Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I was wondering exactly the same. I work with huge catalogs with more than 3000 linked images, with lot of changes and updating/replacing. A resource manager should be available all time, so it should be a regular pane.

This is more important as (at least by now) there is no preference to set link vs embed default. Having to open a dialog after placing each image to set to linked is a bit bluff. Imagine doing it 3000 times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add - "Document Resource Manager" is a very bad name for this too. 

Resource Manager is something I open when looking for programmes on my computer that are stalling it or not working.

It's not indiciative to what it really is - which is a essentially better named to Links Manager/Embed Manager/Asset Manager/Placed Object Manager or something else more apt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eugene:

Couldn't agree with you more. InDesign="Links," pretty clear AND it's available all the time as a panel, XPress="Usage," pretty bad AND it's a window, so it isn't available all the time BAD.

I like your suggestion, "Asset Manager" and I'd like it to be available all the time as a panel! When I moved from InDesign to XPress (because Publisher was not available), that was one of the very frustrating things I ran into.

Also agree that the default should be linked not embedded. Both InDesign and XPress operate this way, and it makes sense to automatically keep file sizes down. But, it's nice to have the option there to embed.

I'm loving Publisher now, but this is an important UI issue that I feel strongly about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daniel:

Yes, the default setting for graphics should be linked, but it would be nice to be able to set a preference either way, for someone who prefers to work with embedded graphics.

And, yes, the settings for checking on your linked graphics should definitely be a panel. When I've done books with many pages and many graphics, it was much more convenient to have a panel for the links that I could keep an eye on while I was working on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Daniel:

Yes, the default setting for graphics should be linked, but it would be nice to be able to set a preference either way, for someone who prefers to work with embedded graphics.

And, yes, the settings for checking on your linked graphics should definitely be a panel. When I've done books with many pages and many graphics, it was much more convenient to have a panel for the links that I could keep an eye on while I was working on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just did a quick test with my pre-rental InDesign (6), XPress 2016, and Publisher beta with an inserted graphic that had been moved after saving it.

InDesign-When opening the document, got a dialog box: "This document contains a link to a source that is missing..." And, the moved graphic displays a red circle with a white question mark on it. Very clear and helpful information.

XPress-No notice when opening the document. No icon on moved graphic. But, when going to "Usage," Status shows missing. Not very clear or helpful.

Publisher-No notice when opening the document. No icon on moved graphic. But, when going to "Resource Manager," Status shows missing. Also, not very clear or helpful.

I realize Publisher doesn't want to copy everything InDesign, but in this case, having a panel for linked graphics, receiving a notification when opening a document with a moved file, and having an icon on the missing icon are very useful and helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, sportyguy209 said:

...Couldn't agree with you more. InDesign="Links," pretty clear AND it's available all the time as a panel, XPress="Usage," pretty bad AND it's a window, so it isn't available all the time BAD...

There have always been inexpensive XTensions to make up for the lack of an ID-like links panel. The one I mainly use is Image Info XT.

capture-002188.png.bbc61d8d128ca6908b999cd91daf42f7.png

25 minutes ago, sportyguy209 said:

...I like your suggestion, "Asset Manager" and I'd like it to be available all the time as a panel! When I moved from InDesign to XPress (because Publisher was not available), that was one of the very frustrating things I ran into...

Except there is an Asset Manager that is akin to ID's Libraries. Which is the same with QXP.

8 hours ago, Eugene Tyson said:

Just to add - "Document Resource Manager" is a very bad name for this too. ...

But like the name or not, Serif has used this name (Resource Manager) for its Plus products for longer than ID has been around. At least I think it's been that long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike:

Now, that Publisher is on the horizon, I won't be using XPress much anymore. Good point on the added XTensions but, the less users need to add extensions to a program, the better: Less expensive, less overhead, less to keep track of, and less chance for things to go wrong. But, that does beg to question, will Publisher have the capability for developers to add missing features if needed?

