Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I didn't know the best place to post this as I can't really find any information on Affinity Publisher. I just had to come on and tell someone, anyone, to please PLEASE consider adding book formatting features to make it easier. Soooo many authors want to format their print and ebook interior and are forced to use horrid Word, pay someone, or attempt to use Indesign. I just bought PagePlus x9 in an attempt to do it myself. I even have a guide someone made on how to format a book and it is still mostly in Chinese. There are no templates, no tutorials, nothing on how to format a book. 

 

So this may go unnoticed, but I'm begging you to make something for book designers out there. I promise it'll go big for all those self-publishing.  That's it. Gonna go pull my hair out some more. Thank you for considering. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mostly paperback, but it would be great to do ebook as well which requires much less work, but just as much consistency. I need book formating specific guides on master pages, setting margins, choosing if the first line is indented and/or drop capped, ensuring a chapter always starts on the right side, choosing where page numbers start and placement, etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Er, not all books start on a right-hand page. So an option is needed for this.

 

And I believe it ought to be part of a paragraph style, like Ventura Publisher had. A paragraph style had a switch for various break options (including no-break) and two of them were "Break Before/Until Right" and "Break Before/Until Left."

 

Drop caps and line indents are properties of paragraph styles.

 

Let's not leave out various rule options either.

 

I truly hope that how text styles work (not to mention the features thereof) get a good rethink by the time APub gets into beta. A serious look at ID should be mandatory for the developers--and not just dismissal of how they work and are presented in ID. And then roll that work back into AD...

 

Mike


My computer is a nothing-special Toshiba laptop with unremarkable specs running Windows 10 64-bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I truly hope that how text styles work (not to mention the features thereof) get a good rethink by the time APub gets into beta. A serious look at ID should be mandatory for the developers--and not just dismissal of how they work and are presented in ID. And then roll that work back into AD...

 

Never having used InDesign, I'm not familiar with its method of handling text styles. What does it do differently, and why is it so much better than the way PagePlus and Affinity Designer handle such things?


Alfred online2long.gif
Affinity Designer/Photo/Publisher 1.7.1.404 • Windows 10 Home (4th gen Core i3 CPU)
Affinity Photo for iPad 1.7.1.143 • Designer for iPad 1.7.1.1 • iOS 12.3.1 (iPad Air 2)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PP's paragraph styles can be erratic in the way they work and especially how poorly the removal of overrides. Both ID and QXP work far better in this regard.

 

The manner in which one accesses the various "sections/attributes" of a paragraph or character style in PP is different and perhaps easier than AD. As well, it is easier in PP to see the paragraph styles and the summation of the style's attributes in PP than AD. It is easier in PP to see what paragraph styles are applied in various text sections that I do not think can be attributed to a lighter interface compared to AD.

 

ID and QXP are standards for a reason. Both have excellent paragraph and character style control that simply works and allows several options for controlling text attributes, clearing of various attributes when removing overrides, etc. Only items pertaining to a paragraph of text are contained in the style dialogs--and character style dialogs. There is a cohesive understanding of what is where and how to manipulate those attributes.

 

Half the time in AD I expect something to be in one and it is in the other. Or worse, both, without a seeming rhyme or reason. For example: Accessing OT features. I first have to open the character panel and click on an icon or remember the shortcut to open the Typography panel. This should be part of the Paragraph panel. Not a separate dialog. Now, as per ID, OT features ought to be part of the Character style dialog too simply because of OT features one doesn't desire to be part of local formatting via a character style. The important part is for both paragraph and character styles OT features should just be right there.

 

Now, QXP has OT Features as part of the character style dialog (and not as part of the paragraph definition) but it is a single dialog. It (QXP) operates in a different manner than ID as regards styles, and I prefer ID's manner. In QXP, one does not need to use either paragraph or character styles (except the default styles), but like in ID, one will avoid a lot of potential heartache using them properly.

 

But as AD is a vector design application and not a layout application, its comparative really ought to be CorelDraw since X6. How CD works as a vector design application as regards OT Features is simple and as regards stylistic sets or alternates is elegant and intuitive.

 

I hope that creating, accessing and modifying text styles gets a rethink when it comes time for APub if Serif is following how AD is doing it. To do so, Serif only needs to use and understand ID in relation to actual, real, and productive publication layout.

