Wrong layer concept for an layout application

[Michail]

On 9/4/2018 at 12:58 PM, musiberti said:

The moderator Chris_K replied in another thread "Each page has it's own set of layers. This is intended behaviour".Sorry, this is not a behaviour. This is a terrible mess! I can not believe that Affinity knows so little about the needs of its target audience.

I agree with you, APub should get something like global levels.

But they are not as important as you want us to believe. And your tone of voice is pretty absolutistic. Unfortunately, you are not the only one in this forum who considers his wish to be the most important of all.

We should not throw out the child with the water bath (German proverb). The global levels should only be an additional functionality and not replace the current level concept. In reality, the layers in InDesign can't do much. I am very happy that the layer concept of APub works the same way as in AD and AP. I can do things with APub layers that I can only dream of in InDesign.

Just as you accuse @walt.farrell of not designing long documents (which is probably true), I can assume that you have less to do with creative design. Otherwise you would appreciate the current layer concept in APub more.

[fde101]

Yes, the current "layers" are really the objects on the page, plus things like group layers to organize them, adjustment layers, etc.

The "layers" of a traditional page layout solution are different in scope and behavior and there is a place for both.

The "global layers" should probably act as containers for the per-page object layers, with the global layers being at the "top" and shared among all pages, with the per-page layers appearing underneath them for the currently active page.

[Steps]

I go here with @Michail and @fde101 that the current layer system is the right solution from a file design point of view.

Having the same layers in all Affinity apps just feels right.

And as you can see as a preview with "Edit in Photo": when the Photo and Vector Personas kick in this will make sense to everybody.

It's nowhere a mess. Never used InDesign or Quark, but this layer concept in Publisher felt right to me from the beginning.

Disclaimer: I don't understand what "global layers" should do, but since I just finishened a huge book project that I will use as master/template for the follow-ups I'm confident that I won't need that.

[Fixx]

11 hours ago, Steps said:

I don't understand what "global layers" should do, but since I just finishened a huge book project that I will use as master/template for the follow-ups I'm confident that I won't need that.

Version management. Language versions. 

Yes, you can do most publishing jobs without layers but there are some jobs that without layers you must do separate file versions which complicates version control a lot.

[Steps]

21 minutes ago, Fixx said:

Version management. Language versions. 

Yes, you can do most publishing jobs without layers but there are some jobs that without layers you must do separate file versions which complicates version control a lot.

Thanks for summing it up. I just read trough the very long related thread. Serif said it's coming, so I'm fine with that. :-)

[MickRose]

To be honest I don't think Global Layers is the right term to use even though I think it might have been my suggestion way back. What we need are user definable layers so users can organise what is viewable/printable at any one time. The existing Layers panel is an object order system which is useful in itself but not really adequate. Anyway I guess that Serif are working on it so fingers crossed.

[fde101]

Other than the fact that screen/print visibility is not separate, you can already use group layers to accomplish what you are talking about... except that they are not shared across pages/masters.

The key piece that is missing is the ability to create layers that are shared across pages/masters but with content that differs... thus "global" layers in that they are shared throughout the document rather than being "local" to a specific page.

[hawk]

Have you tried Master Pages aka Symbols? You can toggle the Sync option to customize master objects on individual pages. The big problem, I think, is not having a clear indication whether sync is on or off (you have to check the icon, and even that is a bit low in contrast), and not being able to re-sync attributes. Being able to set some attributes to be desync'ed by default would also help.

[Jeremy Bohn]

Late-comer to this party, but musiberti you hit the nail on the head with your comment "As a layout artist you see your project as a whole. Not as a collection of single pages."

The way it is now it would be a nightmare to set up larger documents. I often create a "background" layer where background colors, textures and elements can be worked on independently from the rest of the design. Then I can lock it, and work on the main content, keeping the background undisturbed. Sometimes my setups could expand to 3 or 4 layers, just to keep more complex layouts easier to manage.

Or sometimes I have a "shell" that is needed for the proofing process with customers but needs to be turned off when printed. Turning the layer off and on is much easier to do on a document-wide layer.

[mac_heibu]

If I understand you right, Jeremy, what you are describing, is not necessarily the task of layers, but of (existing) master pages. Document-wide layers are mainly needed for differently designed sets of elements per page, while master pages are needed for uniform sets of elements for more than one page. Please keep in mind, that you can apply more than one master to a layout page.

[Jeremy Bohn]

No you don't understand. I'm not talking about anything necessarily uniform across all pages, except for the layer itself. Nor is a master page something you can disable or enable.

[mac_heibu]

2 hours ago, Jeremy Bohn said:

I often create a "background" layer where background colors, textures and elements can be worked on independently from the rest of the design.

Hmm

2 hours ago, Jeremy Bohn said:

Or sometimes I have a "shell" that is needed for the proofing process with customers but needs to be turned off when printed. Turning the layer off and on is much easier to do on a document-wide layer.

