Jump to content
TonyB

Affinity Publisher - Sneak Preview

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Bogdan said:

Hello,

I'm interested to know if I could use Affinity Publisher to export to HTML and keep the same layout. For example, if I already have a layout for print, with images and text, if I could export and make an HTML webpage that has the images and text in the exact same positions. (InDesign doesn't do this, so I have to redo the layouts in Muse... which is double the work obviously)

Thanks!

 

Publisher won't have HTML export on the initial release and even in the future it will probably only be supported within an electronic publication export. Publisher output is not intended for webpages. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Bogdan said:

Hello,

I'm interested to know if I could use Affinity Publisher to export to HTML and keep the same layout. For example, if I already have a layout for print, with images and text, if I could export and make an HTML webpage that has the images and text in the exact same positions. (InDesign doesn't do this, so I have to redo the layouts in Muse... which is double the work obviously)

Thanks!

 

QXP can export to html5 fine. InDesign can with a plug-in from Ajar Productions:

 

https://ajarproductions.com/pages/products/in5/

 

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

In other words, the initial release of APub then won't from start up support exporting as epub and dealing with HTML is reserved for another future Affinity app.


☛ Affinity Designer 1.7.1 ◆ Affinity Photo 1.7.1 ◆ OSX El Capitan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, v_kyr said:

In other words, the initial release of APub then won't from start up support exporting as epub and dealing with HTML is reserved for another future Affinity app.

 

The initial release of Publisher will not support ePub. Future updates are likely to support fixed layout ePub but this will be confirmed on the roadmap when we release.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, MikeW said:

 

QXP can export to html5 fine. InDesign can with a plug-in from Ajar Productions:

 

https://ajarproductions.com/pages/products/in5/

 

Mike

 

I would say that HTML export for electronic publications is fine but using it to create webpages in my opinion is not. The modern web is so much more than fixed layout, static, non-semantic text and pictures. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bogdan said:

Hello,

I'm interested to know if I could use Affinity Publisher to export to HTML and keep the same layout. For example, if I already have a layout for print, with images and text, if I could export and make an HTML webpage that has the images and text in the exact same positions. (InDesign doesn't do this, so I have to redo the layouts in Muse... which is double the work obviously)

Thanks!

 

I have not tried any PDF to HTML converters, but there seem to be plenty available. Since APub will most definitely have a strong support for exporting PDF documents, maybe that'll do the trick? One step more, but exporting APub document as PDF should be no more than few clicks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, TonyB said:

 

I would say that HTML export for electronic publications is fine but using it to create webpages in my opinion is not. The modern web is so much more than fixed layout, static, non-semantic text and pictures. 

 

Yes, neither option is a web page builder. Though earlier versions (of Q) did produce static fixed-position web sites. However, if the goal is to produce web "applications" including html5 interactivity AND the desire is to "keep the same layout," then either of those option are available and do produce good results.

 

As regards FXL ePubs, once html5 is possible within an application, both routes are possible.


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
1 hour ago, TonyB said:

 

I would say that HTML export for electronic publications is fine but using it to create webpages in my opinion is not. The modern web is so much more than fixed layout, static, non-semantic text and pictures. 

 

