linking text boxes

[Petar Petrenko]

No one vector/bitmap based apllication hadn't (powerful) layout features when they started. And they need not any of them if the company offers separate layout app. It was OK for Freehand because Macromedia didn't have other kind of apps.

What Adobe does is insane. Soon they will have three separate apps with same capabilities but with different approach. You can't work the same way with text in AI, ID and PS. And this is same with other features. PS has some text effects that even ID doesn't have. This is very stupid.

And what if I use 3D modeling app? Do I have to ask Affinity to add such features in AD or APh because they are essential for my design work? And they must have it to be Maya or 3D Max killer?

So, it would be better if pixel feautures are left to Photo, vectors to Designer and text and layout to Publisher, or much better -- only one app (yes, I know you don't agree).

Separate apps with mixed features can lead to many mistakes and problems.

[R C-R]

What Adobe does is insane.

You could have just shortened your reply to that & still made your point!  :lol:

[Petar Petrenko]

I need to have arguments for that.  :D

[KipV]

You could have just shortened your reply to that & still made your point!  :lol:

 

It is also the reason that I lot of people are here using talking about and using Affinity; it's because we don't like the Adobe way is doing things and we want another company to make something better. If we were happy with Adobe why would we even be here? We would just keep using the Adobe apps it seems. To listen to some people talk it sounds like they are really happy with the way Adobe works which just begs the question why don't they just use Adobe?

[Petar Petrenko]

All the world is based on duality: you are with or against something. So, you can't "blame" people who love even Adobe. They must found something nice in it (I wonder what?).  :)

[KipV]

I used to love Adobe with upgrades like CS3 and CS4 it's just that they don't put out updates like that anymore. Fortunately I found another company that could do great work.

[Oval]

It isn't a lack of imagination; it is that some of us imagine it is something more efficiently & linking of text boxes done in a page layout app that includes a wider assortment of tools & features specifically designed for that kind of work.

 

It is. Serif showed us on those six artboards: Affinity Designer is an app for creating layouts (with few pages). Affinity Designer has a frame text tool for endless texts, pages are on the roadmap and together with the demanded linking of text boxes of Fab and many other users, Affinity Designer will do the job quick and easy.

 

It is not true that Publisher is coming later this year. So the probability rises that AD will have linking of text boxes before APu launch. Other competing design apps use those features.

 

Perhaps the code for linking of text boxes was already written. So, why not in AD. And why should the same feature be less efficiently? Same code, same amount of clicks etc.

 

Hope that will help Fab to find an answer.

[KipV]

It is not true that Publisher is coming later this year. So the probability rises that AD will have linking of text boxes before APu launch. Other competing design apps use those features.

No, it is going to have text box linking. The fact that competitors do it doesn't mean anything. The reason people are interested in the development of a new graphic suite is because they are not happy with the way things are with the competition. If they were happy with the competition they wouldn't be here.

 

"Perhaps the code for linking of text boxes was already written. So, why not in AD. And why should the same feature be less efficiently? Same code, same amount of clicks etc."

Because it is a drawing program not layout app. It is not the same amount of clicks since the more features outside of the basic functionality that gets added the deeper the core features get lost in the bloat. What Serif leaves out if as important as what they put in. Putting linking and master pages will become a slippery slope to adding every non-illustration feature in the world.

[R C-R]

Perhaps the code for linking of text boxes was already written. So, why not in AD. And why should the same feature be less efficiently? Same code, same amount of clicks etc.

Perhaps the code framework to implement this feature has already been written, perhaps not. But even if it has, that does not mean it could or should simply be dropped into AD (although some companies basically do exactly that).

 

For one thing, it is quite possible it could conflict with existing code that does something else, so arbitration code of some kind needs to be developed. Then it all needs to be throughly tested to make sure it doesn't introduce new bugs. For another, code that dynamically flows text into & out of what might be visible in the canvas/workspace at one or another time could affect the size of the buffers needed for that & the responsiveness of scrolling, zooming, rendering effects previews, & so on.

 

To oversimplify a bit, the more complex & feature rich an app becomes, the more difficult it is to keep it from becoming a resource hog that is not as fast, stable, or easy to use as it otherwise could be. That is what we mean when we talk about "feature bloat" not being a good thing.

 

But even if the developers could somehow avoid all of these technical challenges, the most compelling 'why not' reason is adding this to AD would cannibalize sales of Publisher, which would of necessity change the business model that allows the Affinity apps to be sold at such low prices & still keep the doors open.

 

Or in tl;dr terms: there is no such thing as a free lunch, either for users or for developers.

[Oval]

“ … Designer will then be able to resize them and type content into them and format them, and the text will reflow between frames just as it would in Publisher.”

 

Don’t worry, R C-R. They will get there and will get their money.

 

Perhaps you did not get this: So the probability rises that AD will have linking of text boxes before APu launch.

[Petar Petrenko]

If they continue to add Publisher features in Designer and Photo, then Publisher will become obsolete because it will be divided between the other two apps.

[KipV]

If they continue to add Publisher features in Designer and Photo, then Publisher will become obsolete because it will be devided between the other two apps.

 

That is exactly what happened with me in the 2000s. FreeHand kept adding enough layout features that I moved off of PageMaker. In that case it worked ok because at the time PageMaker was problematic and InDesign was immature and buggy but there is no need to add complex layout features to Photos and Designer today. The thing about the argument "well they added these features in the past" is that we don't live in the past anymore. We have a different landscape of design software today so we need to take all the modern considerations into account. 

