Affinity Publisher: Improvements in the chaptering process (section, layout)

[Pyanepsion]

Dear colleagues and developers,

I’d like to draw your attention to some specific issues encountered during the layout of a book, particularly in the book sectioning routine and the setting up of even and odd layouts. The aim of this feedback is to identify opportunities for improving our chaptering management.

During a recent project, the layout of a book required a change from 272 to 328 pages. After adjusting the paragraph style and line spacing, I set about sectioning the book into its twenty chapters. This resulted in the creation of 22 sections, including introductory and end pages.

Sectioning routine

Among the difficulties encountered

1. Interface slowness: Despite using a high-performance computer, interactions were neither instantaneous nor even fast, adding an unexpected delay to the task.
2. Display limitations: When the number of sections exceeded the display capacity, the absence of an automatic refresh proved to be a major obstacle.
3. Section title entry cell: The small size of this cell, coupled with the slowness of the entry, made the procedure laborious, not to say tedious.

Delimiting of even and odd pages

Once sectioning was complete, another difficulty lay in differentiating even and odd-numbered pages. The absence of a built-in function with zoning delimitation forced me to use an external solution, combining Excel and Notepad++, to manually generate a sequence of even pages between pages 10 and 324, a task that proved time-consuming and error-prone. In fact, without the option of delimiting the pages concerned by even and odd pages, the Even pages and Odd pages selections in the layout window are absolutely useless.

10,12,14,16,18,20,22,24,26,28,30,32,34,36,38,40,42,44,46,48,50,52,54,56,58,60,62,64,66,68,70,72,74,76,78,80,82,84,86,88,90,92,94,96,98,100,102,104,106,108,110,112,114,116,118,120,122,124,126,128,130,132,134,136,138,140,142,144,146,148,150,152,154,156,158,160,162,164,166,168,170,172,174,176,178,180,182,184,186,188,190,192,194,196,198,200,202,204,206,208,210,212,214,216,218,220,222,224,226,228,230,232,234,236,238,240,242,244,246,248,250,252,254,256,258,260,262,264,266,268,270,272,274,276,278,280,282,284,286,288,290,292,294,296,298,300,302,304,306,308,310,312,314,316,318,320,322,324

And what a displeasing display!

It is imperative to consider improvements in this area. After all, what’s a book layout without chaptering and the associated routines for sectioning and differentiating even and odd-numbered pages? I had already mentioned this problem when version 2 was released. The time has perhaps come to rectify this ergonomic issue, which is proving to be a handicap: these seemingly simplistic tasks took me almost an hour.

Thank you for your attention and consideration. I remain at your disposal for any further discussion and clarification you may require.

All the best,

[MikeTO]

Interface slowness with Section Manager - I've never experienced any slowness with this feature. Is it always slow with a big book on your computer or does it slow down as the number of sections increases? I just tried creating dozens of sections in my large book document and it was always very fast but I'm on macOS so perhaps there's an issue with Windows.

Display limitations - if I understand you correctly, I do see one minor issue. If there are more sections then will fit into the Section Manager list, adding a new section won't scroll the list automatically to show it, the new section will be below the visible area. It should auto scroll to show the newly-added section. Is this what you mean? I agree it should be fixed. Fortunately, I can see 21 sections in the Section Manager list at once on my 14" laptop screen and with a larger monitor you could see even more.

Section title entry cell - agreed, the section name text field is too narrow

Delimiting of odd and even pages - I agree it would be good if you could apply a master page to all even pages or all odd pages, it seems like an easy feature to add, but couldn't you create a facing-pages master that incorporates the layouts required for even and odd pages to apply to each spread? If some spreads have a different even or odd page, just create a different master for them.

Cheers

[Pyanepsion]

Thank you, @MikeTO, for your research.

Slow section creation: I've noticed that the slowness when creating a new section (specifying the start page number and section name) intensifies as the number of sections increases. My work generally involves books of between 300 and 700 pages. However, I have also encountered similar problems with a book of just 90 pages.

Display problems when adding sections: When I add a new section, the list doesn't automatically scroll to display it. As a result, the newly created section quickly stays out of view. To make matters worse, the scrollbar in this window is particularly slow to respond, making navigation frustrating.