This is as well doable with a master page, which can be temporarily „unassigned“.

Nevertheless: These use cases are not the main application areas for layers.

[Jeremy Bohn]

Hmmm, who said the background or the shell is the same on every page?

[mac_heibu]

13 minutes ago, Jeremy Bohn said:

No you don't understand.

It would be more kind, if you tell exactly what you mean. To say „No, you don’t understand“ is a little bit too simple.

15 minutes ago, Jeremy Bohn said:

Nor is a master page something you can disable or enable.

Really?

 

[Mark Oehlschlager]

@mac_heibu

I understand the utility of Document-wide Layers to be the organization of alternate logical groupings of content or layout elements that can be toggled on or off across the entire document (e.g., toggling off an English text layer, and toggling on a French text layer; or toggling off a blue themed background treatment, and toggling on a green themed background treatment).

In the case of alternate languages for a document, the texts would be placed on their respective document-wide layers in the body of the document.

In the case of alternate background theme treatments, a set of master pages would be set up for typical page layouts within the publication (TOC, Chapter Title, etc.), but the alternate color theme treatments for the set of master pages would be set up on their respective document-wide layers (e.g., Blue Theme layer, Green Theme layer). 

Do you see it differently? 

If so, how so?

[Steps]

@Jeremy Bohn

I do not really understand why the discussion continues even after MEBs official statement on the first page that global layers will come.

We will get both eventually: Master pages and global layers.

After reading all of the discussion about that I understand need for both. So Serif did.

They will certainly come up with a good idea how the current layer system can stay the same (and it really should) and global layers come in addition.

[mac_heibu]

@Mark Oehlschlager: Correct. That is exactly, why document wide layers are extremely useful! My post refers to Jeremy‘s post, because I think, several things are mixed up there a little bit.

[CLC]

It seems that Serif is trying to reinvent the wheel here.

Page montaging is old as DTP itself and to sell the product to people who work in the DTP industry for ages, you should allow them to keep their workflow.
Speed is the key here. In Affinity products, I'm forced to click and click way more than in any other product, it's honestly quite painful.

To me, it feels that Photo is the most developed product from the line atm, yet working with it it's still way more time consuming than using any competitors software.

If it was me, I would rename current "Layers" studio panels to "Objects" and create new, real, user controlled and defined layer panel.
Or would break the current layer palette in two tabs, first as it is, second one totally under users control.

I completely agree that the global layers model is the selling point here.

[CLC]

On 1/16/2019 at 6:09 AM, Steps said:

I do not really understand why the discussion continues even after MEBs official statement on the first page that global layers will come.

It's a forum where people share ideas and discuss topics, isn't it? Here you go.

[fde101]

It strikes me that with the current implementation of master pages we are 90% of the way there.

If you create an empty master page for each "global layer" that you want in the project and apply that master to the relevant pages, then to manipulate the content of that layer, you simply need to place it in "Edit Detached" mode...  by placing objects underneath that master page within the individual document pages the masters would effectively function as "global layers" - the UI isn't convenient right now, but the basic functionality is there anyway.

So this feature might not be quite so far off...

 

EDIT: there is also the need for shared visibility control, of course...

[Jeremy Bohn]

6 hours ago, CLC said:

If it was me, I would rename current "Layers" studio panels to "Objects" and create new, real, user controlled and defined layer panel.
Or would break the current layer palette in two tabs, first as it is, second one totally under users control.

Glad that Serif is looking into this, and I agree that right now, Layers is actually Objects. It's very similar to how Illustrator works, except that each Illustrator object in the Layers panel is a subset of a layer and is only visible if you expand the layer by clicking the disclosure triangle. Everything has to be on a layer, and if you make or paste in a new object, it goes onto the currently selected Layer. As it is right now, I can move my Publisher objects on to layers but it's a pain and if I'm not paying attention, objects can either end up on or off a layer.

It's not the only feature I've found that I feel is incorrectly and misleadingly named. I still think in Photo that the Perspective feature should be named Skew, and a proper Perspective feature should be added.

[JGD]

Interesting how the DTP crowd is the most vocal about global layers. For an in-depth discussion on this issue, which also affects Affinity Designer (but in Publisher it is, I'll give it to you, even more galling), check out this thread and, if you feel you have a contribution to make, do chime in.

True, document-level, global layers – and objects – over which the end-user has complete control, regardless of pages or artboards – and what Serif developers thing should be their container-like behaviour regarding objects and layers, which is, indeed, wrong on so many levels –, must come at some point across the entire Affinity range.

[sfriedberg]

Late to this discussion, but I have another example to add to the case for a richer layer structure.  In CorelDRAW, which is my primary vector graphics tool at the moment, I have a family of about 40 related documents.  From each document, I export several types of files, including a PDF for double-sided printing by the customer, a set of GIF files (eight to the document page, odd pages only), and two sets of SVG files containing different features (also eight to the document page, odd pages only).  These exported files form a product line which I sell.