[Bri-Toon]

So, it would be better if pixel feautures are left to Photo, vectors to Designer and text and layout to Publisher, or much better -- only one app (yes, I know you don't agree).

Separate apps with mixed features can lead to many mistakes and problems.

 

I agree, although I do like having some opposite features in an application. For example, using the pixel tools in Designer is a good way to get a rough sketch down first, so it is then easier to figure out the vector operations. I think depending on how to achieve the principle task, some opposite features may be needed. For the most part though, the programs shouldn't bloat like R C-R said.

 

I used to love Adobe with upgrades like CS3 and CS4 it's just that they don't put out updates like that anymore. Fortunately I found another company that could do great work.

 

Just because of how things are going with Affinity, I'm already confident that Publisher will be another great application. Aside from motion graphics, I really don't have any reason to touch the main 5 Adobe programs I own any more.

[KipV]

Just because of how things are going with Affinity, I'm already confident that Publisher will be another great application. Aside from motion graphics, I really don't have any reason to touch the main 5 Adobe programs I own any more.

I still mainly use Adobe for Lightroom. I wonder how much Serif if going to compete with that product? They have a raw editor and are going to come out with an asset manager so I wonder if they are moving in that direction?

[TnIan]

 

I really have an open mind but I just haven't seen a use case of this workflow being put into practice which makes me think that such workflow doesn't exist.

 

It sure exists for me. I have a recurring weekly piece that includes a variable amount of text across three fixed columns. I drop the text in and use paragraph styles to tweak it so the columns come out evenly. Doing that manually is a PITA.

 

 

At the moment Designer gets used for projects where Publisher would be better, because Publisher doesn't exist yet. That's not an argument for adding Publisher features to Designer.

 

Fair enough.

[KipV]

It sure exists for me. I have a recurring weekly piece that includes a variable amount of text across three fixed columns. I drop the text in and use paragraph styles to tweak it so the columns come out evenly. Doing that manually is a PITA.

Just do it from within a layout program; no need to use a drawing program for that.

[TnIan]

Just do it from within a layout program; no need to use a drawing program for that.

 

 

Actually, this particular job works better in Illustrator than in InDesign due to Illustrator's "Select > Same" and "Select > Object" functions.

 

But if you could point me towards a layout program that doesn't require an Adobe Creative Cloud subscription, I'd be most grateful.

[MikeW]

What OS?

[Oval]

But if you could point me towards a layout program that doesn't require an Adobe Creative Cloud subscription, I'd be most grateful.

 

For example VivaDesigner for Linux, WINDOOF, macOS.

 

HTH

 

 

Of course it doesn’t make sense (but for Kip) to do your weekly piece “from within a layout program” if you are satisfied with it. That would need additional work because your piece already exists.

[KipV]

Actually, this particular job works better in Illustrator than in InDesign due to Illustrator's "Select > Same" and "Select > Object" functions.

Then bring that feature to the layout program; don't bring all the layout features to a program that is not designed for doing layouts. That should be an obvious solution. 

[MikeW]

Then bring that feature to the layout program; don't bring all the layout features to a program that is not designed for doing layouts. That should be an obvious solution. 

 

It makes more sense to add Illy's Select... feature(s) to AD than to a layout application. 

[TnIan]

 

 

don't bring all the layout features to a program that is not designed for doing layouts.

 

I don't think wishing for a single function quite qualifies as "bringing all the layout features to a program that is not designed for layouts." Particularly when it's been a basic tool in both FreeHand and Illustrator, neither of which are 'designed for layouts,' and whose users AD is designed to appeal to.

 

If Affinity wants to focus on Designer being purely an illustration platform with purely illustration functionality, though, I can respect that. It's an admirable approach.

 

 

 

 

For example VivaDesigner for Linux, WINDOOF, macOS.

 

Thanks, I'll check that out. I'm on Mac.

 

 

 

 

Of course it doesn’t make sense (but for Kip) to do your weekly piece “from within a layout program” if you are satisfied with it. That would need additional work because your piece already exists.

 

Bingo. My goal is to move out of the Adobe ecosystem, though, so I'm amenable to looking at all alternatives.

[MikeW]

For layout applications, I use ID and QXP mostly. I do have Viva, but never really have become at ease with it (but a couple clients wanted me to use it, so...).

 

I have had occasions where I needed to rent a newer version of ID a few times. All my regular clients using ID use either CS5.5 or CS6, so for the occasional need for CC ID, I have been fine with renting.

 

My layout work is pretty much 60/40, ID/QXP respectively. Though that number is changing more to the QXP side of things. I prefer QXP anyway so that's fine with me.

 

Mike

[Oval]

My goal is to move out of the Adobe ecosystem, though, so I'm amenable to looking at all alternatives.

 

We all want better and newer solutions. If special file formats are not needed then APu could be the best. Sometime with all needed features for professionals. If you need an alternative now, you must know what you really need and you can first check the features of all possible apps and then can test the appropriate demos (for usability).

[KipV]

I don't think wishing for a single function quite qualifies as "bringing all the layout features to a program that is not designed for layouts." Particularly when it's been a basic tool in both FreeHand and Illustrator, neither of which are 'designed for layouts,' and whose users AD is designed to appeal to.

I don't care if the feature has been in FreeHand or Illustrator. The fact that it is in FreeHand or Illustrator doesn't justify it's existence. Adobe is not this perfect developer that nails every decision that they make. What I meant by adding in all the layout features was adding stuff like master pages, linked text boxes, etc as people are wanting them to do that makes no sense.