Section title input field: In addition to being too narrow, this field is also poorly positioned, which is detrimental to ergonomics. Typing in this window is also unusually slow, adding another level of inefficiency to the task.

Odd/even page delimitation: It seems to me that the current function was not designed by a DTP professional. As it stands, it applies to all odd and even pages in the document, which in practice is rarely feasible. Most books have special pages before and after the main content. Some pages may also be added or deleted over time, changing the even or odd page destination. The final layout of even and odd pages is therefore more likely to be carried out at the very end of the job, rather than at the beginning.

[walt.farrell]

2 minutes ago, Pyanepsion said:

Odd/even page delimitation: It seems to me that the current function was not designed by a DTP professional. As it stands, it applies to all odd and even pages in the document, which in practice is rarely feasible. Most books have special pages before and after the main content. Some pages may also be added or deleted over time, changing the even or odd page destination. The final layout of even and odd pages is therefore more likely to be carried out at the very end of the job, rather than at the beginning.

I'm curious whether you have experimented using the Book function in V2, as that has functions to assist with this. I don't think they necessarily handle everything correctly yet, but they help in the testing I've done.

[Pyanepsion]

1 minute ago, walt.farrell said:

I'm curious whether you have experimented using the Book function in V2

To be honest, no, because when I tried it in the past, I didn't get anywhere. What's more, I work on the whole text, not chapter by chapter.

[PaoloT]

The Book would be much more useful if it - as an alternative - allowed editing all the included chapters at once. Searching & replacing, editing of styles and text variables, master pages, and so on.

Paolo

 

[MikeTO]

22 hours ago, Pyanepsion said:

Slow section creation: I've noticed that the slowness when creating a new section (specifying the start page number and section name) intensifies as the number of sections increases. My work generally involves books of between 300 and 700 pages. However, I have also encountered similar problems with a book of just 90 pages.

I think this must be Windows only

22 hours ago, Pyanepsion said:

Display problems when adding sections: When I add a new section, the list doesn't automatically scroll to display it. As a result, the newly created section quickly stays out of view. To make matters worse, the scrollbar in this window is particularly slow to respond, making navigation frustrating.

It doesn't scroll to view on macOS only but the scrollbar being slow must be a Windows only issue.

22 hours ago, Pyanepsion said:

Section title input field: In addition to being too narrow, this field is also poorly positioned, which is detrimental to ergonomics. Typing in this window is also unusually slow, adding another level of inefficiency to the task.

It works fine on macOS. It's odd that typing into the field is slow, there must be something going on with the Windows version of this dialog.

22 hours ago, Pyanepsion said:

Odd/even page delimitation: It seems to me that the current function was not designed by a DTP professional. As it stands, it applies to all odd and even pages in the document, which in practice is rarely feasible. Most books have special pages before and after the main content. Some pages may also be added or deleted over time, changing the even or odd page destination. The final layout of even and odd pages is therefore more likely to be carried out at the very end of the job, rather than at the beginning.

When I wrote my reply I didn't actually look at the dialog in English, I was just looking at the French version and didn't realize it already let you apply the master to all even or odd pages. You were asking to apply to all the even or odd pages in a range of the book which is why you had to type in so many page numbers. And that of course is why Walt suggested using the Books feature. I understand the request now.

The best way to address this need would be to specify one or more sections as part of the scope in the Apply Master dialog. And to be able to combine that with odd/even pages.

I still think you could avoid this by always using master spreads and never applying masters to even or odd pages.

[Pyanepsion]

3 hours ago, MikeTO said:

I still think you could avoid this by always using master spreads and never applying masters to even or odd pages.

Many printers request files formatted as single pages, rather than facing pages. This is independent of the software we use for page layout.

However, as I mentioned earlier, the final determination of odd and even pages is often only made at the end of the layout process. This is because the final structure of the document is only known at this point.

It can also happen that the customer requests repagination, as in the initial example, from 272 to 328 pages.

[MikeTO]

1 hour ago, Pyanepsion said:

Many printers request files formatted as single pages, rather than facing pages. This is independent of the software we use for page layout.

