Tables across multiple pages

[photohap]

Reading the forums I see that tables continued across multiple pages can not be done with publisher.

The only work around I see is to create a master page with a table, then on each page have text box overlaying the table and autoflow the text with the text box.

Is this the only way to do this?  With indesign it is super easy to autoflow the tables themselves.  I am just looking for a workaround a bit more streamlined.

[PaoloT]

46 minutes ago, photohap said:

tables continued across multiple pages can not be done with publisher

That's right. It's not possible, and I fear your workaround can't work. In any case, a table that should extend over multiple pages can't do it. The only possible workaround is to manually break it into multiple tables.

Needless to say, this is not a viable solution in many, if not in most, cases.

Paolo

 

[loukash]

3 hours ago, anto said:

A workaround way how to use Tables across multiple pages.

That's clever!

To make the table more interactive, here's an enhanced workaround, but it requires the Designer persona as well:

1. create a "non-printing" master page at least as tall as your whole multipage table will be
   (the maximum available page height is about 26 meter so you've got a plenty of headroom here )
2. still on this master page, create your table with all its content
3. switch to Designer persona and create a Symbol of the table
4. Toggle Master View button to switch to regular pages
5. place the table symbol instance on the page, inside the clipping rectangle as in your example
6. proceed on other pages and clip each of the table symbol instances as you see fit
7. then you can go back to the Publisher persona to sweat out the details…

The benefit of Symbols is that changing cell text content or even cell background color should keep all symbol instances in sync. That works from the "master table page" as well as from regular pages because the "master" page is not applied as an actual master anywhere; the master page itself serves us only as a kind of "scrapbook" page here, so its content is not being detached.

Caveat:
Merging cells or deleting rows or columns seems to break the Symbol synchronization, likely because the underlying algorithm doesn't exactly understand what's happening when editing a Table object. 
However, you can always "refresh" broken sync by placing a new Symbol instance via the Designer persona and deleting the now detached instance. A partially detached symbol instance is marked with a dashed vertical line in the Layers panel (at least in v1).

Example:

The "table master" page with the full table (here the page size is 210×420 mm but that's irrelevant because we'll never use it as an actual page):

 

A symbol instance of the table placed on a regular A4 page inside a red clipping rectangle:

 

Another symbol instance of the same table on page 2, clipped differently:

 

"Master table page" viewed from the Designer persona, with the Table1 in the Symbols panel:

 

Editing the Table symbol text content from the master page:

 

All symbols still in sync as seen on the regular page:

 

