Jump to content
You must now use your email address to sign in [click for more info] ×

I have Deleted V2 and Gone Back to V1


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Dangerous said:

When word went from 2007 to 2010 (doc to docx) a similar situation occurred, you could not open docx with 2007 so after creating a fancy document with the full formatting tool of 2010

The equivalent here would be

- Word 2010 not being able to export to .doc, but only .docx* and

- users complaining about Affinity V1 not being able to handle V2 features.

Both is not the case.

Data supported by V1 should be usable by V1. Be it exported by V1 or by V2.
 

*There's even an online instruction for ensuring compatibility:

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/create-or-save-a-document-for-earlier-versions-of-word-8892a0fb-b3d3-4e0d-b5de-cb2cb730ef38

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, walt.farrell said:

Not being able to open 2.0 files in 1.10 (or 1.9, or ...) just continues that characteristic.

That's been a pain already. But they didn't change system requirements during V1 (that I'm aware of). The "only" thing holding you back from updating was fear of bugs (quite plausible, but not quite the dealbreaker as comes with V2).

Sorry for double post, don't know how to cut & paste quotes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, shushustorm said:

they didn't change system requirements during V1 (that I'm aware of)

They did: ADe & APh 1.8.4 from the Mac App Store still run on Mountain Lion. I still have them installed on a that partition.
v1.9 and above required at least Mavericks, I guess. So in 2019 I finally moved over to El Capitan…

MacBookAir 15": MacOS Ventura > Affinity v1, v2, v2 beta // MacBookPro 15" mid-2012: MacOS El Capitan > Affinity v1 / MacOS Catalina > Affinity v1, v2, v2 beta // iPad 8th: iPadOS 16 > Affinity v2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/12/2022 at 12:32 PM, loukash said:

Well, an icon designer doesn't necessarily have to be skilled in programming applications. Those are two completely different things. You're comparing apples with … beachballs (of death ;)) here.

It would be cool if you could just use your own icons instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Laura Ess said:

It would be cool if you could just use your own icons instead.

That was absolutely possible in the early Mac-only versions 1.8.4 and earlier:

ade184_app_resources_icons.png.b1e370a6ae79eda04381e0cb8244e76c.png

You can replace each PNG in the app's Resources folder as long as it has the same file name and dimensions.

But from an engineer's point of view it's likely a p.i.t.a. to maintain in cross-platform development, hence all resources are now stored in monolithic dynamic library files that are not user editable. (Not that these files were meant to be user editable! Only mess with things inside an app package if you absolutely know what you're doing and you are aware of all consequences! ;))

MacBookAir 15": MacOS Ventura > Affinity v1, v2, v2 beta // MacBookPro 15" mid-2012: MacOS El Capitan > Affinity v1 / MacOS Catalina > Affinity v1, v2, v2 beta // iPad 8th: iPadOS 16 > Affinity v2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Staff

This news will possibly help some in this thread, also posted here as an FAQ

 

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

On 11/13/2022 at 1:18 PM, Dangerous said:

When word went from 2007 to 2010 (doc to docx) a similar situation occurred, you could not open docx with 2007 so after creating a fancy document with the full formatting tool of 2010 the only way to pass it on to 2007 users was to use the built in Save As .doc format. All your fancy formats went haywire and you had reform the doc in 2007. 

In Ver 2 you can copy & past layers over to Ver 1. What will happen with layers that contain the new features I don't know other than if you warp text in Ver 2 AD and copy the croup to Ver 1 AD it will remain warped but convert to curves.

We think alike. I was thinking specifically about Word and all the compatibility formats it had to handle over the years as formats were revised/updated. I can't remember what it supported and when, but I remember there always being a long list of deprecated formats in drop downs. That's just a word processor. It's more complicated for a graphics suite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/13/2022 at 10:30 PM, Dangerous said:

I know that radio buttons are mutually exclusive, I also knew when I saw the first post mentioning them that it was about the look and not the action. I also knew that the image was of the check buttons at the ends of TWO layers which is clear to see by the line dividing them. Either a solid dot (ON) or a hollow dot (OFF) is just another version of a square with a tick or a square without a tick. It is simple to understand.

