Placement of canvas/controlling work area in Photo

[uburoibob]

1 hour ago, R C-R said:

If it is not the Apple mouse then how do you explain why is it that if you use CMD-0 to center the work in the workspace window & remove your hand from that mouse, that giant area that bothers you so much does not appear? After all, in that case it isn't appearing by itself, right? It only appears as the result of user input after using that command.

Try working in Photoshop on a Mac with an Apple mouse and you can answer your own irrelevant questions. More to the point, YOU understanding isn’t my primary concern, as it seems there’s difficulty in making that happen. And to your point, if I remove my hand from my input device, WTF good is using the program at all?

SO, I suggest this. Don’t worry about this. The fix won’t affect you in the least. So, just go about your happy life and I’ll do what I can to try and fix issues you seemingly can’t understand. Deal?

[v_kyr]

It always depends ...

in ADe it can be useful for a bunch of things ...

• like making and sharing drawing annotation
• to temporary place things out of view without having to toggle visability on/off
• to hunt visually after far offset EPS/SVG etc. imported third-party darwings
• ... and so on

I use a huge background area when I make explanatory screenshots for sharing, so I have enough room for putting annotions/comments and the like to that area, without having to overdraw essential UI parts or the canvas area.

[thomaso]

2 minutes ago, uburoibob said:

Essentially, without the CLIP CANVAS command, you can do the same thing in Photoshop, but without the giant pasteboard area.

In a situation like above you wouldn't be able to create the new object of that size if a pasteboard limitation would prevent you from accessing the wanted area when drawing the rectangle. – However, as various posts in this thread appear to express, the pasteboard handling also may be a matter of experience, habit, opinion or taste – rather than of right, best or wrong.

Nevertheless, I'd prefer, too, if the pasteboard in Affinity apps would not be 'endless' / unlimited. As you compare Affinity with Adobe, in other threads users post the term "professional" to emphasize their certain expectation … while "professional" on the other hand also expresses the ability to handle imperfect, uncomfortable or unintuitive technology. With any comparison of technology its always useful to have costs in mind: I assume that neither the moon nor the mars landing got controlled via a wysiwyg interface but more inconveniently, partly numerically, but professionally.

[uburoibob]

48 minutes ago, v_kyr said:

It always depends ...

in ADe it can be useful for a bunch of things ...

• like making and sharing drawing annotation
• to temporary place things out of view without having to toggle visability on/off
• to hunt visually after far offset EPS/SVG etc. imported third-party darwings
• ... and so on

I use a huge background area when I make explanatory screenshots for sharing, so I have enough room for putting annotions/comments and the like to that area, without having to overdraw essential UI parts or the canvas area.

Thank you. Yes, it CAN be useful. And it can be cumbersome. Depends on the job. That's why a user-adjustable option would be ideal.

[Pšenda]

19 hours ago, R C-R said:

Should this be a per document setting

Yes, as well as setting margins or bleeding, the size of the pasteboard could be defined for each document/template. Someone who doesn't use pasteboard will set it to zero (just like someone who doesn't use bleed and margin), and if during work he decides that he needs pasteboard to store assets and temporary work elements so that he can then place them on the document, then he it just sets.

[Pšenda]

For your interest - the problems with displaying the document and its pasteboard have persisted for a long time:

 

[uburoibob]

3 hours ago, Pšenda said:

For your interest - the problems with displaying the document and its pasteboard have persisted for a long time:

 

Yep. The “it’s always been this way and we’ve learned to deal with it so you should too” argument isn’t a particularly great one, nor one that helps in any way. 

[thomaso]

13 minutes ago, uburoibob said:

Yep. The “it’s always been this way and we’ve learned to deal with it so you should too” argument isn’t a particularly great one, nor one that helps in any way. 

Sure? – Isn't it helpful just to be informed how things work or just were discussed already – in the app, in the forum, on the Serif marketing or developer side – to potentially stop being bothered by a particular process or behaviour that at first feels misleading, confusing, wrong, buggy, etc., especially for issues that are said to be coded this way "by design" while this usual term may even differ from "on purpose"?

The apps not only have certain feature requests of a comparable large group of users from their beginning that are still missing but also long term bugs that appear to got "forgotten" and thus get "nudged" repeatedly, apparently by Serif staff members, too.

Once we know possible options and missing features, we usually start using workarounds to more or less resolve a conflict or avoid its repetition – instead of running into the same problem again and again. Aren't "workarounds" a very basic consequence of many creatures, not human only?

[uburoibob]

18 minutes ago, thomaso said:

Sure? – Isn't it helpful just to be informed how things work or just were discussed already – in the app, in the forum, on the Serif marketing or developer side – to potentially stop being bothered by a particular process or behaviour that at first feels misleading, confusing, wrong, buggy, etc., especially for issues that are said to be coded this way "by design" while this usual term may even differ from "on purpose"?

The apps not only have certain feature requests of a comparable large group of users from their beginning that are still missing but also long term bugs that appear to got "forgotten" and thus get "nudged" repeatedly, apparently by Serif staff members, too.

Once we know possible options and missing features, we usually start using workarounds to more or less resolve a conflict or avoid its repetition – instead of running into the same problem again and again. Aren't "workarounds" a very basic consequence of many creatures, not human only?

In general, when I encounter something that needs a workaround, I look for a way to fix it so that one doesn't need to work around it. Isn't that how we evolve? Of course I will use workarounds as I retire from the Adobe community (no longer making money with it, as I am retired, but still do pro-bono work). Anyway, the term "workaround" implies there's an issue that should be corrected. Hopefully Serif will take notice and come up with a way to make it something that doesn't need to be worked around.