 

PP was never as efficient for me to lay out publications even though I am fairly I am capable in PP. And likely because of its legacy code PP could never have been made to be so. But APub is new and I truly hope Serif is not too far down the road with its coding that proper consideration from a production layout perspective cannot be achieved. Once the beta hits, APub will be largely set in stone as regards how it operates.

 

As well, I hope they rethink how color is handled. AD is far from intuitive and efficient. If that is what hits APub, it will not be good. Swatches need an overhaul in AD.


My computer is a nothing-special Toshiba laptop with unremarkable specs running Windows 10 64-bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your comprehensive reply, Mike. For the record, I completely agree with your concluding paragraphs.


Alfred online2long.gif
Affinity Designer/Photo/Publisher 1.7.1.404 • Windows 10 Home (4th gen Core i3 CPU)
Affinity Photo for iPad 1.7.1.143 • Designer for iPad 1.7.1.1 • iOS 12.3.1 (iPad Air 2)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think that text styles should be removed from Designer and Photo. They belong to Publisher. Artistic text is enough for these apps.

About colors: Left click for the fill, right for the stroke -- just as Corel. Forget AI, PS and ID about this matter.

Global colors are all that is needed to Designer, Photo and Publisher. There is no use of standard ones.


Best regards,

Petar Petrenko
Typesetter, Graphic Designer, Photographer
Skopje, Makedonija

Windows 10 x64 Pro
Dell Inspiron 7559 i7
Intel Core i7-6700HQ (3.50 GHz, 6M )
16GB Dual Channel DDR3L 1600MHz (8GBx2)
1TB HDD + 128 GB SSD Hard drive
UHD (3840 x 2160) Truelife LED- Backlit Touch Display
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M 4GB GDDR5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think that text styles should be removed from Designer and Photo. They belong to Publisher. Artistic text is enough for these apps.

 

Some users will want to use Designer, and perhaps even Photo, to produce text-heavy posters. Those apps have to understand Publisher objects, anyway, so I don't see any point in removing the ability to create Frame Text.


Alfred online2long.gif
Affinity Designer/Photo/Publisher 1.7.1.404 • Windows 10 Home (4th gen Core i3 CPU)
Affinity Photo for iPad 1.7.1.143 • Designer for iPad 1.7.1.1 • iOS 12.3.1 (iPad Air 2)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Designing is not only vector or bitmap or layout. It is all together. You must know and use all 3 apps.


Best regards,

Petar Petrenko
Typesetter, Graphic Designer, Photographer
Skopje, Makedonija

Windows 10 x64 Pro
Dell Inspiron 7559 i7
Intel Core i7-6700HQ (3.50 GHz, 6M )
16GB Dual Channel DDR3L 1600MHz (8GBx2)
1TB HDD + 128 GB SSD Hard drive
UHD (3840 x 2160) Truelife LED- Backlit Touch Display
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M 4GB GDDR5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as regards color swatches, yes, a swatch should just be a global color. One can still mix whatever color one wants without having it a swatch if desired.

 

But swatches also need to have other attributes, like one swatch being able to have an overprint attribute, and there needs to be spot color.

 

Text styles? I am ambivalent about them in a design application--and as Alfred's post cam in while I was typing this--I have created a gazillion posters in XDP, AI and CD. Never thought text styles would have been an aid. But if they are present, they need to be forthright in use and clearly delineate between paragraph and character styles. And one shouldn't need yet another dialog for OT features.


My computer is a nothing-special Toshiba laptop with unremarkable specs running Windows 10 64-bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if they are present, they need to be forthright in use and clearly delineate between paragraph and character styles. And one shouldn't need yet another dialog for OT features.

 

Amen to all that.


Alfred online2long.gif
Affinity Designer/Photo/Publisher 1.7.1.404 • Windows 10 Home (4th gen Core i3 CPU)
Affinity Photo for iPad 1.7.1.143 • Designer for iPad 1.7.1.1 • iOS 12.3.1 (iPad Air 2)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you choose sliders for mixing colors, tint slider disappears, but just bellow the last slider you can choose opacity and noise. I think that there should another click be added for tint.