However, as I mentioned earlier, the final determination of odd and even pages is often only made at the end of the layout process. This is because the final structure of the document is only known at this point.

It can also happen that the customer requests repagination, as in the initial example, from 272 to 328 pages.

It shouldn't matter whether your masters are applied to spreads or to single pages for later exporting as single pages to match a printer's request. It should work either way you create it. I believe that because the final determination of which pages will be odd or even won't be known until the end of the process it's better to use master spreads. But we each have our own preferred workflows and I agree there should be an easier way to do what you want.

If scripting was available we could write a script to do this.

[Pyanepsion]

On 8/24/2023 at 8:51 PM, MikeTO said:

It shouldn't matter whether your masters are applied to spreads or to single pages for later exporting as single pages to match a printer's request.

Not working directly in the printer's format and constraints is of course possible with Affinity Publisher, and I did it at first, as it was the easiest process to carry out. However, I've come to realize that it's the wrong way to go about things, leading to errors and wasted time. Changing formats and constraints while working also increases the difficulty of repagination when adding or deleting pages.

[PaoloT]

On 8/25/2023 at 2:15 AM, Pyanepsion said:

Changing formats and constraints while working also increases the difficulty of repagination when adding or deleting pages.

Working with a master spread should prevent exactly this: reflowing pages not applying the correct format for odd or even pages. It should be an automatic thing, when you work inside what InDesign calls a primary text flow (and should be an automatic thing in Publisher).

Paolo

 

[Pyanepsion]

When creating a layout for a book, it’s essential to opt for a method that not only facilitates the process, but also minimizes the risk of errors.

Based on the traditional observation that chapters start on an odd page, double-page layouts present a contradiction in that they start on the reverse (even) page. This requires additional conversion to respect these editorial conventions, which can prove to be an unnecessary waste of time.

Then there are the 13 kinds of introductory pages, the 19 kinds of end-of-book pages – all standardized well – and the special pages included in the body of the book.

This method of working with double-page layouts increases the risk of potential errors. Graphic elements or content spanning two pages may be incorrectly converted or adjusted when switching to a simple layout. Subsequent changes to the body of the text font may also affect the layout.

As things stand, in order to guarantee a consistent, professional and error-free layout, I feel it’s wiser to start directly with a single-page layout, thus respecting editorial conventions and avoiding conversion steps that can prove laborious and risky. This choice ensures a more direct, more efficient and ultimately more reliable approach to producing quality work.

On the other hand, the possibility of serializing even and odd page zones, and, of course, scripts, would reconcile the two methods, starting with a single page or double page.

[Oufti]

7 hours ago, Pyanepsion said:

Based on the traditional observation that chapters start on an odd page, double-page layouts present a contradiction in that they start on the reverse (even) page. This requires additional conversion to respect these editorial conventions, which can prove to be an unnecessary waste of time.

What could help:

In Configuration du document > Modèle, you can define if it begins with a right or left page. 

For (styled) text placed in linked frames, Paragraph format > Flow lets you determine that e.g. a chapter header styled paragraph will always be on an odd page. 

If your chapters are each in their own section (or saved as different files, bound in a Book — but I haven't used that yet) and are each in separate text flows, you can apply specific Master pages to chapter headings and then modify any chapter content without fearing weird interactions between text flow and Master Pages. 

There are still things to check before printing or exporting (all can not be automatized) but at least I find this easier when I have to correct something (for example, by reapplying the Master Page if things were messed up). 

7 hours ago, Pyanepsion said:

Graphic elements or content spanning two pages may be incorrectly converted or adjusted when switching to a simple layout. Subsequent changes to the body of the text font may also affect the layout.

The idea is not to switch between one or two pages layouts, but working only on double pages layout, with accordingly controlled content flow.

Then choosing only at export wether you will export spreads (double pages) or single pages. I think there is though one caveat (a bug?) in this circumstance, about lost inner bleed (?) — But as I'm working on traditional books, I don't use bleed… 

[Oufti]

6 hours ago, Pyanepsion said:

I feel it’s wiser to start directly with a single-page layout, thus respecting editorial conventions

I don't understand how it could help. For me it seems much more unpredictable:

Doing so, I have to rely on page number (thing that can change during editorial process, as preface or tables grow up for example) to know if I'm on an even or odd page ;

How can I be sure that a full spread image will not be teared apart ? With double page spread, I can pin it on a left page and not worry it will move. 