I was unsure about the dots but a dot I can see compared to a dot I can barely see, the meaning is clear and the difference is night & day.

Well - no it isn't - as you can see from previous posts.

The issue is about the look and the action.

A HOLLOW dot is just a Radio Button - it is not the same as a solid dot because the outer circle provides a point of reference.

There are 2 issues here :-

1. One is consistency.
99.999% of apps adopt the Mac user interface guidelines - Radio Buttons of whatever form are mutually exclusive - and therefore not suitable for things like enabling/disabling non-mutually-exclusive items such as layers.

2. The other is usability.
Grey dots on a grey background are ambiguous - being able to tell what is ON or what is OFF depends on the user's ability to discriminate 'shades of grey'.

There is a reason why the term 'shades of grey' has become a synonym for 'unclear'.

So - as far as v2 is concerned :-

- anything resembling a Radio Button is not appropriate for layers - because layers are not mutually-exclusive

- solid dots don't work because they are ambiguous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gary.JONES said:

There are 2 issues here :-

1. One is consistency.
99.999% of apps adopt the Mac user interface guidelines - Radio Buttons of whatever form are mutually exclusive - and therefore not suitable for things like enabling/disabling non-mutually-exclusive items such as layers.

2. The other is usability.
Grey dots on a grey background are ambiguous - being able to tell what is ON or what is OFF depends on the user's ability to discriminate 'shades of grey'.

There is a reason why the term 'shades of grey' has become a synonym for 'unclear'.

So - as far as v2 is concerned :-

- anything resembling a Radio Button is not appropriate for layers - because layers are not mutually-exclusive

- solid dots don't work because they are ambiguous.

Completely agree.

Windows 10 22H2, 32GB RAM | Affinity Designer/Photo/Publisher 2 (MSI/EXE)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/13/2022 at 7:29 AM, Dangerous said:

Why would you expect an old version of a program to open the files of a new version with incompatible features and why would you want  to?

If you are 'trying out' a new program it make sense to duplicate the file and open the dup or open the file and SAVE AS giving it a similar name just in case till you are ready to commit fully to the new program. When I try things I'm not sure about I copy the files (have copied over 10 gig of files 'just in case') so I don't mess up. Commonsense really.

The reason compatibility between V1 and V2 is important is that a file that is created in an old version may need editing from clients. So a graphic designer would have to keep both programs and the downfall is that the old one isn't going to supported. That's a huge issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, michie said:

The reason compatibility between V1 and V2 is important is that a file that is created in an old version may need editing from clients. So a graphic designer would have to keep both programs and the downfall is that the old one isn't going to supported. That's a huge issue.

AND newer OS version requirements mean that it's only a matter of time before the V1 can't run on the platforms necessary for V2...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have to agree with Designer1234. Windows, software is not usually rendered unusable by Windows operating system upgrades, at least not during my more than 30 years using Windows beginning around 1990 with Windows 3.0. 

As a certified software dinosaur, I continue to use Microsoft Office 2000 (including Word, Excel, Publisher, Access), which is now more than 22 years old. There have been about seven versions of Windows since Office 2000 was released. 

Until last week I was using Eudora for e-mail. It hasn't been updated since it was orphaned by Qualcomm in 2006. It remains the finest e-mail application I've ever used. I was forced off it not by Windows updates but by my e-mail providers who stopped supporting older authentication protocols that are unknown to Eudora. 

It has never been Windows upgrades that made my older software unusable.