Yes... I worked as mostly the only person for front end in a mid size company for almost a decade, (and before in several teams, at other places) and had time to cover almost any form of producing (graphics included, of course).... The web has become more of a puzzle of dynamic chunks of code, server generated, etc. You don't have anymore your large static XHTML and your CSS 3 sheet, your js includes and that'd be it. This is the past since quite long (I had my hopes on it going away as a trend like happened with all 2.0 cr4p...but that wont happen ). For landing pages, maybe. (but my late times at this, even those were generated by several sources...true that I'm 100% illustration/pixel-art/3D since 2013, and fully not sure how it has kept evolving, but all I have checked is it is following the trend, or even is more the case of it than then....) . Plus... making even a reliable and able to compete publishing app (with today's market) is said to be already daunting to achieve in this little time (and even the more cautious plan I've heard sounds too brave to me....) ...Is not just adding even more stuff on top of that difficult mountain... it is that doing a web code generator is a task where a lot of companies, even while doing it as a standalone specific app,  have failed in that in a too large percentage. First, for its incredible complexity, specially today (the times of one of the very few successful at that; Dreamweaver, by then the web allowed such app to make sense, and even so, from certain level of pro skill and bosses demands, you ended up using its code window 95% of the time (and as a last step, abandoning it in favor of just a text editor with syntax highlight and auto completion only for speed), lol...), and third parties involved, grids, frameworks , conditional CSS, responsive solutions, js (jQueries or not)/, and python/ROR/PHP/younameit generating all involved, etc. But also as is... a thing of ever-changing nature, at a crazy pace.  IMO, terrible business for an app developer.  If one thing is almost already obsolete in the day of release, as in that minute, new stuff is coming out, much better or just (as often , very often happens) just the new trend, the IN thing, not always being a better solution.... I mean, is like a way to end up killing every effort... I totally applaud making it an apart app, as is a very serious endeavor (which I doubt would be worth it).  Maybe... making that future app to be able to import 1:1  (but seems is a given, among the Affinity apps, luckily...)  from APub in native file, sounds to me a total win. And so, don't compromise/force the internal structure and/or flexibility of APub (neither use eternal development hours on it) , just make the future one read a much richer format than any web code, that is, native Affinty files from Apub, then let that specific app do its export, and focus that one of keeping up to date with the craze of the web (a bad business, IMO, anyways, but that's just me, I'm sure. ). IMO, tho, the best web editor one can have is a really good text coding editor focused in code production and maintenance (besides highlight and auto-completion, auto indent depending on the language of code, numbered lines, bookmarks, folding, etc. None of that is wysiwyg, and still, amazingly good for web code. U have it all in great free editors in every OS. Notepad ++ comes to mind, but there are many.). And I speak from quite some experience, not a random thought. If anything, I give more value that one of these apps has some way to cross platform upload to Git or SCP (but anyways, there outstanding free utilities for that, too!  ...winSCP, Putty and a number of also free tools for git is all you need ....) than any "wysiwyg", as that never works well.


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
6 hours ago, Bogdan said:

Hello,

I'm interested to know if I could use Affinity Publisher to export to HTML and keep the same layout. For example, if I already have a layout for print, with images and text, if I could export and make an HTML webpage that has the images and text in the exact same positions. (InDesign doesn't do this, so I have to redo the layouts in Muse... which is double the work obviously)

Thanks!

This would be pretty hard to do correctly for multiple reasons:

  1. HTML isn’t made to create a certain layout but to structure content semantically, i. e. it’s about content and giving it a meaning. For this you’d have to first define a meaning for any text object (the simple ones are heading, paragraph, list; more complex are tables with headers and data cells, and even more obscure things like forms with fields of various types (text/number/date etc.), sectioning elements and what not).
  2. Websites aren’t static objects like printed pages. They are viewed on a multitude of devices with different aspect ratios, display dimensions and rendering capabilities and therefore need to be responsive. Also, websites are usually more or less interactive (with hyperlinks and possibly some behavior (e. g. mouseover interactions)). If it should just be the print layout viewed in a web browser you might as well just export and display an image.

Affinity Publisher would have to take a serious effort to become web designing tool with proper code export. There have been attempts at something like this with Macaw but I don’t know how good the code was that it produced. In any case, this would be a vastly different approach than creating print layouts, so I don’t know if Serif will ever go this way. Even if APub would include UI designing capabilities (which I’d very much appreciate), proper code export for production (and not just for prototyping) is a whole nother level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if Bogdan is thinking of web site(s)/page(s) proper. Or whether Bogdan is talking about transferring say a page from a layout application or even a magazine and producing html(5) to place on a web site. I took it as the later. For this, the above mentioned methods/applications are applicable


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

If you want to publish a designed document on the web then use pdf, just about every device understands them and they are a usable standard.