[Pyanepsion]

Thank you, @Oufti, for your constructive comments. Before going any further, I'd like to focus on the heart of our discussion: the managing, in my opinion laborious, of page sectioning, as well as the restricted application, making it almost useless, of even and odd page layouts in Affinity Publisher.

The distinction between single- and double-page master has no influence on how elements are anchored or "pinned" to a page, or how page breaks are handled. These functionalities remain constant, regardless of the choice of layout.

With Affinity Publisher's current specificities, I'm convinced that it's best to start page layout in line with the specifications and constraints directly stated by the printer. This initial choice guides and conditions the entire process described here.

1. Single or double layout: Although the tools you mention are relevant and widely adopted, they lose their relevance within the framework I've defined. My main concern is with the logic of starting with a double page layout, which could run counter to traditional conventions stipulating that certain pages, of which there are many in quality printing, must imperatively be on even or odd pages.
2. Handling graphic elements: While working directly in double-page format offers improved legibility, it doesn't spare us the complications inherent in page layout, especially when graphic elements overlap two pages. If, for various reasons, a switch to single-page layout is requested, particularly by the printer, the risk of errors increases significantly.
3. Content modification: Any intervention on double-page content, be it textual modification, the addition or deletion of certain pages (introductory, final or other), amplifies the potential for errors.

I'd like to reiterate my respect for your approach, the advantages of which I can appreciate in certain specific contexts. My conviction remains nevertheless unchanged: to ensure a smooth, impeccable layout, it's wiser to always start by following the printer's guidelines, whether in single or double layout.

[Oufti]

Thank you @Pyanepsion for your comprehensive and well structured answer. I fear mine will be a bit more scattered. Sorry for that…

As you do, I try here to learn how to use at its best this app to produce good books without too much effort or too many imperfections. 

 

On 8/27/2023 at 7:24 PM, Pyanepsion said:

The distinction between single- and double-page master has no influence on how elements are anchored or "pinned" to a page

You're right. I thought Mirror page option was absent in anchor or pinning panels when in single page layout (in Document settings) ; it is disponible, whatever the layout choice. So that's not a problem with single page layout. My bad.

 

On 8/27/2023 at 7:24 PM, Pyanepsion said:

I'd like to focus on the heart of our discussion, […] the restricted application, making it almost useless, of even and odd page layouts in Affinity Publisher.

If you talk about the possibility to drag a double master page on a single page in the Pages panel, when in double page layout, I totally agree with you: this is absolutely to be avoided if content could change — or at least, I don't see (yet) how and when to use it, efficiently and without troubles?

That's why I always care to use only double master pages dragged on double pages. Otherwise, it's too unpredictable for me… 
It implies that I create different double pages combinations in my Master pages (e.g. double blank, left blank, right blank, double footer, all with a common parent master) and that I apply them manually when I start a new chapter.
Sometimes, I have to reapply them before printing. Not perfectly automatic, tedious when there are many, but not difficult. And normally, it doesn't happen but I sometimes do mistakes or false manipulations… 

— Anyway, I always want to check last page of my chapters, as I want to have a minimum number of lines on it and I have never found a layout app that let us define that.
So I check both at the same time but having all useful master pages combinations ready helps a lot. Viewing both pages side-by-side also. 

 

On 8/27/2023 at 7:24 PM, Pyanepsion said:

I'm convinced that it's best to start page layout in line with the specifications and constraints directly stated by the printer. This initial choice guides and conditions the entire process described here.

It seems good practice to know at first what the printer wants to get, but it doesn't necessarily implies that we have to work like this on the whole process. In particular, I also want to be able to face any change the printer could make in its requirements. 

This is probably obvious now for RGB vs CMYK workflow, but I also try to be prepared to a last minute change in format or worse… 

I don't mean that, in this view, a double page layout could be better than a single one, but also not worse in my workflow.
Only it helps me to view and work on double pages. And FWIK choosing single or double pages on export (without ever modifying the layout) handles perfectly well all elements, except if the bleed case applies but it is not so common I think. Cf. infra.

