Jump to content

Recommended Posts

As it appears to be, tables are treated as independent floating objets, as are images and shapes. Can a table be inserted on a text, so the contents of the table flow through linked text frames? On our workflow is a very regular occurrence, as we do a lot of financial and management reports with large tables spreading through pages that must flow with the text. Also this bring the question about table headers, so the header appears at the start of each page where the table is divided and it seems this option is not available at this moment.

This is one of the few things that i could miss from InDesign, as it treat tables as text elements inside text frames (as also does Word and other apps)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I put a table on the page then adjusted the text wrap on it and text now flows around (or through) the table as per the settings. Would this help you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. He wants tables to flow with text, not text flowing around tables. This would need a mechanism to paste tables (or images) into the text flow (inline elements). This isn‘t acually supported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, mac_heibu said:

No. He wants tables to flow with text, not text flowing around tables. This would need a mechanism to paste tables (or images) into the text flow (inline elements). This isn‘t acually supported.

That's the case. A lot of reports with tables between text paragraphs, and tables that are several pages long. At this stage in Publisher tables must be treated as single elements, and divided on multiple tables to flow on pages. A pain if there are changes on the text, as tables must be repositioned or edited one by one respect to the text (I think that there is no "anchor to text" option as in ID). I can cope with it on most cases but there will be works that must remain on InDesign, specially big data reports. Anyway, still impressed with publisher, much better that I was expecting.

 

Thanks guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too agree with this suggestion as being a priority.

For any document more than a few pages (10 - 100s, 1000s pagers) you can't be adjusting the position of tables and improved bitmaps / vector illustrations every time a small but of text changes the layout of the entry document!

I wish Affinity hadn't waited till Beta to seek ideas and feedback ... they should have done it at the earliest stages!

Share this post


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

I wish Affinity hadn't waited till Beta to seek ideas and feedback

The posts in this forum are mainly an attempt to let our QA staff have a clear run at finding the reported bugs in the other bugs forums. Serif have 25+ years experience of making DTP software and are reasonably aware of what is going to be needed. Unfortunately some important features cannot be added until others have been implemented and anchored images and objects is one of those. So much as we appreciate the posts here they will not be driving development so much as informing the already on-going internal plans and discussions.


Patrick Connor

Serif (Europe) Ltd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patrick Connor said:

The posts in this forum are mainly an attempt to let our QA staff have a clear run at finding the reported bugs in the other bugs forums. Serif have 25+ years experience of making DTP software and are reasonably aware of what is going to be needed. Unfortunately some important features cannot be added until others have been implemented and anchored images and objects is one of those. So much as we appreciate the posts here they will not be driving development so much as informing the already on-going internal plans and discussions.

I understand and appreciate the feedback. Thanks a lot Patrick!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patrick Connor said:

The posts in this forum are mainly an attempt to let our QA staff have a clear run at finding the reported bugs in the other bugs forums. Serif have 25+ years experience of making DTP software and are reasonably aware of what is going to be needed. Unfortunately some important features cannot be added until others have been implemented and anchored images and objects is one of those. So much as we appreciate the posts here they will not be driving development so much as informing the already on-going internal plans and discussions.

Thanks for your thoughtful response - I would still encourage any company or organisation to listen to its users. User research is a thing. Design by committee was a thing. 

Yes I know about the 25 years of history - I'm that old. And I know that Serif PagePlus wasn't the market leader in those 25 years.. now's your chance to get it right!

So please take all this interest on here and on the internet as an indication that the market is ready and hoping for a fresh new product that will meet user needs in a much more efficient way than the incumbents... that's a good thing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have posted on the other similar thread to the same effect. Not having inline graphics and tables is just a non-starter. I like what I have seen of AP so far, but this really is a deal breaker. I know that is an overused phrase, but it is just not possible to create a 100 page booklet with graphics and tables unless they flow with the text. Imagine you had to add a paragraph at the front of the booklet - you would have to go through 100 pages adjusting the graphics and tables, which is not just time consuming but very prone to error. So this is an absolutely essential feature and I would not even countenance using AP without it. Please pass this on to your design team.

Now I know that this feature is not in the app, I will no longer waste any more of my time testing it until I am notified that the feature will definitely be in there from the start of the finished product.

I am so very disappointed. I was looking forward to this very much, but without inline graphic and table flow, it is, frankly, a joke. PLEASE tell your design team this is a huge, huge mistake and unless they get onto it as a priority there is no way AP can be taken seriously. I speak as someone who had been using DTP since 1985!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, captain_slocum said:

I have posted on the other similar thread to the same effect. Not having inline graphics and tables is just a non-starter. I like what I have seen of AP so far, but this really is a deal breaker. I know that is an overused phrase, but it is just not possible to create a 100 page booklet with graphics and tables unless they flow with the text. Imagine you had to add a paragraph at the front of the booklet - you would have to go through 100 pages adjusting the graphics and tables, which is not just time consuming but very prone to error. So this is an absolutely essential feature and I would not even countenance using AP without it. Please pass this on to your design team.

Now I know that this feature is not in the app, I will no longer waste any more of my time testing it until I am notified that the feature will definitely be in there from the start of the finished product.

I am so very disappointed. I was looking forward to this very much, but without inline graphic and table flow, it is, frankly, a joke. PLEASE tell your design team this is a huge, huge mistake and unless they get onto it as a priority there is no way AP can be taken seriously. I speak as someone who had been using DTP since 1985!

I underline this sentiment - Affinity would do so well if it took the opportunity to engage with and listen to users .. user research. 

The cost of user research is minimal compare the potential win .. or loss ... 

