A way to put selected layers together after cloning?

[Raptosauru5]

When cloning multiple selected items in Layer hierarchy, the copy will simply duplicate above each item individually.

What I would prefer is that the items would keep their order and wouldn't mix with the other "group", so I can for example duplicate a UI button with text and icon on it in the same order.

Setup:

 

How it works now:

 

What I would prefer:

 

Current workarounds:

A: Right after cloning press CTRL+G to group them, then release them from the group and delete the empty group.

B: Drag them with the mouse somewhere and then back. Can't always do it right above though.

 

I believe this could be more intuitive. I know I can also solve it by putting everything in Groups, but sometimes I don't want to have nested groups everywhere.

I can also imagine that this could become problematic if the cloning layers have other layers between them...

Perhaps there could be a new shortcut, that would "smash" all selected layers to the upmost/downmost (<- is that a word?) layer? Maybe users would use it even in different cases!

[loukash]

2 hours ago, Raptosauru5 said:

Perhaps there could be a new shortcut, that would "smash" all selected layers to the upmost/downmost (<- is that a word?) layer? Maybe users would use it even in different cases!

Um… is there anything wrong with Layer → Arrange → Move To Front / Back…?

[Bit Disappointed]

2 hours ago, Raptosauru5 said:

When cloning multiple selected items in Layer hierarchy, the copy will simply duplicate above each item individually.

What I would prefer is that the items would keep their order and wouldn't mix with the other "group", so I can for example duplicate a UI button with text and icon on it in the same order.

Setup:

 

How it works now:

 

What I would prefer:

 

Current workarounds:

A: Right after cloning press CTRL+G to group them, then release them from the group and delete the empty group.

B: Drag them with the mouse somewhere and then back. Can't always do it right above though.

 

I believe this could be more intuitive. I know I can also solve it by putting everything in Groups, but sometimes I don't want to have nested groups everywhere.

I can also imagine that this could become problematic if the cloning layers have other layers between them...

Perhaps there could be a new shortcut, that would "smash" all selected layers to the upmost/downmost (<- is that a word?) layer? Maybe users would use it even in different cases!

Again, something I have personally struggled with, especially because I subconsciously expect the duplicates to be created together and suddenly realise they are scattered among the originals. It can be really annoying if you have executed a command or two afterwards and changed the selection. Oh dear.

I could use an "Arrange together" command ("Collect selected" perhaps) that works with anything I want to collect in the layers panel. Whether it should be done from the bottom or from the top of the last or first selected element, I'm not sure. But that too could follow the Layer -> Insertion preference. 

And no, they shouldn't be moved to the top or bottom - they should be collected where they are in the hierarchy. Not suddenly rummaging around above or below objects where they're not supposed to be.

[loukash]

10 minutes ago, Bit Arts said:

they shouldn't be moved to the top or bottom

I was replying to 

3 hours ago, Raptosauru5 said:

"smash" all selected layers to the upmost/downmost (<- is that a word?) layer

(emphasis mine)
That's exactly more or less what Move To Front/Back does.

10 minutes ago, Bit Arts said:

they should be collected where they are in the hierarchy

If you want to collect selected objects into a new layer, option-click the Add Layer button in the Layers panel.

[Raptosauru5]

@loukash

Thanks for your input, but these solutions require more steps than I think should be necessary.

My post is about discussing, how we could skip there extra steps and having things to happen more automatically.

[loukash]

Just now, Raptosauru5 said:

how we could skip there extra steps

Right now, that would likely require having more preference options or yet another menu item to the already long lists.

The "art of programming" also involves finding the right balance between "infinite customization" and "stiff defaults". 
In my opinion, Affinity apps do maintain a pretty good balance here.
Whereas apps like GraphicConverter or VectorStyler are examples of apps that massively suffer from Featuritis™ and Preferentirrhea®. I use both for some of their specific niche features, but having too many options and preferences actually doesn't always make them more usable for me.

10 minutes ago, Raptosauru5 said:

having things to happen more automatically

We're eagerly waiting for the already announced scripting!  

 

[Raptosauru5]

5 minutes ago, loukash said:

Right now, that would likely require having more preference options or yet another menu item to the already long lists.

The "art of programming" also involves finding the right balance between "infinite customization" and "stiff defaults". 
In my opinion, Affinity apps do maintain a pretty good balance here.

I disagree. It isn't bad in its current state, but I still think Affinity's settings is rather oversimplified. I prefer to have more control, rather than "fewer things to be bothered with". However, at this point this is an individual preference. This is why some people prefer iPhones and some prefer Android.

[loukash]

23 minutes ago, Raptosauru5 said:

I prefer to have more control, rather than "fewer things to be bothered with"

And I understand that. I also have quite a few things that I would like to have more control. But those are probably not the same things that you want, and it could even well be that I'd be in a very small minority of users who would want it "my way".

And therein lies the aforementioned art of "finding the right balance" where developers need to decide what will satisfy the majority of users.
With the Affinity suite, for example, Serif already did the right thing not to release a one single monolithic app to "do it all" (which they technically still could do), but they split it into the focused trinity we're using right now, including even more focused personae for dedicated "very special features" like astrophotography in APh. I.e. Affinity has many advanced features we can control, but they won't get into our way if we don't need them. I, for one, will never have any use for the astrophotography persona, but it doesn't bother me.

So yes, as of now it requires one or two "extra" steps to put the layers where I want them if I want them "there" and not "here". For the majority of Affinity users, this is probably fine as as, myself included. It's no "workaround" because there's nothing "broken". It's the Affinity workflow. (Vive la différence )

That all said, I don't want to put your feature request "down", by the way. I'm only commenting on how I see this, which is the purpose of these forums.

[Bit Disappointed]

11 minutes ago, Raptosauru5 said:

 I still think Affinity's settings is rather oversimplified. I prefer to have more control, rather than "fewer things to be bothered with". 

The most important thing is that Serif and every company takes great care and consideration for flexibility in workflows, so that the programs do not thwart efficient workflows based on some theoretical principles when many people are working with non-banal documents and designs. 

The user interface can easily be designed to accommodate simple and advanced needs, it's been done before. Just not by developers. It's a different type of expertise that needs to come into play.

But it really needs to be done through real life contact with graphic designers and the industry. I can guarantee you that there are depressingly few representatives of small and large commercial graphic designers in here.

This establishes the business risk that Serif will not realize the potential of their applications for the part of the market that is not represented here. 

 

[loukash]

1 hour ago, Bit Arts said:

But it really needs to be done through real life contact with graphic designers and the industry. I can guarantee you that there are depressingly few representatives of small and large commercial graphic designers in here.

Because Serif has been in the industry only "since yesterday", huh?