¿HowTo: Convert between Art Text and Frame Text?

[R C-R]

4 hours ago, Jtyoung510 said:

These replies lead me to believe that you didn't know Art Text could be more than one line?

I know Art text can have more than one line, but to do that you need to have paragraph, line, or similar breaks in the text. So like I mentioned, if a text frame just has one very long paragraph in it, if it is simply converted to art text, the result will be a single, very long line of text, quite possibly many times longer than the document is wide.

4 hours ago, Jtyoung510 said:

You came in this thread multiple times to argue with people about why you think 3 steps is better than 1...

That is not what I said, nor what I believe. I simply think (as I recently said) there is a workaround that isn't too too much of a hassle to live with for now. That in no way means I think a one step method is not something that has merit.

[Jtyoung510]

On 2/25/2018 at 12:59 PM, R C-R said:

It makes my head hurt too, particularly when I think about the implications for seamless compatibility across all the apps in the Affinity suite, including the yet to be released but much anticipated Publisher app. I am not aware of any other software company that has ever managed or even attempted to do that. To me, it seems an almost impossible task.

People literally mentioned that there was a plugin for Illustrator that could do it. If some third party can make a plugin that does it, so can the developers. This was where you tipped off that you are just here to argue because you have to know you don't understand the advice you're trying to give.  And even 45 minutes ago you wrote that you "can't understand how it could be done" when I pointed out to you and you ignored my mention of the Auto option for leading override.

Since they already have that done, all they would have to do is add in something short to bound that to a box (its a lot like this other feature in Affinity called masking) and add the breaks as they overlap going down, then have it apply auto leading override. Sure you'd end up with a square that is 75% of your page and the text might be at 1px, but don't say it can't be done with just one click.

You're probably going to say that "there's still some stuff that would have to be measured out," or "they'd still have equations to do" but it's not done on paper anymore, we have computers. The bolded portion below is where you state you don't see it as "that easy" but even as I already mentioned...someone ELSE has already mentioned...that someone else outside of ADOBE, wrote a plugin for their app. If they can do it, then it can be done here.

So I've reference multiple people you ignored and with the bolded portion below, it's clear you are just here to argue because you are very unfamiliar with not only how this program works, but the general basis of how many programs work.  💁🏼‍♂️

On 2/25/2018 at 1:58 PM, R C-R said:

I don't particularly like doing that but I think people too often don't consider the complexities involved in adding what they see as some 'easy to implement' feature to the Affinity code base.

I also believe that prioritized adding features according to their popularity in the numerous & diverse feature request lists would be among the worst things Serif could do. That should remain as it is, with the priority given to what can actually be implemented in the existing code in a reasonable amount of time without having to rewrite substantial parts of it.

I didn't bold the one part because in this same post you say that you believe they shouldn't  add this because you see it falling into some sort of popularity contest funnel. So just because its something you don't want or need, but the MAJORITY (you're the one who said it was in the popular group) want it, you don't think it should be implemented?  How is that "not what [you] said or believe" as you stated in the bolded portion below?

2 hours ago, R C-R said:

That is not what I said, nor what I believe. I simply think (as I recently said) there is a workaround that isn't too too much of a hassle to live with for now. That in no way means I think a one step method is not something that has merit.

This all was exhausting, but needed to be said because people need to understand that just because you learned Photoshop the year it came out, that doesn't make you an expert on modern day editing software. You'll say "but years of experience," yet I already listed multiple times (please don't ignore those too) that you refuse to learn.

I've sent your account to multiple mods and outlined the problem you're causing (not just on this thread, but to the entire Affinity forums,) by getting to spread this nonsense in 22k posts.

Bonus round?

After all that fun we just had above, you're still gonna cling on to the one part I didn't mention, where you said that they don't read this particular section of the forums for suggestions.  But I would advise you to recheck the part about you not understanding exactly how programs work, because it was implied that I also meant search engines/forums/browsers/modern day companies/etc. If this forums as a whole did not have people like you, pretending to know better, talking about how "its hard" or "we don't need it." Then there would be an actual open discussion and dialogue on how and why we need it, which would lead to more people doing the "+1" and this page would get popular and the developers would see it. Even the very simplicity of the "+1" is another thing you commented on, acting like you understood, but once again you did not. 

One more for good measure because it's like, in this day and age, you didn't know or think people (me) would go through only 5 pages of forums posts to not only find my answer, but then to go quote your replies? Wild.

Affinity should take this as a obvious reason to completely re-do their forums. With proper moderating, teachers, and banning, they'd end getting more retention on their products because people would be able to learn them faster and there'd be an actual community for their suite.

[MikeW]

As well, CorelDraw has been able to natively switch paragraph text to artistic text, and back and forth without issues since, oh, I dunno, 1992 or so. 

[thomaso]

1 hour ago, R C-R said:

Is that so hard to understand?

Yes, especially in the meantime, as various aspects have been raised quite a few times. Considering the length of this thread, you can see that global doubts like "I'm not sure ... could cause problems" are pretty useless.

Just note that you are recommending the copy/paste workflow as a workaround, and by doing so you are recommending addressing the issues you feel are urgent to mention. Together they are contradictory indications.

If users can follow your recommendation and solve the problems you fear, why shouldn't developers, or even you, be able to solve those problems as well? Instead of confronting new forum members in this thread with your known, documented doubts repeatedly without any constructive use you could just imagine what options this feature would need or have to address your concerns. Ideas not worries.

[Catshill]

I sometimes think I should use Art text rather than frame text when creating captions around images. I used to use an asset with a picture frame and frame text pair but often I find myself creating the two from scratch so I wonder why I bother. 

[Lee D]

This thread is now locked.

If you have a feature request please post in the dedicated Feature Request section. This allows other users to add their support to the request and should hopefully reduce the for/against as if you don't support the request there is no need to post.