Best regards,

Petar Petrenko
Typesetter, Graphic Designer, Photographer
Skopje, Makedonija

Windows 10 x64 Pro
Dell Inspiron 7559 i7
Intel Core i7-6700HQ (3.50 GHz, 6M )
16GB Dual Channel DDR3L 1600MHz (8GBx2)
1TB HDD + 128 GB SSD Hard drive
UHD (3840 x 2160) Truelife LED- Backlit Touch Display
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M 4GB GDDR5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As well, it is easier in PP to see the paragraph styles and the summation of the style's attributes in PP than AD. It is easier in PP to see what paragraph styles are applied in various text sections that I do not think can be attributed to a lighter interface compared to AD.

Thanks for the feedback, Mike. In AD the names of the current character and paragraph styles are shown in the text context toolbar. Are you saying those controls are hard to read? They are also highlighted in the Text Styles panel. We have several options for display there; personally I prefer Hierarchical and Samples to be off.

 

 

ID and QXP are standards for a reason. Both have excellent paragraph and character style control that simply works and allows several options for controlling text attributes, clearing of various attributes when removing overrides, etc. Only items pertaining to a paragraph of text are contained in the style dialogs--and character style dialogs. There is a cohesive understanding of what is where and how to manipulate those attributes.

 

It should simply work in AD, too. I've not noticed any problems on Mac, but I've not used Windows so much. If we have bugs reported there we'll fix them.

 

We have options for clearing attributes etc. Each control in the Edit Text Style panel has either a "[No change]" option or a checkbox or similar. I'm not sure what it is you are finding difficult here. Could you be more explicit? I think we're much better than PagePlus or InDesign here, because those just have the Reset formatting button that resets everything.

 

I won't discuss the issue of including paragraph options in character styles here, because it's already being discussed elsewhere.

 

 

Half the time in AD I expect something to be in one and it is in the other. Or worse, both, without a seeming rhyme or reason. For example: Accessing OT features. I first have to open the character panel and click on an icon or remember the shortcut to open the Typography panel. This should be part of the Paragraph panel. Not a separate dialog. Now, as per ID, OT features ought to be part of the Character style dialog too simply because of OT features one doesn't desire to be part of local formatting via a character style. The important part is for both paragraph and character styles OT features should just be right there.

 

OpenType features logically belong with Character formatting, not Paragraph formatting, because they affect individual characters. In AD they have their own dialog because there are so many of them and you don't always want them visible and taking up screen real estate. They are included in the Edit Text Styles dialog too, so you can certainly have them as part of a Paragraph style if you want. Personally I find OpenType painful to use in InDesign because you have to find the Character panel, then use the hamburger menu, then use the OpenType submenu, then look for the setting you want. In AD you have a modeless dialog that lets you just click at various points in the text and see what is set at those points instantly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dave,

 

I'm probably gonna do a couple post response on parts of your reply

 

Thanks for the feedback, Mike. In AD the names of the current character and paragraph styles are shown in the text context toolbar. Are you saying those controls are hard to read? They are also highlighted in the Text Styles panel. We have several options for display there; personally I prefer Hierarchical and Samples to be off.

 
It should simply work in AD, too. I've not noticed any problems on Mac, but I've not used Windows so much. If we have bugs reported there we'll fix them.

 

 

It's not that they are hard to read, perhaps more that they do not contain all the pertinent info I would like to see in APub.

 

And it can be a long stretch to see attributes of a paragraph using the context bar with everything seemingly wider than it needs to be. A summary like in PP was also good, though.

 

I do like that there are the two buttons on the context bar for flipping over to the appropriate panel.

 

For APub, I believe a Text Style button would be good for the context bar. Otherwise, I suppose how it is presently is fine for AD. (I do have issues with AD's panel system, especially for the ones concerning text and their interaction with other panels, but that would be for a different thread.)

 

I believe APub's text panels ought not to be as "inaccessible" as AD's. In a layout application, it is imperative that there is the ability to always get to the paragraph/character styles themselves. If I want the clutter of seeing the attributes, I'll open one or the other. There is a partial redundancy in having the context bar and everything about a text style (no matter what type) in their respective panels. 