I see in Publisher there is a panel named "Assets." Ok, I'm fine with going with "Links" for the panel name. :-)

But, I agree with Eugene, the name "Resource Manager" is confusing. It doesn't make me think of links at all. And, just because it was used in Plus (not a major player in DTP that I was aware of), doesn't mean the naming convention should be continued. I'm loving a lot of the innovations I'm seeing in Publisher. If they are from Plus, great. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, sportyguy209 said:

Mike:

Now, that Publisher is on the horizon, I won't be using XPress much anymore. Good point on the added XTensions but, the less users need to add extensions to a program, the better: Less expensive, less overhead, less to keep track of, and less chance for things to go wrong. But, that does beg to question, will Publisher have the capability for developers to add missing features if needed?

I see in Publisher there is a panel named "Assets." Ok, I'm fine with going with "Links" for the panel name. :-)

But, I agree with Eugene, the name "Resource Manager" is confusing. It doesn't make me think of links at all. And, just because it was used in Plus (not a major player in DTP that I was aware of), doesn't mean the naming convention should be continued. I'm loving a lot of the innovations I'm seeing in Publisher. If they are from Plus, great. :-)

Other than for short documents, I cannot use APub until such time as its capabilities incorporate the things that either it doesn't have or have a negative impact on productivity. I use 3 different layout applications on a regular basis (and two other a few times a year). The only thing I expect to change with APub is that number grows.

But as regards plug-ins/XTensions. Which would you rather have: The ability to extend a given application via plug-ins/XTensions or the inability to do so? The former is what I would prefer, the latter is what one gets with Affinity products for at least the foreseeable future. I think that extensible architecture versus terminology is a no brainer. The executable for Adobe AI/ID is megabytes. They simply load plug-ins. This by far was the best thing Adobe did with them and ensured they could be extended from the beginning. If Serif had done this with Affinity products & had the JavaScripting capabilities at launch, things like missing GREP could be added by the community in a day or so. Tis not to be.

Some/most of Affinity applications' capabilities are available in the Plus range. How one goes about things have changed in some areas, perhaps. OpenType feature support is far better in Affinity applications, though it was pretty good at the end in the Plus products.

I'm not saying that the term Resource Manager (Document Resource Manager) in APub shouldn't be changed. Just pointing out perhaps why it was chosen. However, once one asks (or looks up) about such a capability, one then knows the term used and it really isn't an issue. All applications have terminology overlap and different terms used for like functions.

Mike

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike:

I'm going to assume you are going to let Affinity know what capabilities Publisher is lacking... :-)

I would prefer an extensible architecture. Always nice to have options. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Serif pretty much knows what I think. 

There are things great, ok and not so much. I only really care about the not so much ones. I'll adapt to the ok ones and delight in the great ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/2/2018 at 7:09 AM, sportyguy209 said:

It appears that Publisher has taken the Quark method of creating a separate dialog box for their resource manager for dealing with graphics. I much prefer the InDesign method which is a window that can be open all the time.

Thanks.

+1


--------------------

iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, 2017) • Radeon Pro 580 8192 MB • macOS Mojave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, sportyguy209 said:

 

I realize Publisher doesn't want to copy everything InDesign, but in this case, having a panel for linked graphics, receiving a notification when opening a document with a moved file, and having an icon on the missing icon are very useful and helpful.

+1


--------------------

iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, 2017) • Radeon Pro 580 8192 MB • macOS Mojave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also like the Resource Manager to be a panel.

Lacking that, I would like to be able to right click on the image, or on thee image in the layers panel to to Open Resource Manger.
That would be cool. Right Click the placed image and the Resource Manager opens with that item selected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems both aspects (linking as default and panel UI) are also discussed in the following threads:

For me both aspects are obvious, and a bit of a deal breaker. Honestly I was very surprised to find resources dealt with in this "old school" way, doesn't feel like Affinity at all!

We work in a small architecture firm. Contest presentations grow organically, with constant new or modified input, which should auto-update and not be embedded.

Another strong upvote!

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

×

Important Information

Please note the Annual Company Closure section in the Terms of Use. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.