Jump to content
AgileMktg

First things I've noticed

Recommended Posts

I actually just finished creating a new 5 page doc with Page Plus, so I decided to re-create it with AffPub.  I realize it's early days, and I realize this is beta software.  These are just things I noticed while re-creating this short, simple document.

  1. AffPub doesn't import .ppp docs
  2. Text/Insert could use a copyright symbol (I can't be the only one who wants that!)
  3. There's no Save icon on the menu, and no option of adding one that I could find
  4. Some of my typefaces (in particular, Poor Richard) did not have options for bold/italics.  I found a way to manually italicize the text, but not bold it.
  5. Font sizes in AffPub were drastically different than PagePlus - I had several paragraphs of text I wanted to fit on the first page.  In PP, I had to use 10.5 point, but in AffPub, I easily used 12 point to take up the same amount of room.
  6. I couldn't find "line spacing" anywhere under Character or Paragraph tabs
  7. I imported one section of text into a frame and added a title, which I manually styled.  I created a new frame and imported another paragraph using "paste w/out format" and the whole paragraph was styled like the title.  Shouldn't it forget that text style once I move away from that specific area?

That's what I found in my first hour of playing with it.  There were a couple funky things that happened when inserting a pic from a file which I couldn't duplicate, but I fixed it by using Picture Frames instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi AgileMktg

1. It does not, and it is still being debated if it is something Publisher will do or not. I'ts not a simple opening of the file process, every object needs to be converted into something Publisher can understand

2. you can insert one into your test using the glyphs studio panel

3. Nope, it's a design thing in modern app UI not to have one it seems. Save can be found in the file menu. This is true of all Affinity apps

4. The Poor Richard example you gave only has the regular typeface. If there is not the bold or italic subset then we will not be able to display it, only if the font itself actually contains these

5. I shall take it this is with using all the same paragraph and character settings? I shall investigate this

6. .Publisher uses the more typographically correct term of paragraph leading for this. It's found on the Paragraph Panel

7. Paste without format should paste without the source's format. If the destination already has a format applied it will use that one, This usually flows on from the last style you used.

Cheers

 

 


Serif Europe Ltd - Check the latest news at www.affinity.serif.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PagePlus X9 was the first version to use GPOS for kerning. If the OP's PP is older than that and the font being used only had GPOS tables versus also having legacy kerning tables, that can explain how much text fits on an exactly sized page in APub.

Affinity applications make use of either kerning table types. I would suspect for OpenType fonts that have both kern tables, Affinity applications use the GPOS tables--but Dave would need to weigh in.

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4: Some of my typefaces (in particular, Poor Richard) did not have options for bold/italics.  I found a way to manually italicize the text, but not bold it.

5: Font sizes in AffPub were drastically different than PagePlus - I had several paragraphs of text I wanted to fit on the first page.  In PP, I had to use 10.5 point, but in AffPub, I easily used 12 point to take up the same amount of room.

12 hours ago, Chris_K said:

4. The Poor Richard example you gave only has the regular typeface. If there is not the bold or italic subset then we will not be able to display it, only if the font itself actually contains these

5. I shall take it this is with using all the same paragraph and character settings? I shall investigate this

 

Chris:

Sorry, but I call BS on the whole philosophy behind the answer to #4.  I used the exact same font in the document created in PagePlus 9, and was able to select the text and bold & italicize it.  How difficult would it be to put that same functionality into this prog?  Do you want to copy "all the other programs" or do you want to make one that's better?  As my mother used to say, "If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?"  I'm not trying to be a jerk, but the "it's not already there" excuse has already been blown out of the water by PP.

As far as #5 goes, I totally screwed this up.  I actually used different typefaces, which I didn't realize.  By matching the faces, I was able to increase the size to 11 pt in the AffPub version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, AgileMktg said:

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but...

Well, you failed at that.

15 minutes ago, AgileMktg said:

How difficult would it be to put that same functionality into this prog?