Each document has a number of layers.  In addition to the per-page content, there are registration marks for in-house automated cutting, cut marks for customer manual cutting, background pattern for odd pages, static text for even pages, drawing guidelines to assist in drafting new content, and a number of other things.  For each of the export formats, some of these layers should be included and some should not.  Whenever I make an update to a product, I do the appropriate edits to the per-page content, then export the various output files.  To alleviate the tedium, the most laborious parts of the export process have been scripted.

In addition to those "global" layers, the per-page content also has layers and this layer structure is highly repetitive across pages.  There are two major variants of the content, in separate layers, and each variant is organized into a pair of layers (themselves with nested layer content) which can be exported independently.  Different exported files are produced using different sets of per-page content layers.  Prints for in-house production are made with a different set of layers than PDF exports for customer production.

In Affinity Designer, I can mimic much, but not all, of this structure through the use of separate master pages for odd and even pages, where each master contains several layers.  Here are a few things I currently cannot do in AffDes.

1) Global layers in CorelDRAW can be set to any level of the effective per-page layer stack.  So I can have the equivalent of one master page providing some layers above all per-page content as well as layers beneath all per-page content.

2) I can turn an individual global layer on and off across the entire document with a single click.

3) Layers in CD can made visible/invisible and made printable/unprintable as independent properties.

4) Layers in CD can be locked.  Really locked.

5) Layer manipulations in CD (such as making a layer printable/unprintable) can be scripted.  (The lack of scripting in the Affinity suite is a whole separate topic.)

However, even in CD I cannot do all that I would like to.  For example, I cannot turn the per-page content variants on and off across the entire document with a single click.  Instead, one must visit each page and adjust its per-page layer visibility/printability.  This is actually a case where AffDes master pages look more convenient than the CD layer structure, as I could define master page layers as placeholders for per-page content.

[artman]

Note: I'm not an native english speaker. Apolgizes for mistakes on writing.

Hello. I think that the way Affinity Designer has layers and manage layers is wrong. There are so many artworks to manage and It become very difficult to find them in this arrangement. 

I think the way AI manage layers is very usefull, and Affinity Designer should emulate it. 

Note: I'm a very enthusiastic user of AD. It's a great design software, in many aspects and tools It is better than the competitor. I allways dream to find a software that replace AI for price and features and I think AD is The Software.

For me just improve Layers, add mesh, blend and shape builder, and some few aspects to adjust and It will be the best software, at least for me.

[prophet]

I had an epic essay written describing my workflow as a package designer and the difficulties in using this layer system and it's lack of global layers. While writing it, I reevaluated my whole workflow structure and template system, digging in deep to all aspects of the Master Pages and Layers to see if I could come up with a way to make it all work. It was an interesting and informative journey, the tale of which is way to boring for anyone here to slog through.

My primary findings boil down to what many others have said before: I need a level of layer-like containers that are independent from any Page or Master Page with the ability to show/hide those layers of content across the entire document with a single toggle.

For those still interested in reading, my document structure as a package designer includes: top level dynamic and static artwork layers that may overlap the packaging "window" layer which in turn overlaps dynamic and static artwork layers in the background. Static art is branding and info that appears on all packages. Dynamic art are images, colors, etc. that change based on the particular "flavor" of each package. Additionally I have a topmost layer with printer die lines, and the window layer is actually 2 layers: one with the window containing a spot color for export to the printer and one with the window containing the product image for exporting to make a 3D render of the "filled" package.

In InDesign, I have 5-7 global layers, and 2 master pages Front and Back. I can, with a single click, toggle the die lines to check my artwork fits properly. I can, with a single click, toggle the 2 window variants depending on my export intent.

In APub, to achieve a similar set up, I came up with 2 approaches.

1. Create 5-7 layers in each of the Front and Back master pages with ALL design elements present in these masters. When working on the dynamic aspects of the design, any master text is easy enough to edit, but all other objects and shapes, I have to constantly "edit detached" to manipulate things. Very tedious.

2. The reverse approach to keep the dynamic art independent from the master pages making them easier to edit quickly (no "edit detached"), was to created 10-14 Master Pages (5-7 for both Front and Back), each with a single layer of content. That means each page needs 5-7 Masters applied and correctly sorted in each page's layers panel. Also tedious.

Neither of these approaches are great, #1 is a pain to work with during the design process, but once the design finalized, it's not so hard to add a new flavor or make a minor edit. #2 is much preferred during the design process as elements are still moving around and I may be jumping across pages frequently. But takes a great deal of setup time at the start and there are so many layers!

So this ended up being a bit of an essay too, huh? I haven't settled on an approach yet, but as others have said, the debate might be moot since we've been told "global layers" are coming.