Footnotes/Endnotes

[Peter Falkenberg Brown]

6 hours ago, Patrick Connor said:

@garrettm30 is correct. This is pinned to make it easier to find as we know it is important and really do not want 100 independent threads all asking for the same feature.

Serif are currently in the process of implementing this. It needs to be done carefully, not just thrown in, and we do always have the issue of programming resources. Thank you all for your patience, it will be rewarded.

I just emailed Affinity directly, asking them about this issue, and they responded with this:

Quote

Unfortunately the only information I have right now is that its on our radar. We don't give out time frames as they are subject to change mid development due to unexpected hindrances. Its important to note that due to affinity apps being able to open all affinity file types we have to design each feature in a way that makes it compatible with the entire suite so implementing a feature is not always a simple as it seems.

So, it seems that they are indeed aware of the need. I suggested that they should post a note about this in the forum: not sure if Patrick's note was initiated by them.

Quote

@Pyanepsion wrote: For my part, I find that the shortcut mentioned by Peter Falkenberg Brown a little earlier in the discussion is a good idea while waiting for the creation of the "Footnote" functionality.

Thanks, @Pyanepsion! I also wish that Publisher had footnotes, but in my opinion, it's still the best game in town, compared to all the other alternatives, assuming that one doesn't want to spend the monthly fees on InDesign (I don't).

Peter
 

[Kevin Scally]

On 5/30/2020 at 7:17 PM, Patrick Connor said:

@garrettm30 is correct. This is pinned to make it easier to find as we know it is important and really do not want 100 independent threads all asking for the same feature.

Serif are currently in the process of implementing this. It needs to be done carefully, not just thrown in, and we do always have the issue of programming resources. Thank you all for your patience, it will be rewarded.

I'd like at least endnote capability, which in in coding terms must be a small bit easier than footnotes, since it means creating just one flexible block at the end of each chapter rather than juggling the flow of every single page. However, I'd fully support Serif in not releasing a complex feature like this without ensuring that it has been stress tested to death, and is fully robust. The Publisher app is reassuringly smooth as it stands, and I am currently able to manage endnotes by the old fashioned manual method, by generating them in Scrivener with minimal editing in Publisher. Coding Q&A is like proofreading in design: there never seems to be time to fix the errors before something's printed, but there's always time to reprint it when the errors are found later. Don't do it that way.

[OzNate]

I came here because I am laying out a book and needed the feature but couldn't find it. Couldn't read all 19 pages of comments but now I know what I have to do for now.

I was an early adopter of InDesign and from memory it didn't have footnotes when it came out. So I'm not too worried to be honest. Serif have been smashing it with their development speed, really. Meanwhile I'm really happy I'm not paying Adobe club fees so all good. 🙂 🙂

[Last Chance]

As has been noted numerous times throughout this thread, the lack of this feature doesn't affect everyone, but there are plenty of users who consider this to be such a fundamental part of DTP that APub is lacking without it. Some of us cannot move forward until this feature is included, making APub more or less redundant.

@Kevin ScallyI also advocated a few pages before that a partial implementation (of endnotes) would help many users who are in dire need of this feature.

[sfriedberg]

I've recently done a 20 page technical report with the whopping total of four footnotes.  Obviously, those could be handled manually.  But even with such a small document, I ended up having to shift footnote frames from page to page, concatenating or splitting footnotes that ended up on the same or different pages.  Even with only four footnotes I still had to renumber once when the logical flow (not frame flow) of the text was reorganized during editing to read more clearly.  While I will not tear my shirt and wail that not having footnote/endnote support is a total deal-killer, even in this limited case it had a measurable hit in productivity.

So, along with many others, I am looking forward to what Affinity Publisher will provide in this area.

[Beppe]

7 hours ago, sfriedberg said:

Even with only four footnotes I still had to renumber once when the logical flow (not frame flow) of the text was reorganized during editing to read more clearly.

I agree. Even a simple degree thesis becomes a very complicated job.

[MJWHM]

14 minutes ago, Beppe said:

I agree. Even a simple degree thesis becomes a very complicated job.

Is there such a thing as a 'simple' degree thesis? 🤔🙂

[Beppe]

6 minutes ago, MJWHM said:

Is there such a thing as a 'simple' degree thesis?

There are also simple ones, but all of them use footnotes (at least in the universities I attend.).

[Beppe]

Actually, it seems to me that the solution suggested by Peter Brown is very useful for Endnotes, but complicated for footnotes, for text flows that move when the notes are very consistent ... Has anyone tried it?

[OzNate]

On 5/31/2020 at 10:52 AM, Peter Falkenberg Brown said:

Unfortunately the only information I have right now is that its on our radar. We don't give out time frames as they are subject to change mid development due to unexpected hindrances. Its important to note that due to affinity apps being able to open all affinity file types we have to design each feature in a way that makes it compatible with the entire suite so implementing a feature is not always a simple as it seems.