 

If I opt to switch between the Paragraph panel and the character panel in AD, panels fly about auto resizing. This shouldn't happen in a layout application (nor in AD, really). so for instance, in AD if I am displaying the Paragraph panel and have the Color... panels showing, I see this:

 

post-255-0-42844200-1489684938_thumb.png

 

And if I opt to click on the Character tab, I get this:

 

post-255-0-56792600-1489685015_thumb.png

 

I shouldn't have the panel(s) below suck up into the Character panel and at this point use a small scroll bar to access the Character panel attributes. It is one thing for this to happen in AD, but if this is carried forward into APub, I don't think this is conducive to efficient page layout and likely would be a source of frustration to people newish to it.

 

A better option to always opening/closing the panels (cause I really have them tore off and not grouped together, just having the Text Style panel in that location), would be to rethink the context toolbar to truly show the attributes of paragraph/character styles.

 

I think the context toolbar in ID and QXP's "Measurement bar" are fuller, more complete solutions to the single line of AD. ID does stuff a lot into its property bar and perhaps it is a bit overkill. But all pertinent information is there and available without opening the pop-out paragraph/character styles panel.

 

Well, the grand kids are getting ready to head out, so that's all for now...


My computer is a nothing-special Toshiba laptop with unremarkable specs running Windows 10 64-bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

OpenType features logically belong with Character formatting, not Paragraph formatting, because they affect individual characters. In AD they have their own dialog because there are so many of them and you don't always want them visible and taking up screen real estate. They are included in the Edit Text Styles dialog too, so you can certainly have them as part of a Paragraph style if you want. Personally I find OpenType painful to use in InDesign because you have to find the Character panel, then use the hamburger menu, then use the OpenType submenu, then look for the setting you want. In AD you have a modeless dialog that lets you just click at various points in the text and see what is set at those points instantly.

 

 

No argument here concerning ID's implementation of OT features prior to the 2017 release. But in earlier versions they are not only accessible via the character panel. In QXP, they are accessible via the character style dialog and via the measurement palette. The way text styles are implemented in QXP is more akin to AD with the exception that a character style can be tied to a paragraph style and once that is done, the character style is merely an extension of a paragraph style and so in that sense, the text styles in QXP are no different than in ID.

 

Adobe have now included an "OpenType Adornment" icon at the bottom of text frames for access. And it has caused performance and other problems for people. I suppose Adobe will get around to fixing those issues at some point, but it is still clunky. It's easier to shut it off. Really, it is for an on-the-fly access. I personally use OT features via styles in AD. With hot-keys assigned to styles, they are quick and easy to apply.

 

As regards where these features belong, they belong accessible both places. As part of a paragraph and character definition ala ID and AD. I understand that you would believe they are a character attribute, but so is every aspect of text, really.

 

If I am highlighting text and changing attributes via the context toolbar as a first step to defining a paragraph style, it is not as efficient to open AD's character panel, then click on the hamburger menu, and click on Show Typography just to access certain OT features. Instead, like in QXP, I can highlight text, go to the measurement palette, change whatever is going to relate to the style, set the OT features, and either create a new style from the selected text or redefine the current style.

 

While someone may well argue that there isn't a fundamental difference between AD (and eventually APub if it continues AD's scheme) and QXP, there is at least one: the time it takes to look here, there and open/close various panels. And as can be seen from the previous post's screen shots, having the text panels consolidated is not a solution (but it could be without the auto-resizing that gets that wrong).

 

QXP's concept of linking character styles to paragraph styles (or not) is a fairly decent means of dealing with type. It allows for a well-integrated approach and a great amount of flexibility at both the paragraph and character styles level. And those palettes are easy to access, have easy to change attributes and in general are not intrusive. And in the case of QXP, plenty of options (too many for some people) to maintain or clear overrides all the while resetting the text to its base style.

 

post-255-0-19350100-1489687974_thumb.png

 

How and what is done in AD is one thing--and I think I've made myself reasonably clear on what I do and don't like--APub is not an illustration application. I can put up with various work-flow oddities in an illustration application. All of them have oddities.

 

But as someone who may switch between 2 primary layout applications during a single day, I have, er, strong work-flow opinions. It is how I largely put bread on the table. APub needs to be efficient to use for someone who hacks text day in and day out.

 

I have no idea if I'll ever get an APub client or have the flexibility to choose to use it. I don't often have a choice. So there has to be a compelling reason for me to opt to use it over QXP or ID for the times I do have a choice.