 

 

On 8/27/2023 at 7:24 PM, Pyanepsion said:

1. My main concern is with the logic of starting with a double page layout, which could run counter to traditional conventions stipulating that certain pages […] must imperatively be on even or odd pages.

I don't see why or how it could? Could you provide us an example case illustrating this concretely? 

As long as you choose for the first paragraph of these particular pages a style defined to begin on an odd/even page, these pages will always remain on their side. As you said, it has nothing to do with layout choice. 

About sectioning: 

This is how I deal with sections and special chapter pages on odd/even pages (while my content can vary a lot): 

It's not perfect. I have to sometimes to delete extra pages or reapply Master pages and of course refresh TOC's. But it generally behaves well… 

 

On 8/27/2023 at 7:24 PM, Pyanepsion said:

2. Handling graphic elements: […] working directly in double-page format […] doesn't spare us the complications inherent in page layout, especially when graphic elements overlap two pages. If, for various reasons, a switch to single-page layout is requested, particularly by the printer, the risk of errors increases significantly.

The only error I think about that can happen in this case is the afore mentioned bug for bleed on spine margin, which seems to me to be only problematic when each page is printed separately (in plano) then trimmed.
(If single pages are to be imposed, the lack of bleed on inner edge is not a problem; actually, in this case it could be better to set it always to zero).

Do you know other problems?

My rule of thumb so far is: if there are inner bleeds AND it will be printed and trimmed page per page (as for spiral binding), use a single page layout, otherwise do what you want. — Alack, spanning elements over pages would precisely be a situation for which I'd like to use double page layout… 

(BTW I have been taught to always avoid crossing pages elements of layout, if we were not certain it would remain on the central page of the booklet, and because anyway it could be hidden in the fold of the page. Thus in fact it's not a problem for me.  ) 

 

On 8/27/2023 at 7:24 PM, Pyanepsion said:

• 3. Content modification […]

I don't see how this can be better managed with a single page layout? 

 

On 8/27/2023 at 7:24 PM, Pyanepsion said:

To ensure a smooth, impeccable layout, it's wiser to always start by following the printer's guidelines, whether in single or double layout.

If you haunted French forums, you possibly have met my friend @Claude72, who was a vibrant defender of this excellent attitude (at least when the printer is not stuck to deprecated practices. This happens also…). 

 

[PaoloT]

On 8/27/2023 at 7:24 PM, Pyanepsion said:

My main concern is with the logic of starting with a double page layout, which could run counter to traditional conventions stipulating that certain pages, of which there are many in quality printing, must imperatively be on even or odd pages.

I have these types of pages in all my (technical manuals) work:

- Sections starting on an odd page, with a different master page.

- Diagrams/illustrations extended on a full spread.

I easily solve the first issue with paragraph styles, sections and documents/chapters in a book starting on an odd page by design.

The second one can only be managed safely when working on a spread, to be always sure the particular wide object will always start in an even page. To be sure it happens, the relevant section or anchored frame is set to start on an even page.

Working in single pages would (a) prevent me from having different running headers for odd and even pages, and (b) hiding the clear view of a traditional facing-page book.

I must say that switching from FrameMaker to InDesign, in the far past, helped me to deal much better with these types of issues, that ID managed a lot better, being based, from the start, on the concept of spread. Publisher is on that same vein.

Paolo

 

[Oufti]

On 8/27/2023 at 11:29 AM, Pyanepsion said:

Based on the traditional observation that chapters start on an odd page, double-page layouts present a contradiction in that they start on the reverse (even) page. This requires additional conversion to respect these editorial conventions, which can prove to be an unnecessary waste of time.

I don't totally agree with you. 

As you say, chapters often begin on an odd page, but that can also imply changes on the opposite (even) page.

Notably when the folio is at the foot of a partially empty page – as on the last page of a chapter –, it must be omitted. Dual-page master pages are ideal for this situation. At least, to stipulate that a page is the last of a chapter I can't find any other way than "the page at left of a new chapter"… 

[Pyanepsion]

@PaoloT, @Oufti,

I very much appreciate your feedback and I have the greatest respect for your experience and your choice to work in double-page format. However, I’d like to share a few observations based on my own experience that lead me to  work preferably in single-page format.