Anyway - let's hope they improve how they actually listen and not just listen for "bug reports" which they should paying people to find .. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2018 at 10:31 PM, tariq said:

I underline this sentiment - Affinity would do so well if it took the opportunity to engage with and listen to users .. user research. 

The cost of user research is minimal compare the potential win .. or loss ... 

Anyway - let's hope they improve how they actually listen and not just listen for "bug reports" which they should paying people to find .. 

Absolutely we are listening. I did not mean to imply we were not. Reading it back it certainly was not my finest post (made on launch day under an avalanche of posts but hey). I meant to say that we agree that there are some obvious things missing but that many of the suggestions are already on our internal roadmap because of our long time in the industry, and input here will help inform the plans and discussions. I was also being honest about our development cycle saying that we cannot do some things (like footnotes or  inline graphics and inline tables for example) until other architectural changes are done which have to be planned in carefully because although Publisher is not yet released, all files in the Affinity range are openable by all other applications so file formats have to be carefully considered when new feature are added.

Sorry if it appeared like I was saying we were not interested, I could go back and rephrase it but I hope this post goes some way towards a better explanation. My QA & Tech Support team are particularly interested in the bugs but I am sure the management and developers will be looking closely at these suggestions forums going forward.


Patrick Connor

Serif (Europe) Ltd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Patrick Connor said:

Sorry if it appeared like I was saying we were not interested, I would go back and rephrase it but I hope this post goes some way towards a better explanation. My QA & Tech Support team are particularly interested in the bugs but I am sure the management and developers will be looking closely at these suggestions forums going forward.

For my experience with Designer and Photo, I know you guys listen, and you listen a lot. I don't expect Publisher to do 100% of what InDesign does on launch day (Hey, i'm surprised it does a lot more of what I expected) and for my experience with the other apps of the suite, I know it will grow on each new release. Just as now, I can migrate around 70% of the things I do on InDesign, and that is a lot to me. Three years ago, Designer did 15% of my vector work, now it does 99,9%

I didn't think about the implications of a shared file format, and now is understandable to me why there are some feature omissions, as you need to be sure all features are compatible on the three apps and that requires development on Designer and Photo too.

I thrust on you guys, and will get there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Daniel Gilbert. Obviously many posters here are completely new to the Affinity concept and range and may not appreciate that the feature set of Affinity Publisher 1.7 does not define version 1 and that other features will be added in free updates 1.8, 1.9 etc (not just bug fixes, whole features). So judging Affinity Publisher based on the current feature set is completely fair, but that does not mean that is what you get for your money. As you say you have found with Affinity Designer we add stuff and reward early adopters with free updates. I have no problem with people who say "it is not ready for me yet" as long as they say why it is not, and come back regularly to check when enough has been added to be a useful tool in their arsenal. The initial release may well turn out to be a "non-starter" for many, but the 1.7 release feature list is in no way the end of the 1.X story. We are in this for the long run and appreciate those who have the faith you are showing in your post.


Patrick Connor

Serif (Europe) Ltd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be two similar threads to this and I have contributed on this topic to both. Reading my original post here perhaps it came over as unnecessarily harsh snd censorious, so let me post on this forum the piece I wrote elsewhere this morning, which I hope gives a rounder picture of my feelings. (I was responding to a poster who suggested I was being unfair and I should be privileged to have the chance to test out the beta.) I wrote:

Hawk: The absence of inline graphics and tables makes InDesign unfit as a professional tool. So would not having the other features you mention of course. But you are creating a false dichotomy - it is not a case of choosing between essential features. If it really would take another 2 - 5 years to create a professional DTP app (where did you get that figure from?) then either they should hire an extra software engineer or throw in the towel.

The important point that I and others have made is that Affinity did not ask us professionals what was essential in a DTP app. They cite their 25 year experience in DTP (with the dreadful Serif!) but ignore the collective experience of many real world users such a myself who have been using DTP to make a living since its dawn.

Nobody expects the first iteration of new software to be perfect. (When InDesign first came out it did not have tables.) And I know I speak for others when I say we have nothing but goodwill towards the Affinity team's efforts, and that we do not wish to nit-pick. But there are certain elements that have to be in place if an app is to be seen as a viable replacement for an existing go-to app. Without inline graphics and tables (something a developer colleague assures me is quite easy to implement - even the humble Notes on the Mac has it) APublisher just becomes another village fete poster app. [Having read the above post regarding the holy grail ability to open APublisher in ADesigner and APhoto I would suggest that for longer documents (which is what we are talking about here) it is an ambition that could be implemented in full detail later.]

Our motives for these posts is not to have a pop at Affinity, but to help them in their endeavours, which we applaud. We understand that this is a beta and that 1.0 will look different, but we are dismayed that a moderator has said this is not on the immediate feature list.

As for having the beta to play with being a privilege, I think the boot is on the other foot -  Affinity should feel privileged that there are seasoned designers out there freely giving their time to make the app viable.

I suspect that privately there are red faces over this, and (assuming they read these posts!) hope that wiser counsels prevail and that this issue is given the priority it deserves.

As someone has noted elsewhere, a road map of future features would be very useful. If inline graphics is on the list, at the top, then great; if it is not there at all then at least we know not to bother looking at APublisher as a viable ID alternative. My experience of 55 years of business is that openness always pays off in the long run, and I know you guys are committed and working hard to that end. PS: I use ADesigner all the time, you did a great job. Illustrator was always impenetrable to most people who just wanted to get a job done and you nailed it. But knocking ID  off its perch I think is bit harder. But I am sure you will get there - if you listen!

 

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

×