Wrong layer concept for an layout application

[Mark Oehlschlager]

@sfriedberg

One thing that worries me is that the shared file architecture of the entire Affinity Suite would make application-specific features like Global Layers in Publisher difficult to realize. Granted, I'm not an application developer.

As a layman, I can imagine the Layers Panel offering the option of adding either a Page Layer or a Global Layer. (And Maybe that can be done without breaking things in Designer and in Photo.) But then would those Global Layers appear in all Master Pages by default?

 

 

[Jeremy Bohn]

11 hours ago, mattspace said:

Yes, that! In my work, I often have the same layers but different content on each page. Each layer sort of works as a "category". For example, a background layer and a content layer, which I find really helpful to lock the background down when I need to focus on the content (text etc) or vice versa. Someone else said it here but I'll repeat it - it's about structure.

[Mark Oehlschlager]

@Jeremy Bohn

But, because of the integrated nature of the Affinity Suite and the common file type architecture, Publisher would need to understand and respect the conventional "Page Layers" or "Artboard Layers" from Photo and Designer, while Photo and Designer would need to understand and respect the new "Global Layers" from Publisher. That would be the design problem for the Serif developers.

Adobe could afford to have different layer models for InDesign and Illustrator or Photoshop because those apps were never designed to share the same file type.

[thomaso]

18 minutes ago, Mark Oehlschlager said:

Publisher would need to understand and respect the conventional "Page Layers" or "Artboard Layers" from Photo and Designer, while Photo and Designer would need to understand and respect the new "Global Layers" from Publisher. That would be the design problem for the Serif developers.

What problem do you see with having / using global layers for AD and APh, too? Different to artboards vs. pages & master pages Global Layers seem to be rather a matter of the Layers Panel only, which exists in all 3 apps.

Note that the personas and stand-alone apps currently don't offer 100% support for the features and their editability of the other stand-alone apps. Perhaps the identical occurrence of APub's Global Layers isn't necessarily a must in Ad / APh but an option similar to the optional artboards-to-pages conversion in APub.

[Mark Oehlschlager]

@thomaso

Well, Designer and Photo deal with single page/canvass/artboard compositions, whereas Publisher is designed to deal with book forms of multiple, continuous facing pages.

Presently, Publisher adopts the very same "Page/Artboard Layer" model that Designer and Photo use (i.e., a page-specific layer). But if Global Layers were introduced as an option from the Layers Panel within Publisher, how would Designer and Photo interpret them?

I suppose that if one were using Studio Link in Publisher to just pop into Designer or Photo persona for a quick edit, it should be possible for those applications to understand and respect the Global Layers without converting them to "Page/Artboard Layers". 

If Serif were to introduce Global Layers across the entire suite, how would they behave in Designer and Photo? Would they automatically appear on all artboards in a multi-artboard Designer/Photo file?

Also, I've asked this question above, but how would Global Layers in Publisher be handled in the Master Pages? It strikes me that there's a conflict in the way Publisher is currently designed. One could easily implement Global Layers for the document pages in the Layers Panel, but then they would exist outside of the Master Pages. Maybe that's acceptable?

Also, how would all of this impact the ability for Publisher to import/export IDML files?

[Jeremy Bohn]

4 hours ago, Mark Oehlschlager said:

@Jeremy Bohn

But, because of the integrated nature of the Affinity Suite and the common file type architecture, Publisher would need to understand and respect the conventional "Page Layers" or "Artboard Layers" from Photo and Designer, while Photo and Designer would need to understand and respect the new "Global Layers" from Publisher. That would be the design problem for the Serif developers.

Adobe could afford to have different layer models for InDesign and Illustrator or Photoshop because those apps were never designed to share the same file type.

Well that's for Serif to figure out and I'm sure they can and will. Designer has the artboard concept that's not in the other 2 apps, I think? At some point each of the apps needs to deviate in places. Why hold back one app feature just because the other 2 can't handle it?

[thomaso]

3 hours ago, Mark Oehlschlager said:

But if Global Layers were introduced as an option from the Layers Palette within Publisher, how would Designer and Photo interpret them?

(...)