 

Mike


My computer is a nothing-special Toshiba laptop with unremarkable specs running Windows 10 64-bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a wild, crazy thought... why do paragraph and character have to be separate panels at all? Can't we have just one single, long panel with all text settings together. If I'm editing text, I inevitably have both panels open at the same time anyway.

 

I'm going to propose this in its own discussion..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not that they are hard to read, perhaps more that they do not contain all the pertinent info I would like to see in APub.

 

And it can be a long stretch to see attributes of a paragraph using the context bar with everything seemingly wider than it needs to be. A summary like in PP was also good, though.

 

We will probably review what is included in the text context toolbar, and especially their widths, by the time Publisher is out. It sounds like adding buttons for Typography and/or Text Styles would help, for example. However, we will never go to two lines of information, and that must limit how much information we can show.

 

 

If I opt to switch between the Paragraph panel and the character panel in AD, panels fly about auto resizing. This shouldn't happen in a layout application (nor in AD, really). so for instance, in AD if I am displaying the Paragraph panel and have the Color... panels showing, I see this:

 

attachicon.gifcapture-000935.png

 

And if I opt to click on the Character tab, I get this:

 

attachicon.gifcapture-000936.png

 

I shouldn't have the panel(s) below suck up into the Character panel and at this point use a small scroll bar to access the Character panel attributes. It is one thing for this to happen in AD, but if this is carried forward into APub, I don't think this is conducive to efficient page layout and likely would be a source of frustration to people newish to it.

That doesn't happen for me on Mac. If I View > Studio > Reset Studio, then show the Character and Paragraph panels, then dock them above the Colour panel, then switch between them, the panels below must move to make space, but they don't overlap the Character panel. Do you get different results from following that recipe? I think our Studio architecture is flexible enough to get this right, so it should just be a matter of tweaking panel priorities and default sizes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dave,

 

Nope, resetting, then showing the para and char panels, then docking them above the color panel has the same result.

 

Windows 10, Toshiba laptop, 1600 x 900 display.

 

Mike

 

 


My computer is a nothing-special Toshiba laptop with unremarkable specs running Windows 10 64-bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While someone may well argue that there isn't a fundamental difference between AD (and eventually APub if it continues AD's scheme) and QXP, there is at least one: the time it takes to look here, there and open/close various panels. And as can be seen from the previous post's screen shots, having the text panels consolidated is not a solution (but it could be without the auto-resizing that gets that wrong).

 

We can add more ways to get to the Typography and Text Styles panels.

 

 

QXP's concept of linking character styles to paragraph styles (or not) is a fairly decent means of dealing with type. It allows for a well-integrated approach and a great amount of flexibility at both the paragraph and character styles level. And those palettes are easy to access, have easy to change attributes and in general are not intrusive. And in the case of QXP, plenty of options (too many for some people) to maintain or clear overrides all the while resetting the text to its base style.

 

We don't like the approach of linking Character styles to Paragraph styles because it involves an extra level of indirection, and you have to make a new Character style just to use it in a Paragraph style. Having the character formatting right there in the Paragraph style doesn't cause any problems that I'm aware of.

 

We can add a way to apply styles without losing local formatting. I'm not sure what the other options are doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

We can add more ways to get to the Typography and Text Styles panels.

 

 

 

We don't like the approach of linking Character styles to Paragraph styles because it involves an extra level of indirection, and you have to make a new Character style just to use it in a Paragraph style. Having the character formatting right there in the Paragraph style doesn't cause any problems that I'm aware of.

 

We can add a way to apply styles without losing local formatting. I'm not sure what the other options are doing.

 

Sorry Dave, please don't get me wrong, but it is not up to you (Affinity team) something to like or not, because at the end IMO you don't make the applications for your own use. If most users do not agree with your approach -- you lose. We are going to work with the apps we used to.


Best regards,

Petar Petrenko
Typesetter, Graphic Designer, Photographer
Skopje, Makedonija

Windows 10 x64 Pro
Dell Inspiron 7559 i7
Intel Core i7-6700HQ (3.50 GHz, 6M )
16GB Dual Channel DDR3L 1600MHz (8GBx2)
1TB HDD + 128 GB SSD Hard drive
UHD (3840 x 2160) Truelife LED- Backlit Touch Display
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M 4GB GDDR5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apart from that being slightly rude, I can't agree with it. is their product, and they can take whatever the direction they want. We are not the owners of their code or the company at a whole.  Plus "we the users" and "most users" is too much to state, IMHO. As even if there were in this thread around 20 users all agreeing together in a certain point of view about a specific feature, that'd be a super funny-ridiculously small sample of the total users, as a statistic, don't you think ? To establish that it is what the many thousands of users of an application do actually want, or even will/would want.