That quote from Affinity in Peter's post above is what has me worried. A killer feature for Affinity apps is that they are so interoperable across all apps and platforms, with the same file format for everything. I am just hoping that as we move into more Publisher-specific features like footnotes, data merge, etc, that this killer feature doesn't become the achilles' heel.

[Markio]

17 hours ago, OzNate said:

That quote from Affinity in Peter's post above is what has me worried. A killer feature for Affinity apps is that they are so interoperable across all apps and platforms, with the same file format for everything. I am just hoping that as we move into more Publisher-specific features like footnotes, data merge, etc, that this killer feature doesn't become the achilles' heel.

I was trying to think of a scenario I would open a publisher file in AD or AP, but I couldn't think of one.

Evidently APub should be able to open/place AD an AP files. And it's great that the Designer and Photo personas are available in Publisher.

[OzNate]

On 6/20/2020 at 4:18 AM, Markio said:

I was trying to think of a scenario I would open a publisher file in AD or AP, but I couldn't think of one.

Evidently APub should be able to open/place AD an AP files. And it's great that the Designer and Photo personas are available in Publisher.

The way I understand it, the only thing that makes a Designer file different to a Photo file or a Publisher file is the filename extension. Inside they're all the same.

You can try it if you like. All apps will open all files. The difference you'll experience is how each program works with that file and the options and tools it exposes.

So that's why it's tricky to add something to Publisher, because you're also simultaneously adding it to Designer and Photo, and on all platforms.

[Last Chance]

14 minutes ago, OzNate said:

The way I understand it, the only thing that makes a Designer file different to a Photo file or a Publisher file is the filename extension. Inside they're all the same.

You can try it if you like. All apps will open all files. The difference you'll experience is how each program works with that file and the options and tools it exposes.

So that's why it's tricky to add something to Publisher, because you're also simultaneously adding it to Designer and Photo, and on all platforms.

I can understand that to a certain degree, such as importing a single page Pub file into APhoto, but isn't that making a rod for your own back? Surely it's simpler to convert to a PDF first?

It seems to me this is a case of "creeping featuritis" and in doing so Serif has managed to excessively complicate the process. Ultimately, endnotes are an essential part of publishing that have no cause to be imported into Photo or Designer and if you're hobbling the software simply to support this "feature" I think the coders need to take a step back and rip out this integrating code.

[Markio]

3 hours ago, OzNate said:

The way I understand it, the only thing that makes a Designer file different to a Photo file or a Publisher file is the filename extension. Inside they're all the same.

You can try it if you like. All apps will open all files. The difference you'll experience is how each program works with that file and the options and tools it exposes.

So that's why it's tricky to add something to Publisher, because you're also simultaneously adding it to Designer and Photo, and on all platforms.

I have tried it, and it works. 
But I am still not convinced of the necessity for Designer and Photo to open Publisher files.

It’s great that we are able to work both ways in Designer and Photo.

[Beppe]

8 minutes ago, Markio said:

I have tried it, and it works. 
But I am still not convinced of the necessity for Designer and Photo to open Publisher files.

It’s great that we are able to work both ways in Designer and Photo.

It looks like a single software divided into three sections, but if it was born this way, programming new functions wouldn't necessarily be a problem, right?

[Sandy Rivkin]

5 hours ago, Last Chance said:

I can understand that to a certain degree, such as importing a single page Pub file into APhoto, but isn't that making a rod for your own back? Surely it's simpler to convert to a PDF first?

It seems to me this is a case of "creeping featuritis" and in doing so Serif has managed to excessively complicate the process. Ultimately, endnotes are an essential part of publishing that have no cause to be imported into Photo or Designer and if you're hobbling the software simply to support this "feature" I think the coders need to take a step back and rip out this integrating code.

i rather have a drag and drop feature from APhoto to Apublisher rather than the work appearing simultaneous in both programs. APublisher needs footnotes, end notes,etc. but doin't think the other two need that feature. But, to drag from APhoto an image I was working on and place it into APub  where I want it would be great. I'm new to these three programs and how they work together so will take time.

[J@HWC]

I hope it doesn't get lost in the discussion that for some users like me (I publish books), having footnotes and endnotes is a CRITICAL feature.  Without it, there is ZERO need for the program at all.  Being able to open the other programs in the suite is a very nice feature, but it's all completely useless to me without footnotes and endnotes in Publisher.  If I can't use Publisher, I won't waste my time learning to use any of the other programs.