Also, how would all of this impact the ability for Publisher to import/export IDML files?

All apps could handle Global Layers. Why not? They are just a kind of additional "separator" element in the layers panel (similar to trays in a shelf). Or Serif could, if preferred for any reason, ignore them in AD / APh, not displaying in their UI but maintaining APub's Global Layer settings only. Compare Live Filters in APh opened in APub: they exist + work but APub users can't edit them.

Concerning IDML, it might become easier for APub because IDML already has global layers, which are also treated by APub in a way. In fact, APub is pretty well prepared to properly interpret global layers of ID with their order, name and color – currently as non-global Layer layers. APub still fails to transfer IDML master page layers correctly: Instead of sorting them like ID master content within the Global Layer hierarchy, APub still sticks in its habit of placing all master-page content at the layer panels bottom (+ repeating the non-global Layer layers there).
[Note: In this sample in ID the master page content is placed on global layer 2 (the middle layer) – while in ID master page content is not visible in the layer panel on document pages, unless you release/detach the master page.]

However, like Jeremy mentions: don't worry … and let Serif surprise us

[Jowday]

No global layers and soft proofing “Per page” ... I get the feeling that someone focused entirely on technical performance and basic layer concepts early in the proces and without much thought (or involvment of professional customers) stood with an unprofessional foundation for Publisher. And a bizarre one.

How did they end here with such a poor platform after starting from scratch and after 25 years in the Industry? Any yet they sell it as professional.

Professional MEANS something. At least to professionals. But they were obviously never involved.

[fde101]

1 hour ago, Jowday said:

Professional MEANS something.

Look it up in a dictionary: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/professional

 

You are a professional at something if that thing is your profession.

Thus, professional means you earn a living from it.

 

The application of the word to describe the quality or functionality of some piece of software has always been something of a misnomer and thus meaningless in and of itself.  It is a buzzword with no specific interpretation when used in this context.

You could say that software is professional meaning that you earn a living by using that software, but then for a hobbyist using that same software to do personal projects it is not professional.  You could say that software is professional because the people writing it earn a living from selling it, but then to anyone other than the people involved in its development it is not professional.

So no, I don't think "professional" actually means anything specific when applied to software or a piece of equipment.

[thomaso]

2 hours ago, Jowday said:

Professional MEANS something.

Professional means SOMETHING.

The terms 'profession' and 'professional' differ a lot nowadays: While a 'profession' includes a process of successful education and examination in a specific subject the word 'professional' turned to become used for a process which enables an earning, mostly financial income – in particular for those who are busy in areas which not only don't need 'professions' but also aren't professions in terms of certified education. Where knowledge is still required self-teaching can be a substitute to old-school education, certifications aren't required. The video blogging "influencer" is one of those most successful 'professionals' – entirely without requiring a 'profession'.

The (print) media design process is one of the areas which can be done nowadays entirely without profession, due to well developed skills & features of available software. While designers less than 40 years ago (1 generation) – even when using first personal computers – needed to understand many technical aspects, for instance to be able to communicate with type setters (typography, font) lithographers / print film producers (colour, mask, raster) and print services (ink, density, paper), meanwhile those 'professions' died and were replaced by software, letting designers with mainly tasty (emotional) decisions as a last resort of human activity.

The next steps of 'artificializing' are already on their way with AI: Not only image editing, also page layout can be done automatically, even text may get written by AI if feeded with keywords or images to tell a touching story with words. It may appear strange that the technically more complex area of animated virtual reality (3D) is already more developed than apps for flat / static layouts but it appears logical if considering the larger amount of available money.

By the way: experiments with "auto-text" as replacement of 'professionals' started in 1965 already (~20 years before DTP and WYSIWYG)

 

[fde101]

6 minutes ago, thomaso said:

Professional means SOMETHING.

Yes, it absolutely means something when applied to a PERSON.

It does not have a standard, consistent, well-defined meaning when applied to SOFTWARE or a DEVICE.

[thomaso]

@fde101, it seems I stuck in my limited English skills: While in German "something" sounds to express "unspecified subject", the English "anything" to me feels more like "all / everything". – What would be the correct, unambiguous English term above?
 