 

at the end IMO you don't make the applications for your own use

 

 

Neither necessarily for a type of user, or the ones with a certain take about an specific feature. They choose which their user target is going to be. It's their call. And even if there was an actual poll among some thousands of users, technically well made, reliable, which is certainly not easy to do accurately even by the best professionals -in politics we have seen this in every country-   they would still have their totally entire right to take the risk and do their bet, against those poll results.... They can perfectly take the risk on doing it their way (and IMO, should).   "we" here are the ones who don't have a say, in the sense that they would "have" to take that  direction, yes or yes, lol. They are gentle and am sure they consider most of the polite and educated opinions (but just to maybe give it a thought, if time allows), but is not their "duty".


Affinity Designer and Affinity Photo licenses, Windows 7, i7  860 (2009) 2.8 GHz,  8 GB RAM, GTX 1050 2 GB, HD 7200 RPM.  Wacom Intuos 4 XL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apart from that being slightly rude, I can't agree with it. is their product, and they can take whatever the direction they want. We are not the owners of their code or the company at a whole.  Plus "we the users" and "most users" is too much to state, IMHO. As even if there were in this thread around 20 users all agreeing together in a certain point of view about a specific feature, that'd be a super funny-ridiculously small sample of the total users, as a statistic, don't you think ? To establish that it is what the many thousands of users of an application do actually want, or even will/would want.

 

 

Neither necessarily for a type of user, or the ones with a certain take about an specific feature. They choose which their user target is going to be. It's their call. And even if there was an actual poll among some thousands of users, technically well made, reliable, which is certainly not easy to do accurately even by the best professionals -in politics we have seen this in every country-   they would still have their totally entire right to take the risk and do their bet, against those poll results.... They can perfectly take the risk on doing it their way (and IMO, should).   "we" here are the ones who don't have a say, in the sense that they would "have" to take that  direction, yes or yes, lol. They are gentle and am sure they consider most of the polite and educated opinions (but just to maybe give it a thought, if time allows), but is not their "duty".

 

Yes, I absolutelly agree with this. But... they make the software for us, not (only) for them. That is why they started and that is why they sell it. And, as I said earlier, they are great programmers, but it not makes them great DTP, design... experts. They must have expert in the areas they work to consult him/her. Otherwise, everything will be mess.


Best regards,

Petar Petrenko
Typesetter, Graphic Designer, Photographer
Skopje, Makedonija

Windows 10 x64 Pro
Dell Inspiron 7559 i7
Intel Core i7-6700HQ (3.50 GHz, 6M )
16GB Dual Channel DDR3L 1600MHz (8GBx2)
1TB HDD + 128 GB SSD Hard drive
UHD (3840 x 2160) Truelife LED- Backlit Touch Display
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M 4GB GDDR5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thin line between:

 

"This has been done like this for a long time, so don't touch because it works like a charm" and "maybe there is another way to do things that we believe makes sense and does no harm".

 

Best regards!


You'll never know what you can do until you get it up as high as you can go!   

AMD FX 8350 :: Radeon HD 7870 :: Windows 10 ::  http://mithferion.deviantart.com/

Oxygen Icons :: Free Quality Fonts :: Public Domain Pictures :: iOS 11 Design Resources :: iOS App Icon Template :: Hot to do High Quality Art :: Mesh Warp / Distort Tool Considerations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feature requests to make most users switch from InDesign to Affinity:

1 advanced otf support, so people can easily see what stylistic or other alternates are available

2 data merge or something similar, now without bugs

3 grep based search and replace

4 grep styles

5 multiple page sizes

 

While 1 and 2 are horribly buggy/confused in InDesign and would attract frustrated InDesign users, 3, 4 and 5 are such a delight in InDesign as to be nearly necessary.

 

Thanks for creating these powerful apps and finally offering some resistance to Adobe.

 

I've lived through the demise of Quark and am seeing the same telltale signs in Adobe's behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×