 

I create a club newsletter using swift publisher, all of the old newsletters are on the website for people to refer to them.

 

are they in spub format - no they are in pdf. How would you deal with all the different alignments, screen shapes, formatting etc.

 

when the event reports are put on the website they are rewritten into html, and the pictures scaled to fit the page and inserted in the appropriate locations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@VIPStephan, @MikeW, Thanks for your replies!

 

I'm interesting in having very basic, static html pages. Something very simple.

I don't think I should have a subscription for WIX or Squarespace or Adobe Muse for a basic page with some text and some images. It's simply not worth it. 

 

And if I do a printed presentation for a client I would like to have the same material in the same order, looking exactly the same, online, static html. 

If, for example, I have 20 pages with text and images and so on, I want them to become 1 static html5 page with the same layout. (without doing the work twice using Muse)

 

And my alternatives are too expensive for such a simple task. I'll try some PDF to HTML converter, or maybe the Ajar plugin...

 

And here's a good point from GitHub Pages regarding simplicity:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to just create web pages, Serif's WebPlus is a bit clunky but will do a good job. There is also the free OpenElements


Affinity Designer 1.7.0.367 & beta 1.7.0.424 Affinity Photo 1.7.0.367 beta  1.7.0.424 Affinity Publisher 1.7.0.422

Windows 10 Pro 64-bit 1709

CPU Intel Core i7 4770 @ 3.40GHz Haswell 22nm Technology

RAM 32.0 GB Dual-Channel DDR3 @ 798 MHz (11-11-11-28)

Motherboard Gigabyte Technology Co. Ltd. B85M-D3H (SOCKET 0)

Graphics Intel HD Graphics 4600 (Gigabyte)

yoda.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Bogdan said:

...And if I do a printed presentation for a client I would like to have the same material in the same order, looking exactly the same, online, static html. 

If, for example, I have 20 pages with text and images and so on, I want them to become 1 static html5 page with the same layout. (without doing the work twice using Muse)...

If it's more printing material (like text and images) of pages in the sense of GitHub and markdown documents etc., then something like Typora (WYSIWYG markdown) will may be enough for you here. It can export as PDF, HTML, Word, OOffice,... etc.


☛ Affinity Designer 1.7.1 ◆ Affinity Photo 1.7.1 ◆ OSX El Capitan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or just pay me to get you the html + css + graphics identical to your layout..... I'm joking, of course. But I mean, if you would put together the pains many of these tools bring, and the lack of control one has with  them, way too often (yeah, even, or specially, Muse) it might worth it to learn a bit, not as to become a frontend person, just what you need (what you want to do is quite basic, very) of html and very specially, CSS, as, is true what is said, html is not thought for layout, there's a ton of situations where its default tags wont allow you to bring exact pixel to pixel appearance, but!....CSS allow you doing this by classes that affect those tags (and I don't mean inline css parameters, of course), perfectly. The rest is good image editing ability ! . I got very often the gig and/or company task of making blogger's blogs (and, WOW, do those have reaaaally convoluted and weird html+css+dynamic code all mixed (not bashing that, surely they have their reasons for doing so, as wix does), outputting chunks of not so nice code... thankfully, is google's property, and the algorythm treats blogger very nicely (how could I be surprised about that), so it gets compensated) the task was to make them look EXACTLY the same than even the most over-complex graphic design (some ppl do have  very complicated web layouts) , this because there was quite a number of ppl wanting blogger's (and other blog/whatever the SaaS thingy) great capabilities as a blogger, but at same time, not looking cheap by using it... And I mean, THAT was (is) complicated as you are forced to use their weird template and css, and dynamic chunks. But doing it on your own ? Not hard. One month of using some free time chunks here and there to learn it....maybe.  And it'd pay in the long run. As stuff like Wix, Muse, etc, (squarespace I think was a bit better in that regard(but I hate the limitations and/or paying for basic stuff), but don't quote me on this...) do often one of the two big issues (or both) , they output terrible code(no good for promotion, and other stuff), or simply they give you very little control or none, so you step too often into sth you can't make it exactly look like you want, no matter what you do (if you don't/aren't able to touch the actual code). There are great free tutorials for this. People is afraid of it maybe because they believe is like programming, while is just a markup language and getting familiar with certain specifications. 