1. Odd and even layouts: Although double-page spreads offer a direct view of the differences between odd and even pages, I’ve found that working with single-page spreads makes it easier to manage headers and separate layouts. The application of even or odd layouts, despite its complexity without the use of external tools such as Excel that I mentioned, seems to be a limitation of the software rather than an intrinsic disadvantage of a single page mode.
2. Layout conversion: Going from a double page to a single page can cause problems, especially when objects overlap the two pages. These objects may not fit correctly, creating inconsistencies. Take, for example, this red rectangle which now only appears on the even page, or this purple mirrored text which not only disappears from the final printout, but also loses its mirror effect and worse becomes inaccessible.
    
    
3. Object management and pagination: In the event of pagination changes or the introduction of a new layout, the single page seems to offer greater flexibility. The complications associated with changing page numbering or positioning seem to me to be more pronounced with a double-page layout. When a layout can be even or odd, working on a single page leaves me with one or two options on a single page, compared with two to four on a double page.

I like the aesthetic and deductive advantages of the double page, particularly for a quick preview of the final rendering. For pragmatic reasons, and especially when the printer’s requirements are imperative, I remain convinced that starting with a single page currently reduces the risk of errors.

I would like to stress my respect for your approach. Our discussion shows that each project has its own specificities and that it remains important to adopt the most appropriate method according to our context.

Our discussions also highlighted that both methods have shortcomings due to current software. By resolving these shortcomings, Affinity will clearly gain a further advantage over InDesign.

[Oufti]

Thank you @Pyanepsion for these concrete elements. It helps to understand what you're facing with.

 

14 hours ago, Pyanepsion said:

Odd and even layouts (…)

I agree with you that applying odd or even masters is complex and error prone. I'd like it to be easier – whatever the layout mode chosen. 

I don't have understood yet how to manage them well, thus I only use double page masters (is it what you name "layouts"?) — which is indeed sometimes painful…

 

14 hours ago, Pyanepsion said:

Layout conversion: Going from a double page to a single page can cause problems (…)

In your video, you change the layout in the Document settings, with the problems you see.
This is not what we were advising to:

On 8/24/2023 at 8:51 PM, MikeTO said:

It shouldn't matter whether your masters are applied to spreads or to single pages for later exporting as single pages to match a printer's request.

On 8/27/2023 at 6:16 PM, Oufti said:

The idea is not to switch between one or two pages layouts, but working only on double pages layout, with accordingly controlled content flow.

Then choosing only at export wether you will export spreads (double pages) or single pages.

From the beginning to the end, you'd leave your document set with double pages (and with mirror facing pages ticked in frame properties, where needed — you didn't in the video), never turning it back to single page document. 

But, when exporting to a PDF, you will choose there the way it is exported (i.e. by page, not by spread as set by default).

(BTW, in this latest tests, even inner bleeds seem OK. Thus now I can have (almost) full confidence in exporting PDF pages from a Double page document.)

— This is a rough document, quickly made only to demonstrate the single page export. Wrapping and pinning are not optimal – actually, I still fiddle to find how to finely tune them –, but it could give you an idea or an other… 
(At least, to tick the "Mirror facing pages" checkbox in the Pinning panel for your red rectangle.  )

 Test double spread.afpub

Test double spread + bleed, exported single pages.pdf

If you want to experiment with it, a constraint you'll encounter is that to add new pages, it's better to add content into the master frames and use autoplace (shift-click on the overflow red triangle) — or do it adding two pages at once.
If you add an odd number of pages via the Pages studio, you'll be in the usual trouble… (But it is so, whatever the layout chosen.)

 

But we all agree that the best is to use the workflow you feel the most comfortable with. 

My goal here is mainly to compare and share different ways of achieving a job, hoping we'll learn new things and methods — and perhaps contribute to make Affinity apps better suited to our needs? 

Thank you for your patience. 

Edited August 29, 2023 by Oufti
I forgot to add the exported PDF…