Affinity Photo 2.4.2 (MSI) and 1.10.6; Affinity Publisher 2.4.2 (MSI) and 1.10.6. Windows 10 Home x64 version 22H2.
Dell XPS 8940, 16 GB Ram, Intel Core i7-11700K @ 3.60 GHz, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/12/2022 at 12:18 PM, Gary.JONES said:

The thing with these 'check-dots' is that there is no point of reference.

With checkboxes, the box itself is the point of reference.

There is no value in showing a set of check-dots next to each other, some on and some off, and hi lighting the difference,
because the fact that they are in different states provides a point of reference (assuming they are adjacent).

If all check-dots are in the same state (either ON or OFF), then there is NO point of reference.
They just all look the same, and there is no way to be certain which state they are in.

This design element depends on the user making a judgement regarding the level of grey / contrast in the panel,
which is really bad from a design point of view.

Tell me - is this layer ON or Off ?

 

Ignoring the truncated text, there is just no way to tell.

If you compare the grey level to the adjacent text, you might guess that it is OFF - or is it ON ??

Try adjusting the contrast on your monitor, the button can easily disappear completely - unfortunately I can't show you because a screen grab won't capture that.

The UI needs to be sensitive to different usage scenarios - such a high-contrast for vision-impaired users.

When a binary control like an on/off button has no inherent point of reference, and depends on the contrast setting of the monitor, and the user's subjective judgement of brightness, it is just bad design.

This is how it should be done ... always.

Straight from the latest MacOS - but the same principle applies regardless of OS :-

- sets of buttons are clearly delineated from the background
- buttons within a set are mutually exclusive
- individual buttons include a frame of reference - a circle with a well defined perimeter
- the ON state is defined by FOUR changes of contrast
     - one forming an outer annulus that is well resolved from the background
     - one formed by linear shading within the outer perimeter - that accentuates the OFF state
     - one formed by a solid uniform dot in the centre - that accentuates the ON state
     - one formed by a change of colour (blue) within the outer annulus - that reinforces the ON state

all of which together make the state of the button unambiguous, and independent of display contrast.

Untitled 4.png

For those who prefer monochrome icons, the first 3 references still apply ...
you can still tell from across the room that 'Always' is on.

image.png.d059df177f5c732838627183cd0f412c.png

Untitled 4 Mono.afphoto

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Granddaddy said:

Have to agree with Designer1234. Windows, software is not usually rendered unusable by Windows operating system upgrades, at least not during my more than 30 years using Windows beginning around 1990 with Windows 3.0. 

As a certified software dinosaur, I continue to use Microsoft Office 2000 (including Word, Excel, Publisher, Access), which is now more than 22 years old. There have been about seven versions of Windows since Office 2000 was released. 

Until last week I was using Eudora for e-mail. It hasn't been updated since it was orphaned by Qualcomm in 2006. It remains the finest e-mail application I've ever used. I was forced off it not by Windows updates but by my e-mail providers who stopped supporting older authentication protocols that are unknown to Eudora. 

It has never been Windows upgrades that made my older software unusable.

My apologies. For Windows users unaware of what's coming to them, I should have made it clear that this is only currently a problem for iOS and MacOS, the original platform for Affinity Designer.

 

If you think UWP and the Microsoft Store and the changes to the ways things are going aren't aiming for exclusion based on features of the OS of Windows, largely under the guise of security, then you're going to be surprised by the next few years. Or you could take a look at the proof of concept that's been UWP and why Tim Sweeney was so heavily protesting it, and how Apple handles these matters at the compilation and app signing level, and what the T1 and T2 chips ushered in for device and OS security. Keep in mind, Intel, AMD and the motherboard makers have been up to the same magic. The hardware is already here. Now it's only a matter of time and tide...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add to the opinion here ...

It looks to me that the beautifully-designed v1 app originally developed for the Mac Platform has been dumbed down and mangled into an ugly compromise, to make it compatible with Windows and to meet a marketing deadline.

Much of the elegance of MacOS + v1 has been stripped out in favour of middle-of-the-road solutions designed by committee.