[Beppe]

2 hours ago, J@HWC said:

I hope it doesn't get lost in the discussion that for some users like me (I publish books), having footnotes and endnotes is a CRITICAL feature.  Without it, there is ZERO need for the program at all.  Being able to open the other programs in the suite is a very nice feature, but it's all completely useless to me without footnotes and endnotes in Publisher.  If I can't use Publisher, I won't waste my time learning to use any of the other programs.

I think many people are in the same situation... when i purchased AP, i didn't even think it could miss this feature. I am not sorry, because the program is excellent and I think that knowing new software and having more choices is essential for the end user; certainly I was confused ...

[MJWHM]

5 hours ago, J@HWC said:

I hope it doesn't get lost in the discussion that for some users like me (I publish books), having footnotes and endnotes is a CRITICAL feature.  Without it, there is ZERO need for the program at all.  Being able to open the other programs in the suite is a very nice feature, but it's all completely useless to me without footnotes and endnotes in Publisher.  If I can't use Publisher, I won't waste my time learning to use any of the other programs.

I gave up the struggle and reverted to PagePlus X9. I am astounded by just how good it is (was). I am adding footnotes, and index, a table of contents, etc. I can insert bits and with minimal fuss amend subsequent changes, and importantly (I use hundreds of images) to change the resolution of an image I simply change its properties. Not sure if it is a genuine change, but it works for creating printed PDFs, is easy, and can hugely reduce the file size. My new book is coming on nicely.

Is it possible that insufficient consultation has taken place, and that perhaps the programmers do not get what the end-users want or need? It may be useful to be able to open an image from my document in Affinity Photo, but generally it is not necessary. On the other hand, I can foresee no reason to import a document from APub into Aphot except perhaps comics? But there are dedicated comic programs for that.

I really, really, like Serif and have always found it an excellent company to deal with, whether with new programs, problems or purchases, but this new world has a lot to learn and much evolution is essential.

Currently, there is hardly anything image-wise that I can think of that I cannot do as well or better in Photoshop Express or Corel Photopaint. The exception is the multiple 'spotlights' I can apply, which is superb. I don't do much design. All of my books and booklets have been created in PagePlus of various iterations. (I do think perhaps APub is easier for indexing, but have not really tried because other elements are not available.

I hope things improve, because the firm deserves to maintain its first-class reputation as an inexpensive and responsive company.

[garrettm30]

7 minutes ago, MJWHM said:

Is it possible that insufficient consultation has taken place, and that perhaps the programmers do not get what the end-users want or need? It may be useful to be able to open an image from my document in Affinity Photo, but generally it is not necessary.

I do not believe that Serif is not willing to listen to what users need. This very thread was created on the first or second day when the beta was first posted, and it was pinned as a key thread on the same day. Now we have statement from Serif that they are currently working on it.

The issue is simply that Serif has been building the Affinity suite from scratch, and they have necessarily had to prioritize. One of their considerations in prioritization has been to implement things that will get most things done for most people, but it is not as simple as that, because there are also features that necessarily will need to precede other features. And then there are the foundational matters.

You mention being able to open Photo and Designer documents as though it perhaps were a distraction from more essential needs such as footnotes, but that is not really the case. It was decided years ago, even before Designer (the first Affinity app that was released), that the triad of apps would build on a common foundation, and development goes along those lines. Whether or not the idea has merit is moot at this point, because that is the direction they implemented years ago, but note that the Studio Link feature—which has been very popular and a distinguishing feature of the Affinity apps—necessarily depends on that foundational choice.

Nor do I believe that that foundational choice has actually hindered Publishers development. Rather, when it came time to develop Publisher, the combined code base from Photo and especially Designer gave Publisher a huge head-start, because there was already a very extensive foundation. That is why Publisher may seem to have some features that would be of lesser priority than others not yet developed: many of those features were "freebies," by which I mean they were already developed in the previous apps, and, because of the way the Affinity apps are kind of just one app split into three parts, Serif would have had to go out of their way to not include them in Publisher, and for no benefit.

The combined architecture also has benefits that allow Serif, a relatively small company, to manage three very serious apps, because it is really just one big app divided into three parts. Development made to one of the triad very often directly benefits the other two. And bug fixes usually fix the same bug across all three. So for my part, I do think their foundational decision to develop around a common format has great merit. In any case, I see no reason at all why that foundation would hinder the type of footnote support that Publisher will eventually have.

[MJWHM]

Garretm30 makes some reasonable points. However....

I don't think I was suggesting that Serif is not willing to listen. What I was suggesting is that maybe they did not ask the right questions. I may have ignored them, but I do not recall being invited to comment on what should be any replacement for tried and tested apps I was already happily using.