But it needs some more experimenting to figure out which table object attributes are syncable and which not…

~~~

On 11/19/2022 at 10:48 PM, photohap said:

With indesign it is super easy to autoflow the tables themselves.

That's because InDesign treats tables as part of the text frame content.
Whereas in Publisher, tables are a unique type of objects. Hence all you can do with them at the moment is to pin them if you want them to flow with the text by some means. I'd call this a "basic concept flaw", to put it mildly.

[loukash]

5 minutes ago, loukash said:

Caveat:
Merging cells or deleting rows or columns seems to break the Symbol synchronization, likely because the underlying algorithm doesn't exactly understand what's happening when editing a Table object. 

Alright, good news:
Deleting rows, columns, merging cells etc. works if done in the Designer persona on the "table master page". The symbols on regular pages in Publisher persona will then stay in sync.
There's no Table panel in Designer persona, but you can still edit lots of table attributes via context menu or context toolbar, as the Table tool will activate in Designer e.g. if you select multiple cells.

[v_kyr]

Hint to maybe keep in mind:   Personally, I always hate it when long tables with many columns run over several pages without taking over the table headings on consecutive pages. As can sadly be seen in some IT-magazines -for device tests and their listed test results or specs- I tend to commonly read. There you've then always have to scroll back and forth in order to see what which column entry was meant for.

Thus I personally would also take the headings again over on tables which flow about pages!

[thomaso]

3 hours ago, anto said:

An easiest and fastest workaround how to use Tables across multiple pages, change and manage them.

1 minute ago, v_kyr said:

I personally would also take the headings again over on tables which flow about pages!

Instead of adding extra rows on every page and paste the header layout and contents it appears quite useful to place a separate object on a master page containing the header only.

[loukash]

22 minutes ago, loukash said:

Deleting rows, columns, merging cells etc. works if done in the Designer persona on the "table master page". The symbols on regular pages in Publisher persona will then stay in sync.

It should actually also work from Publisher's master page.

Also if the table isn't overly long, you can likely skip the master page step and create the Symbol directly on a regular page.

Also to keep in mind:
You will have to switch the parent clipping rectangle's Lock Children status on and off, depending on what you want to do with it.

[loukash]

11 minutes ago, v_kyr said:

Thus I personally would also take the headings again over on tables which flow about pages!

Additional master pages (in fact: master layers) are our friends!  

[thomaso]

51 minutes ago, loukash said:

The benefit of Symbols is that changing cell text content or even cell background color should keep all symbol instances in sync. That works from the "master table page" as well as from regular pages because the "master" page is not applied as an actual master anywhere; the master page itself serves us only as a kind of "scrapbook" page here, so its content is not being detached.

Caveat:
Merging cells or deleting rows or columns seems to break the Symbol synchronization,

Why not just using a master page containing the table + a clipping rectangle –> then adjust the displayed table detail on every page. Well, it requires to "Detach" the master layer on every page at least once … but may synchronize more reliable than Symbols?

[loukash]

7 minutes ago, loukash said:

It should actually also work from Publisher's master page.

Also if the table isn't overly long, you can likely skip the master page step and create the Symbol directly on a regular page.

Alright, I think now I understand the mechanism of symbol detaching:

• If the symbols are in layers that belong to the regular page, then all remains in snyc.
• If you place the symbol in a layer that belongs to a master page – e.g. by pinning it to a text frame that resides on a master page – then the symbol will detach if edited from the regular page, and needs to be edited on the corresponding master page to remain in sync. There is logic in there…

1 minute ago, thomaso said:

Why not just using a master page containing the table + a clipping rectangle –> then adjust the displayed table detail on every page. Well, it requires to "Detach" the master layer on every page at least once … but may synchronize more reliable than Symbols?

I think I tried that already and it didn't work as expected.
Symbols have the benefit of behaving as an isolating object and you can edit them centrally. Master page objects don't seem as "robust" to me.
Also see above.

[loukash]

I love symbols!  

But… you need to treat them well as they can have their own mind sometimes…

In any case, this workaround solves the table issue for me.
Your mileage may vary…

[François R]

1 hour ago, loukash said:

That's clever!

Smart in a 1990s kind of way, maybe, but ... no, not really. 

Affinity Publisher, "setting new standards", even though Affinity does not do so at all, e.g. by supporting tables over multiple pages, can via this primitive workaround in no way create accessible PDFs for digital distribution, which is a natural legal requirement in the EU, and which is a hell of a gentlemanly way to create digital documents in a civilized world. Legal requirement or not. Expect it to be required in other parts of the world.

But that's probably not so relevant either, since serious players have not invested in Affinity Publisher at all at this point, since Publisher can't create accessible PDFs at all! It would have been a clever and well timed move, now Serif Software designed all Affinity programs and architecture from scratch not many years ago, but no. You get the 1990's in the 2020's! And swear by it! Interesting.

You are messing around with ancient practices to create outdated PDFs with an outdated program. I think it's fine for making printed menus for pizzerias, but otherwise... good luck with your stone-hammer, Publisher.

You end up seriously behind the curve in the world and digital industries, and if your frame of reference is old versions of Adobe that are also naturally outdated since they are retired and from another time, then you are effectively living in isolation from moving forward in an industry that is constantly evolving. Unless you're making pizza menus, of course.

[loukash]

@François R, seriously, why are you even still wasting your precious time posting here? If Affinity is not the adequate tool for you, use another one.
It's really that simple.™
Bye.

[thomaso]

4 minutes ago, loukash said:

If Affinity is not the adequate tool for you, use another one.
It's really that simple.™
Bye.

Hardly. Not only was the new Affinity V2 announced to be newly developed/coded but also it is announced to set a new standard for graphic design / desktop publishing or "push the boundaries of what's possible with creative technology" – which conflicts with the behaviour of the resulting products, leading not only to long time existing bugs of V1 but also causing more bug reports in its first months than v1 did in its beginning … leading since weeks to the warning excuse "our response time is longer than usual currently".

Thus there is a conflicting contradiction between announcements & reality: if one believes the announcements and keeps hope alive then the bug experience doesn't fit – if one trusts the amount of bug reports than the announcements appear to be simply™ wrong.

Do you really not recognise the dilemma?

[loukash]

Just now, thomaso said:

Do you really not recognise the dilemma?

I do.
But I'm not resorting to constant bitching. All this criticism has already been said in the past 2 months. And before that. Serif should have obviously taken notice. If Serif doesn't want to learn from it, it's their decision. Meh.
So move on.
Be creative!  

Personally, I don't see any constructive benefit in being a grumpy old fart that makes everything associated with Affinity small just because Serif failed to fulfill my high expectations. I have fun exploring and crossing boundaries of the apps and sharing them here nonetheless. And no, I'm not massively overwhelmed by v2 either. Definitely not enough to boot my MacBook from Catalina daily. Pry my El Capitan (and thus v1) from my cold, dead hands, ha!

[thomaso]

17 hours ago, loukash said:

just because Serif failed to fulfill my high expectations. I have fun exploring and crossing boundaries of the apps and sharing them here nonetheless.

The disappointing or confusing, misleading points seem to have been started initially by Serif by deliberately setting high expectations – without mentioning their real goals. I also see and share the fun (interest) in detecting issues & possible workarounds – but I also understand the anger of users who need reliable tools to work efficiently for their clients & their high expectations. The low price doesn't help those who keep getting triggered by Serif's warm promises or enthusiastic announcements for high expectations.

There was no real need to release V2 at its current stage – but now the marketing announcements seem to ignore the quality, even though users may have expected from an upgrade to fix the major V1 bugs at least. I don't agree with the idea that all "criticism is said, meh, move on", because that position could also mean moving on in exactly the same way. If you personally expect critical users to simply not use Affinity, they could reply you could simply ignore their complaints. This mood reminds me of the long, emotional but rather useless thread "Is Affinity dead?" in which an intense user tried to push the release date of V2. – For what?

Yes, criticism does not solve problems, but it is one prerequisite for developing solutions – while long-lasting problems may lead to long-lasting criticism. With V1 users knew meanwhile what they have and thus not having V2 was neither a bug nor a problem – but having V2 in an inefficient state appears to cause both. This becomes more uncomfortable by the fact that users can't toggle between V1 and V2 because of the lacking backwards compatibility, a project started in V2 can't get continued in V1 even if a certain feature works more reliable in V1.

[Brian_J]

@thomaso My sentiments exactly.

[loukash]

Folks, this thread is about "tables continued across multiple pages" and "looking for a workaround a bit more streamlined".
Let's leave it at that, OK?

There are enough other threads where you can contribute with your general criticism.
thanks

[PaoloT]

My preferred workaround would be creating the table in a wordprocessor, with the same identical page layout and styles of the Publisher document. It could then be exported as a PDF file, and inserted, piece by piece, in the Publisher document.

Any change would be made in the wordprocessor, and then exported and automatically updated.

This would work if the table starts on top of a page. If there is variable length text before the beginning of the table, positioning it would be more difficult.

With documents with many tables, one could even start to consider switching to the wordprocessor entirely.

Paolo

 

[thomaso]

57 minutes ago, PaoloT said:

creating the table in a wordprocessor, with the same identical page layout and styles of the Publisher document.

Then why not create the table in APub itself, in a separate 1-page .afpub with the required page lengths to contain the entire table, which gets then placed in the multi-page layout .afpub as a linked object in a preferred file format, trimmed to the required table section on each page ... with the table header as extra object on a master page.

[photohap]

1 hour ago, PaoloT said:

My preferred workaround would be creating the table in a wordprocessor, with the same identical page layout and styles of the Publisher document. It could then be exported as a PDF file, and inserted, piece by piece, in the Publisher document.

Any change would be made in the wordprocessor, and then exported and automatically updated.

This would work if the table starts on top of a page. If there is variable length text before the beginning of the table, positioning it would be more difficult.

With documents with many tables, one could even start to consider switching to the wordprocessor entirely.

Paolo

 

I don't think word or other processors can output to cmyk though, that could prove to be an issue with black text in the table.

[PaoloT]

1 hour ago, thomaso said:

Then why not create the table in APub itself, in a separate 1-page .afpub with the required page lengths

What about recurring headers? They wouldn't be created by Publisher.

Paolo

 

[thomaso]

2 hours ago, PaoloT said:

What about recurring headers? They wouldn't be created by Publisher.

Why not? As mentioned above, they could be placed on a master page, – regardless of their source or the creating application.

[piovasco]

This is a serious deficiency, which should be fixed as soon as possible. It makes Affinity Publisher an unprofessional tool, and that is a shame. I hope Serif realizes how limiting the lack of this function is for professionals.

[Snow Creative]

In general I love using Affinity Designer, but this lack of support for mutli-page tables is a real downer. I have a project just handed to me with a short turnaround time, and I'm going to have to dig out my old copy of Adobe InDesign to do it — that's InDesign from 10 years ago, which even back then had great table features.