 

I do know nooone is going to go for learning xhtml (or html 5, pretty similar)  and css. I just wanted to mention it ain't that hard, at all. I believe the practical solution (as you really need to factor in the actual developers plans, it's their idea and their business, maybe they count, too... ;)  And we got very recent their statements about the matter)  is IMO to hope that there'd be a future app for web making made by Affinity, which would import from APub with identical (visually at least) layout than what you had in there. Maybe further edit ,and export to web from there. But yeah, that can be a very long wait... I can only see sense in doing that only once APub is very mature as a product, and all the other fronts are in a great state, too, needing only light updates. I dunno. I see a ton more important (as they don't have infinite resources) to get a first beta of apub, keep improving + growing it after that while they keep polishing AP and AD, an strategy that I see it's clearly going well, looking at every beta released.


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

I know I am late to the party on automation, but I would like to thank Serif for including javascript in a further future release. However, automation is still new to me.

 

I just started learning AppleScript and (even though I can be a quick study) it is a pain sometimes since I am working with a heavily outdated AppleScript textbook made by apple and near complete lack of updated resources in the public domain.

 

Even though I now know a wide range of modern mac-native apps have an AppleScript library to work with, even the popular note taking app Evernote. I am glad that javascript is the more widely used and documented scripting language there is and it seems to be more structurally straightforward than than the english-like apple script.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And speaking of Adobe Muse:

Quote

Adobe Muse Product Announcement  
  As Adobe continues to re-focus on developing products and solutions that provide our customers with the most value, we are now announcing the end of new feature development for Adobe Muse CC.  
  On 26 March 2018 we will release the final feature improvement release of Adobe Muse. We will continue to offer technical support to all active Creative Cloud customers until 20 May 2019. Please see the Background and Frequently Asked Questions and Answers section for further details.
 

In my opinion this was one of the best WYSIWYG website builder. Especially because the interface was so similar to InDesign.

@Rick G, I tried OpenElement but the interface is dodgy and slow-working compared to Muse. It also has some bugs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bogdan said:

And speaking of Adobe Muse:

In my opinion this was one of the best WYSIWYG website builder. Especially because the interface was so similar to InDesign.

@Rick G, I tried OpenElement but the interface is dodgy and slow-working compared to Muse. It also has some bugs.

 

 

This is the best  WYSIWYG website builder which Serif should have bought out: http://www.wysiwygwebbuilder.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember not long ago, helping a friend who only could use Muse -no coding (I mean, markup) knowledge - , and she had some outstanding probs as she couldn't do anything about it through the Muse interface. I just made what she needed with some easy lines, in a minute. Easy, and with no limits in design matters, obviously. Limits that the automatic tools force to have.  But yep, the top companies tend to produce be the best tools in the field. In its day Dreaweaver was quite decent (as from certain point, it didn't do anymore its own "take" in your code(it did in initial versions, just like FrontPage (ugh)), it was almost as using notepad, if you wanted), specially since did hit the MX version. Not surprised if Muse was good as well. Had a taste of it, but I hate any of those tools, so I guess I was -always will be- biased.... 

 

1 hour ago, Sam Neil said:

 

This is the best  WYSIWYG website builder which Serif should have bought out: http://www.wysiwygwebbuilder.com

 

And it definitely looks great in the features list , but am worried with things like these :  "Add custom HTML code with the HTML tools."   . So, one can't have a full code windows of the entire project (containers structure, etc) like in Dreamweaver? If so, can be as it happens with Weebly, which, despite the quite more fame of Wix, is much better than the latter, allows better control of html and css, and the output code is cleaner (this affects seo, loading times, coding maintenance, readability by others, etc) . My problem with that is that these editors (same happens with Jimdo (less flexible in what you can change in the code, but better in other things)) or in the easy builders that the hosting services provide... are mostly bits where they let you touch the code, but you have to follow a template, or a grid, or type of structure or all of that. And only can change a few things, very restricted. Or can use only some tags, etc, etc. That linked editor doesn't look bad, indeed. But for those able to do it by hand, makes no sense....Unless it produces absolutely great code, and is not a crazy mess to later on customize without doing a full rewrite... yet to find one (in many years) really behaving so....