Exactly. You don't know. Because you are not a programmer.  You don't know the code, you have no idea what are internal differences between these two programs, you have no clue what you are talking about. BUT HEY! "How hard it can be?" My bet is - pretty damn hard. If it was easy I could write damn thing myself. Maybe even you could if it was like.. REALLY easy. But its not.

They have to make strategic decisions what set of core functionalities Publisher should have at start. Dont be dick about it if something you would like is not in first beta.

As for your attitude - I saw once a nice person. You could try to be one too. In your own words "How hard it can be?".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, nezumi said:

Well, you failed at that.

Exactly. You don't know. Because you are not a programmer.  You don't know the code, you have no idea what are internal differences between these two programs, you have no clue what you are talking about. BUT HEY! "How hard it can be?" My bet is - pretty damn hard. If it was easy I could write damn thing myself. Maybe even you could if it was like.. REALLY easy. But its not.

They have to make strategic decisions what set of core functionalities Publisher should have at start. Dont be dick about it if something you would like is not in first beta.

As for your attitude - I saw once a nice person. You could try to be one too. In your own words "How hard it can be?".

Nezumi:  Sorry my post totally cheesed you off.  Was it meant to?  No.  Am I a programmer?  Actually, I was.

Have a great day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

APub only use "real" font, as in bold, italic, bold italic, etc. and it's how it should be.

You can create a faux italic with shear and faux bold with a stroke, but best practice is to avoid this and only use fonts with at least B, I and BI options.

Thin strokes can't be printed and some pro software like Pitstop will convert them to acceptable stroke width… messing the result. Shearing font will do a poor job of simulating an italic when the intended italic one would have been design with love and professionalism by the typographer.

One of the fisrt rule you learn in pro work is to respect fonts and font designer: avoid shearing, strokes to simulate bold, NEVER modify horizontal or vertical scale since if you don't know anything about how doing this discreetly it'll shout "amateur" to everyone (and creating such variant is really a work of adjusting design, width, optical perception…).

 

Sorry if I said this in a blunt way, I hope I would have done it better and with more diplomacy in my own language :S

Share this post


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

4: Some of my typefaces (in particular, Poor Richard) did not have options for bold/italics.  I found a way to manually italicize the text, but not bold it.

Sorry, but I call BS on the whole philosophy behind the answer to #4.  I used the exact same font in the document created in PagePlus 9, and was able to select the text and bold & italicize it.  How difficult would it be to put that same functionality into this prog?  Do you want to copy "all the other programs" or do you want to make one that's better?  As my mother used to say, "If your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?"  I'm not trying to be a jerk, but the "it's not already there" excuse has already been blown out of the water by PP.

From a typographer's point of view one of the worst personal insults in text processing software functionality was the introduction of "fake" bold and italic text formatting. And there's a simple reason to avoid doing this: it looks terrible. That is why specifically designed bold and italics font family members have always been the way to go.

InDesign, top of the crop in layout software, can't use bold formatting or italics either if the corresponding type family members aren't present. It is possible to skew text and/or scale it vertically and horizontally, but the end result generally looks horrendous, and is unusable for anyone looking for quality type.

Layout software such as PagePlus never aimed to please professional type setters, and oriented itself towards Word users wishing to gain more layout control, and who were familiar with instant fake bold and italics.

Like it or not, no self-respecting layout app ought to have a fake bold and italics facility to wrangle regular type members into ugly distorted versions. At least, that's the answer which you would get from a typographer and/or from many a professional layout designer.

Publisher aims at becoming a high-level layout app, aimed at creating professional looking print work. Therefore, there's no place for typographic aberrations like generated bold and italics, or terms such as "line spacing".

Disclaimer: this is not necessarily my own opinion. While I understand the typographical purist's view that I presented here, I think generated bold and italics can be useful under circumstances, even if one has to forego type quality.

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

×