[thomaso]

4 minutes ago, uburoibob said:

I look for a way to fix it so that one doesn't need to work around it. Isn't that how we evolve?

"we"? – Your example contains two different groups who may evolve: The users and the developers. While the users evolve by their workarounds the developers don't suffer in users workarounds but rather in demands to fix an issue … while they, their work or their company may 'evolve' by developing other areas (e.g. new interface icons).

I doubt that "workaround" indeed is a general equivalent to "an issue that should be corrected". The workflow of a "workaround" may be the preferred solution among all existing or even not existing possibilities. In my lack of owning a swimming pool, a book store, a train or airplane, I use their public "workarounds" or "substitutes" or simply "options".

My use of Affinity may be a workaround to let others do the/my work – but me working with Affinity doesn't have to be "an issue that should be corrected". The number of activities as workaround are larger than thought, keyword "outsourcing". The decisive factor for the disruptive feeling of a workaround is often a primarily individual feeling, less an objective characteristic of the respective workflow. A software "subscription" is not a workaround for a "purchase" nor vice versa, although the two options exclude each other. Most of the time, there are simply different options while one is rarely a workaround for the other. Many ways lead to Rome.

Or, from another perspective: Live is a workaround. With other words: If artificial intelligence truly will be what we call intelligent, it will no longer do our work but make us work for it.

[uburoibob]

1 hour ago, thomaso said:

"we"? – Your example contains two different groups who may evolve: The users and the developers. While the users evolve by their workarounds the developers don't suffer in users workarounds but rather in demands to fix an issue … while they, their work or their company may 'evolve' by developing other areas (e.g. new interface icons).

I doubt that "workaround" indeed is a general equivalent to "an issue that should be corrected". The workflow of a "workaround" may be the preferred solution among all existing or even not existing possibilities. In my lack of owning a swimming pool, a book store, a train or airplane, I use their public "workarounds" or "substitutes" or simply "options".

My use of Affinity may be a workaround to let others do the/my work – but me working with Affinity doesn't have to be "an issue that should be corrected". The number of activities as workaround are larger than thought, keyword "outsourcing". The decisive factor for the disruptive feeling of a workaround is often a primarily individual feeling, less an objective characteristic of the respective workflow. A software "subscription" is not a workaround for a "purchase" nor vice versa, although the two options exclude each other. Most of the time, there are simply different options while one is rarely a workaround for the other. Many ways lead to Rome.

Or, from another perspective: Live is a workaround. With other words: If artificial intelligence truly will be what we call intelligent, it will no longer do our work but make us work for it.

I guess it comes down to our definitions of “workaround” .

I go with this - all three imply that a workaround is necessary when there is a problem, not as a long term solution:
 

workaround

wûrk′ə-round″

noun

1. A method or process of dealing with a problem.
2. A means of overcoming some obstacle, especially an obstacle consisting of laws, regulations, or constraints.
3. A procedure or a temporary fix that bypasses a problem and allows the user to continue working until a better solution can be provided; a kluge.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

 

[thomaso]

5 minutes ago, uburoibob said:

I guess it comes down to our definitions of “workaround” .
I go with this - all three imply that a workaround is necessary when there is a problem, not as a long term solution:

1. problem
2. obstacle
3. temporary … until a better solution

The definition is not quite clear, especially because of its vague terms "problem" + "obstacle" + "better solution". (e.g., When is an issue a problem, when is it just a task?) Each of the terms can be individually, depending on the user, while the limiting condition "temporary" would even indicate that current workarounds will lose their character as "workaround" if only Serif does not offer a "better solution" for long enough and thus turn a workaround to a "long term solution" – ironically just by ignoring the issue.

As I understand it, a definition of "workaround" must include individual aspects like e.g. "experience", "habit", "expectation", "feeling". The same solution may be perceived as a "workaround" by one person and as a "welcome option" by another.

Especially with computer software and interfaces without a "natural" solution of an analog equivalent (e.g. scrolling, zooming, panning, scaling) the expectations are individual and thus a "workaround" versus a correct, sufficient, intuitive or ingenious workflow can hardly be defined unambiguously.

[I wouldn't be very surprised if a staff member of Serif (which, among other software developing, focuses on editing astronomy photography) would argue that "space" is unlimited in analog reality and that the endless pasteboard board is therefore a natural equivalent by design + on purpose and a feature that distinguishes Affinity from its competitors.]

[uburoibob]

58 minutes ago, thomaso said:

The definition is not quite clear, especially because of its vague terms "problem" + "obstacle" + "better solution". (e.g., When is an issue a problem, when is it just a task?) Each of the terms can be individually, depending on the user, while the limiting condition "temporary" would even indicate that current workarounds will lose their character as "workaround" if only Serif does not offer a "better solution" for long enough and thus turn a workaround to a "long term solution" – ironically just by ignoring the issue.

As I understand it, a definition of "workaround" must include individual aspects like e.g. "experience", "habit", "expectation", "feeling". The same solution may be perceived as a "workaround" by one person and as a "welcome option" by another.

Especially with computer software and interfaces without a "natural" solution of an analog equivalent (e.g. scrolling, zooming, panning, scaling) the expectations are individual and thus a "workaround" versus a correct, sufficient, intuitive or ingenious workflow can hardly be defined unambiguously.

[I wouldn't be very surprised if a staff member of Serif (which, among other software developing, focuses on editing astronomy photography) would argue that "space" is unlimited in analog reality and that the endless pasteboard board is therefore a natural equivalent by design + on purpose and a feature that distinguishes Affinity from its competitors.]

Then I reckon we'll have to agree to disagree. To me, a workaround is something that happens until a workaround is no longer needed. We could go down this road parsing every word in the English language. Personally, I'd rather spend my time lobbying for the workaround to be no longer needed.