 

There IS an advantage in this tools, I mean, for advanced use as well, but is shared with grid systems, certain libraries, frameworks, so , one could just do that, use frameworks but still code by hand... I am thinking that one advantage that -if done well-  can be considered  is that the people maintaining these wysiwyg, if they do it well, they patch stuff to keep up to date with browsers differences and bugs while rendering "standard" code, and the less standard, too. keep up to date with changes of standards, compatibility issues with jQueries, etc (so, one looses less time in dealing with those problems).  But again, this is covered as well by the people who make frameworks, grids, etc, so... One other great advantage is the responsive design features. This comes as well in the frameworks in the form of css classes, media queries or the like. Even just using the modern css tools, and the better rendering of today browsers can make responsive design much easier than it used to be. That is, one needs to fight quite less today against browsers compatibility issues, and responsive is sort of easier, plus we can have access to a lot more effects. 

 

I don't know, to each his/her own. I only know that sooner or later,  at some point one needs badly to touch the code....And then is when the "fun" begins, if the person in question can't even touch a line...


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
52 minutes ago, SrPx said:

I remember not long ago, helping a friend who only could use Muse -no coding (I mean, markup) knowledge - , and she had some outstanding probs as she couldn't do anything about it through the Muse interface. I just made what she needed with some easy lines, in a minute. Easy, and with no limits in design matters, obviously. Limits that the automatic tools force to have.  But yep, the top companies tend to produce be the best tools in the field. In its day Dreaweaver was quite decent (as from certain point, it didn't do anymore its own "take" in your code(it did in initial versions, just like FrontPage (ugh)), it was almost as using notepad, if you wanted), specially since did hit the MX version. Not surprised if Muse was good as well. Had a taste of it, but I hate any of those tools, so I guess I was -always will be- biased.... 

 

 

And it definitely looks great in the features list , but am worried with things like these :  "Add custom HTML code with the HTML tools."   . So, one can't have a full code windows of the entire project (containers structure, etc) like in Dreamweaver? If so, can be as it happens with Weebly, which, despite the quite more fame of Wix, is much better than the latter, allows better control of html and css, and the output code is cleaner (this affects seo, loading times, coding maintenance, readability by others, etc) . My problem with that is that these editors (same happens with Jimdo (less flexible in what you can change in the code, but better in other things)) or in the easy builders that the hosting services provide... are mostly bits where they let you touch the code, but you have to follow a template, or a grid, or type of structure or all of that. And only can change a few things, very restricted. Or can use only some tags, etc, etc. That linked editor doesn't look bad, indeed. But for those able to do it by hand, makes no sense....Unless it produces absolutely great code, and is not a crazy mess to later on customize without doing a full rewrite... yet to find one (in many years) really behaving so....

 

There IS an advantage in this tools, I mean, for advanced use as well, but is shared with grid systems, certain libraries, frameworks, so , one could just do that, use frameworks but still code by hand... I am thinking that one advantage that -if done well-  can be considered  is that the people maintaining these wysiwyg, if they do it well, they patch stuff to keep up to date with browsers differences and bugs while rendering "standard" code, and the less standard, too. keep up to date with changes of standards, compatibility issues with jQueries, etc (so, one looses less time in dealing with those problems).  But again, this is covered as well by the people who make frameworks, grids, etc, so... One other great advantage is the responsive design features. This comes as well in the frameworks in the form of css classes, media queries or the like. Even just using the modern css tools, and the better rendering of today browsers can make responsive design much easier than it used to be. That is, one needs to fight quite less today against browsers compatibility issues, and responsive is sort of easier, plus we can have access to a lot more effects. 

