symbol indicates a problem that the inserted text does not fit in the text box.

[carl123]

10 minutes ago, Pšenda said:

I recommend providing images that will really "display" the problem. These huge images, which show completely insignificant parts of the screen, make orientation difficult.

On the contrary, I find a full-size screenshot is normally more informative.

In this case, if the user had just supplied a smaller screenshot showing just the page number at the bottom of page 100 you would have seen an "unidentifiable graphic" to the left of it, which could have led to some confusion.

But since we can see the layers panel, we can see that that "graphic" is just an unused Picture frame on the Master page and thus not relevant to the problem reported

[Pšenda]

3 minutes ago, carl123 said:

On the contrary, I find a full-size screenshot is normally more informative.

Yes, if the image is able to capture full resolution. In this case, the contents of the image are unreadable due to its size.
For example, I don't see a problem with 10/0 and 10/1 - I have to guess.

[thomaso]

2 hours ago, Pšenda said:

I recommend providing images that will really "display" the problem. These huge images, which show completely insignificant parts of the screen, make orientation difficult.

2 hours ago, Pšenda said:

Yes, if the image is able to capture full resolution. In this case, the contents of the image are unreadable due to its size.

To me its full size is 5120 x 2880 px/ 2.2 MB. (click to zoom)

How does Zooming work for you / in Windows?

To me on mac it is a two-step / 2-click procedure to access a large image in its full resolution. (… aside the option to download the file)
I'd assume this is a feature of the forum's software and would work the same on every platform (or browser), – doesn't it?

[Pšenda]

1 hour ago, thomaso said:

To me on mac it is a two-step / 2-click procedure to access a large image in its full resolution. (… aside the option to download the file)

It also works on Win / Chrome, but quite unreliable - often the cursor does not change, so the image closes the second time you click. It is also a pleasure to view such images on a tablet and phone, so this reduces the chances of a quick response. But it is up to everyone in what form it provides information to someone it asks for help.

[thomaso]

13 minutes ago, Pšenda said:

often the cursor does not change, so the image closes the second time you click.

This can happen here, too, – but only for those images which are displayed already in 100 % pixel size after my 1st click. For those I need to download them for further zoom in. Depending on the website I alternatively can use the browser's zoom keys "cmd +". (works in the forum, too, while other websites even reduce the viewed size with the "cmd +" shortcut.

What might influence this that it does not work for you here with this obviously large image?

[R C-R]

2 hours ago, thomaso said:

Depending on the website I alternatively can use the browser's zoom keys "cmd +". (works in the forum, too, while other websites even reduce the viewed size with the "cmd +" shortcut.

For me using the Mac Safari browser, ⌘+ is the same as using View > Zoom In and ⌘- is the same as using View > Zoom Out. This always works as expected in this forum.

[Australopithicus]

Well Joe_I showed me what a silly oversight I had made.

The ensuing debate about screen shots was nevertheless illuminating.
What Psenda said about choosing smaller area of screen assumes I know the possible cause of the problem which I did not. As for screen resolution generally, at 5120 x 2880 I can only assume Psenda is having difficulties due to file/resolution incompatibility? Most unfortunate for a helpful fellow.

Thanks for the considerations guys,

 

 

[walt.farrell]

8 hours ago, Australopithicus said:

The ensuing debate about screen shots was nevertheless illuminating.
What Psenda said about choosing smaller area of screen assumes I know the possible cause of the problem which I did not. As for screen resolution generally, at 5120 x 2880 I can only assume Psenda is having difficulties due to file/resolution incompatibility? Most unfortunate for a helpful fellow.

Often a screenshot of the full application window is appropriate, and needed. So it is always good to include one, in my opinion. In some other cases I've seen, it can reveal interesting things, such as the user is not using the application they said they were using, or not using the Tool they said they were using. But it can also let us see something in the Context Toolbar (or elsewhere) that explains the problem, that we would not have known without seeing the full window.

On the other hand, if there is something happening in a very small part of the window, it can also help to have a zoomed-in view of that, so when the problem is with how a page number appears, it can help to have a screenshot that focuses on that, in addition.

18 hours ago, R C-R said:

For me using the Mac Safari browser, ⌘+ is the same as using View > Zoom In and ⌘- is the same as using View > Zoom Out. This always works as expected in this forum.

For me, if I'm looking directly at an image in a post, or even clicking on it once, both Ctrl++ and View > Zoom In will frequently shrink the image. I usually need to click the image to get the full version, then right-click and use "View image in new tab", and then in the new tab zooming in will actually enlarge the image. (This is on Windows, usually with Firefox.)

[R C-R]

1 hour ago, walt.farrell said:

For me, if I'm looking directly at an image in a post, or even clicking on it once, both Ctrl++ and View > Zoom In will frequently shrink the image.

What browser do you normally use? Is it the same if you try using a different one?