I can also see the point of having items solved in one app leading to them being solved in others. What this overlooks, of course, is whether the problem is relevant in the other apps. If, to use an analogy, I have three vehicles and want them all to run on electricity, there are clearly many areas of overarching similarity. But if I want one to tow a caravan, one to nip into town, and one to carry several tons of hardcore, the areas of difference are significant. This is, I think, what people may be failing to see. I don't need the springs on my car to take me shopping anywhere near as resilient as those I need for my lorry. I don't need the toque on my shopping car to be as powerful as on my towing car, and so on.

Yes, where a feature is needed on all three, incorporate it - in my example some form of power inlet point, and some form of steering mechanism might be examples.

I suppose one might argue that the footnote facility could be used to provide a caption for a picture done in the photo app, but it is a bit of a sledgehammer for that particular nut.

 

[Ralph]

58 minutes ago, garrettm30 said:

I see no reason at all why that foundation would hinder the type of footnote support that Publisher will eventually have.

I think the problem here is "eventually". I have been a Serif customer for many, many, years and always found them great to deal with. I want Affinity to succeed. However, I am convinced that their priorities list became skewed in the early days towards to the exciting in preference to the basic. I must have published well over 100 text books over the years and I still don't recognise some of the features included in AP, AD, or APh. That is, I don't recognise even the name! That's great - I'm limited, others are brighter/more adventurous .... I don't mind being left behind.

BUT, having been around since before Robert Maxwell, there are features I do recognise and too many of these appear in the forum under the heading "tearing my hair out".  These are features which I have used since before the invention of 'Desk Top Publishing'. These are the features which, as the man says, are not checked as available because they MUST be there!  Or, as in the old car salesman's joke: " You've got alloy wheel trims, surely you don't want an engine as well, sir". 

My frustration was/is multiplied by both the outstanding qualities of PagePlus and the inability of Affinity to load PagePlus files as editable text. I can't even use PagePlus as backup  (please, lord, do not scratch my backup PPX9 CD!) until Affinity is ready.

I don't believe these omissions can be rationally justified. I'm 100% with you  @MJWHM

[walt.farrell]

53 minutes ago, Ralph said:

I don't believe these omissions can be rationally justified.

You are comparing the features in the final release of PagePlus, which had a 27-year development history, with the features in Publisher, which has been available for only a couple of years. As the two products are entirely different, sharing no code, that seems to me like an unfair comparison.

Many of the functions being requested, such as Footnotes/Endnotes, are not omissions; simply functions Serif has not yet had the time to implement. Serif needed to choose between releasing a product that was incomplete, but would work for many uses, or not releasing a product at all. They chose to release one that would be useful to many users, and provide function to those users, rather than releasing nothing and leaving all the users waiting for several more years.

[MJWHM]

1 hour ago, Ralph said:

IBUT, having been around since before Robert Maxwell, there are features I do recognise and too many of these appear in the forum under the heading "tearing my hair out".  These are features which I have used since before the invention of 'Desk Top Publishing'. These are the features which, as the man says, are not checked as available because they MUST be there!  Or, as in the old car salesman's joke: " You've got alloy wheel trims, surely you don't want an engine as well, sir". 

My frustration was/is multiplied by both the outstanding qualities of PagePlus and the inability of Affinity to load PagePlus files as editable text. I can't even use PagePlus as backup  (please, lord, do not scratch my backup PPX9 CD!) until Affinity is ready.

Nobody has been around since before Robert Maxwell, surely!
But this may be the point. In days of yore our age would have been credited with giving seen as evidence of wisdom. Today it is all-too-often seen as evidence of senility, or the inability to move with the times. I am not suggesting this is the view of Serif, but it is a view espoused apparently by some. Like Ralph, I dread some future update to Windows messing things up for PPX9 and nobody being willing to salvage one of the most brilliant programs I have ever used. 

[MJWHM]

3 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

You are comparing the features in the final release of PagePlus, which had a 27-year development history, with the features in Publisher, which has been available for only a couple of years. As the two products are entirely different, sharing no code, that seems to me like an unfair comparison.

Many of the functions being requested, such as Footnotes/Endnotes, are not omissions; simply functions Serif has not yet had the time to implement. Serif needed to choose between releasing a product that was incomplete, but would work for many uses, or not releasing a product at all. They chose to release one that would be useful to many users, and provide function to those users, rather than releasing nothing and leaving all the users waiting for several more years.

I'm not sure I believe what I am reading. When a car manufacturer produces a new car they don't say 'well forget all the bells and whistles people are used to'. They ensure that they are incorporated - and continue to provide spare parts etc for previously sold cars for quite some time. Who says 'we have made 27 years worth of progress,  but we will abandon much that we learned and start from scratch, intending to add stuff later? I don't see that the sharing of code is relevant. It is the sharing of key and standard components that matters. The code does not need to be the same, any more than the solutions to a problem in one vehicle are identical to those in another.

If something is not present, it is by definition an omission. It may be an aspiration, but it unquestionably an omission.