For anyone who goes to the Affinity website, one word stands out ... the first word on their home page ...

PROFESSIONAL

Professional creatives want professional tools.

Mac creatives want tools that leverage the elegant simplicity of MacOS - and which are consistent across Mac platforms and with the MacOS usability guidelines.

Not something that's been deconstructed, then rebuilt using stone knives and bearskins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gary.JONES said:

For anyone who goes to the Affinity website, one word stands out ... the first word on their home page ...

PROFESSIONAL

In fairness, the first letters of the first word are:

PR

Which is, at least, the focus of the company, it seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Gary.JONES said:

You might be right !

My comment was a reference to the aspiration, rather than the result :)

I'm with you all the way on the Apple Usability Guidelines. They're the most researched and well done in the industry of Operating Systems, and exist exactly for companies like Affinity (lacking in actual insight into and innate understanding of usability) such that if they were to simply follow the guidelines the results will be good, by default. Not great, but definitely not bad. Then they could, if they followed those guidelines, mirror the experience across to the Windows app editions, and inadvertently create a degree of discoverability and common sense in UI/UX flow that's largely foreign to apps designed expressly for/to Windows. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its kind of interesting how that turned out, i just hope they made some really large changes under the hood and we will see some big things later when new flow of money from v2 licenses comes in. (i was expecting bit different direction for v2 launch)

Core i7 4770 - AMD Radeon RX 6500XT - 32GB RAM - Asus z87-Pro - Asus Phoebus - Windows 7 x64 SP1 / Windows 10 x64) - https://danielmoravek.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, deeds said:

I'm with you all the way on the Apple Usability Guidelines. They're the most researched and well done in the industry of Operating Systems, and exist exactly for companies like Affinity (lacking in actual insight into and innate understanding of usability) such that if they were to simply follow the guidelines the results will be good, by default. Not great, but definitely not bad. Then they could, if they followed those guidelines, mirror the experience across to the Windows app editions, and inadvertently create a degree of discoverability and common sense in UI/UX flow that's largely foreign to apps designed expressly for/to Windows. 

image.png.6071f508f069f8c256deb4ced75f261b.png

Created in Affinity Photo VERSION 1 (because I've deleted v2).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gary.JONES said:

To add to the opinion here ...

It looks to me that the beautifully-designed v1 app originally developed for the Mac Platform has been dumbed down and mangled into an ugly compromise, to make it compatible with Windows and to meet a marketing deadline.

Much of the elegance of MacOS + v1 has been stripped out in favour of middle-of-the-road solutions designed by committee.

For anyone who goes to the Affinity website, one word stands out ... the first word on their home page ...

PROFESSIONAL

Professional creatives want professional tools.

Mac creatives want tools that leverage the elegant simplicity of MacOS - and which are consistent across Mac platforms and with the MacOS usability guidelines.

Not something that's been deconstructed, then rebuilt using stone knives and bearskins.

But Affinity is cross platform apps for both Mac & Windows creatives & pros. which need to maintain UI consistency between OS.. Some degree of compromise is unavoidable 🙂 just like Adobe, blender, etc

Hopefully, UI things get improved soon based on user feedbacks.

But I still appreciate that all apps are built natively
Lot of other companies doing much worse cross-platform implementation by using a kind of web/electron, flutter, java or own platform that clunky, eg: Adobe XD, Ms Onenote, Teams, Evernote, etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gary.JONES said:

It looks to me that the beautifully-designed v1 app originally developed for the Mac Platform has been dumbed down and mangled into an ugly compromise, to make it compatible with Windows and to meet a marketing deadline.

I can appreciate your affinity for MacOS, but the Affinity v1 apps were compatible with Windows. I wonder if the v2 UI decisions were influenced more by the design team’s style judgments / preferences rather than to accommodate Windows OS.

Windows 10 22H2, 32GB RAM | Affinity Designer/Photo/Publisher 2 (MSI/EXE)

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...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | 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.