21 minutes ago, fde101 said:

It does not have a standard, consistent, well-defined meaning when applied to SOFTWARE or a DEVICE.

'Professional' software interface can be even more unexpected, rather vice-versa: While Affinity users, not only Jowday but me too, do expect and request a max. comfortable software UI flexible auto-adjusting to intuitive and individually different usage, the software of 'hardcore' professionals can also be rather limited in their interface, demanding technical understanding from the users about their influencing processes. Not only early moon landing but still yesterday's Mars landing was controlled by software with an intensive text- / numbers-based UI,  barely a user-friendly interface in the understanding of non-professionals when using Affinity or e.g. a flight-simulator game.

[fde101]

1 hour ago, thomaso said:

@fde101, it seems I stuck in my limited English skills: While in German "something" sounds to express "unspecified subject", the English "anything" to me feels more like "all / everything". – What would be the correct, unambiguous English term above?

A bit off topic, but this is actually a very interesting question, because English is the only language I speak, and I had to look it up myself - the words are so close in meaning I generally just use them without thinking and I didn't have a clear answer to give for this off hand.

Here is a page I found comparing them formally: https://discover.hubpages.com/literature/Grammar_Mishaps__Something_vs_Anything

 

It is hard to summarize in a way that would fit reasonably into a forum post, but perhaps by example?

 

Say there are a few X's: X X X X X X X X X

 

If I said, "some X is red" this means that if I look through the set of X's I will find at least one that is red.  This is true, as there are two X's in the set that are red.

If I said, "any X is red", this means that I could pick any arbitrary X from the set and it would be red.  This is false, as whether or not the X is red would depend on which X I picked.

If I said "every X is red", this means that if I look through the set of X's all of them will be red.  This would be false, as there is at least one X in the set which is not red.

If I said either "make some X blue" or "make any X blue", it would mean to pick one X from the set and make it blue, such as: X X X X X X X X X

If I said "make every X blue", it would mean to go through the set of X's and make ALL of them blue: X X X X X X X X X

 

Thus "some" and "any" both refer to a single "X", while "every" refers to the entire set of X's.

 

Then "something" would be for an arbitrary "thing" instead of specifically for an "X", etc.

[Mark Oehlschlager]

LOL. This thread took a wild tangent.

[muelli75]

Gosh - im shocked that this layerconcept is still fact.

I do many projects where global layers are mandatory. So now publisher is not usable for me, sorry but this is an factor of exclusion 😞

[Thomas Geist]

This thread has been going on for some 3 ½ years now and still we are waiting for "global layers".

Those who don't need them don't care (or even don't understand). But those who need them need them desperately.

I frequently create multi language documents and I still pay a sh*tload each month to keep my InDesign subscription - even though I paid for and own Affinity Publisher. I have to stick with ID because multi language documents are a nightmare without global layers.

I am not giving up hope and have my fingers crossed for a solution soon.

[prophet]

There was a good discussion over here a few months back with staff getting involved. Seemed promising.

[Blake_S]

I was very surprised to discover that layers in AP are page-specific.

Does that mean if I want to re-order, lock or change layer visibility on a 100+ (or any number) page document, I need to do it on each page??

[walt.farrell]

3 hours ago, Blake_S said:

Does that mean if I want to re-order, lock or change layer visibility on a 100+ (or any number) page document, I need to do it on each page??

Sometimes yes, but often not.

For example, if you have your layer on a Master Page, then you can simply lock or change the visibility on the Master Page, and it applies to all pages you've applied the Master to. Also, if you reorder the layers on the Master Page, then that will apply to all the pages it's applied to.

[rparmar]

+1 for global layers, in case this upvote is meaningful

As for "professional", this means far more than trivial definitions might explain. A professional has a code of ethics that they apply to their work. They are responsible for the quality of their work and support this through standards established across their profession. There are many aspects to this, including open and honest communication.

There is no such thing as professional software. That's just aspirational marketing. "Use our software and be professional!" No, software is just a tool. 

There is such thing as a professional software company. That would be a firm that stands behind their product, engages in open and honest communication, and supports users who are also professionals.