 

I don't know, to each his/her own. I only know that sooner or later,  at some point one needs badly to touch the code....And then is when the "fun" begins, if the person in question can't even touch a line...

Are you a web designer? You seems to know a lot about this subject. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, have been, not too long ago I was for 7 years in charge of all the web (front-end guy, working side by side with the ppl in charge of the back-end (ROR, mainly)) and print stuff for a company, had been in similar functions in around 5 more places (but of very different nature each time) and, as a big contrast, in other 4 companies, (game development) working as a game artist (2D (UI, concept art, texturing, pixel art), 3D, and also the g. design work and eventual web code, depending on the company). Since only a few years it is that I am full time freelancer, mainly illustrator (but some gigs come from time to time in the form of 3D or pixel art. ) 


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
1 hour ago, SrPx said:

I remember not long ago, helping a friend who only could use Muse -no coding (I mean, markup) knowledge - , and she had some outstanding probs as she couldn't do anything about it through the Muse interface. I just made what she needed with some easy lines, in a minute. Easy, and with no limits in design matters, obviously. Limits that the automatic tools force to have.  But yep, the top companies tend to produce be the best tools in the field. In its day Dreaweaver was quite decent (as from certain point, it didn't do anymore its own "take" in your code(it did in initial versions, just like FrontPage (ugh)), it was almost as using notepad, if you wanted), specially since did hit the MX version. Not surprised if Muse was good as well. Had a taste of it, but I hate any of those tools, so I guess I was -always will be- biased.... 

 

 

And it definitely looks great in the features list , but am worried with things like these :  "Add custom HTML code with the HTML tools."   . So, one can't have a full code windows of the entire project (containers structure, etc) like in Dreamweaver? If so, can be as it happens with Weebly, which, despite the quite more fame of Wix, is much better than the latter, allows better control of html and css, and the output code is cleaner (this affects seo, loading times, coding maintenance, readability by others, etc) . My problem with that is that these editors (same happens with Jimdo (less flexible in what you can change in the code, but better in other things)) or in the easy builders that the hosting services provide... are mostly bits where they let you touch the code, but you have to follow a template, or a grid, or type of structure or all of that. And only can change a few things, very restricted. Or can use only some tags, etc, etc. That linked editor doesn't look bad, indeed. But for those able to do it by hand, makes no sense....Unless it produces absolutely great code, and is not a crazy mess to later on customize without doing a full rewrite... yet to find one (in many years) really behaving so....

 

There IS an advantage in this tools, I mean, for advanced use as well, but is shared with grid systems, certain libraries, frameworks, so , one could just do that, use frameworks but still code by hand... I am thinking that one advantage that -if done well-  can be considered  is that the people maintaining these wysiwyg, if they do it well, they patch stuff to keep up to date with browsers differences and bugs while rendering "standard" code, and the less standard, too. keep up to date with changes of standards, compatibility issues with jQueries, etc (so, one looses less time in dealing with those problems).  But again, this is covered as well by the people who make frameworks, grids, etc, so... One other great advantage is the responsive design features. This comes as well in the frameworks in the form of css classes, media queries or the like. Even just using the modern css tools, and the better rendering of today browsers can make responsive design much easier than it used to be. That is, one needs to fight quite less today against browsers compatibility issues, and responsive is sort of easier, plus we can have access to a lot more effects. 

 

I don't know, to each his/her own. I only know that sooner or later,  at some point one needs badly to touch the code....And then is when the "fun" begins, if the person in question can't even touch a line...

 

I just think if Affinity wants to release a tool in the new stable, they should seriously look into this. This is far better than WIX and Muse and anything else in this class. Yes there is not much of "Coding" but who really cares how you reach the goal? Granted some will want it but then again you cannot please everyone similarly APUB does not out put as webpages. It has a secret tool and it is the extensions which makes it even more powerful and you can just about make any third party code into an extension to use with the software "Visually".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×