Page tab functionality

[Raymondo]

Yes I might be getting boring now because I’ve logged this topic a number of times but I’ve yet to receive a definitive answer. Why no sign or inkling of expanding functionality to the page spread tab to create spreads of more than 2 pages in Publisher. I know we are still at an early stage of the beta process but it should not be a hard question to answer. I have asked this question a number of times but no real answer, how hard can it be, are you going to expand it, yes or no.

 

Yes I’m well aware for now guides can be a way round but it’s not the long term solution. Both established competitors have full functionality to layout more than a 2 page spread and have the option to shuffle pages as you wish so AP should have this functionality in the final 1.7 release as a matter of course if Publisher really wants to be adopted by the professional graphic design fraternity. As things stand for producers of publications etc, Publisher is probably fine but for graphic designers, it is limiting.

 

Come-on Serif, is Publisher aimed solely at producers of magazines/books etc or is it meant to be an all round page layout program to rival the likes of quark/InDesign? Which is it? Good and promising program by the way, shame if it’s going to be limited to a certain sector.

[walt.farrell]

The fact that the software does not work as you wish does not mean there's a bug. 

If you want more pages in a spread that's a feature request.

Similarly, improving page movement functions is a feature request, not a bug.

[thomaso]

1 hour ago, Raymondo said:

is it meant to be an all round page layout program to rival the likes of quark/InDesign?

Don't you agree: At its current beta stage Affinity Publisher already offers features you can't find in QuarkXpress or InDesign.

I'd like to know what makes you believe that your demand in particular should be respected in a premium order. There are so many different requests meanwhile that you could support the team with arguments to reach the big goal, together with your help:

Can you support the forum with statistical data showing the frequency of multi-page spreads compared to all printed materials of the graphic design fraternity? That could pull the project developers on your side! Or simply open eyes at least.

[fde101]

If they aren't even adding support for hyperlinks until after 1.7.0 is out, then I am certainly not expecting support for this in the initial release.

They have enough on their plate as it is.

That doesn't mean I don't think this will ever happen... but probably not right out of the gate.

[MikeW]

2 hours ago, thomaso said:

Don't you agree: At its current beta stage Affinity Publisher already offers features you can't find in QuarkXpress or InDesign.

Aside from a couple of things that would be nice in Q, what APub lacks far out weighs those things for serious production work. At least for what I create. 

Every brand of layout application will have items others do not. But it are the core things that makes the difference between productivity and...Well, that's a nice feature. APub lacks too many core features and the work-flow things that Q and ID have at this point in time. 

[thomaso]

1 hour ago, MikeW said:

APub lacks too many core features and the work-flow things that Q and ID have at this point in time.  

Aha. Core. And now? Whose task is it to define "core"? Can we delegate the question to Raymondo, who almost fears to bore us?

Ideas like "I want the important only" are no useful demand as long "important" is not defined. Or, with other words: "APub fulfills every wish which is really important. Really. Important." – Before you, or Raymondo, get too exited: what makes you write more posts? Does the lack of core features even cause a satisfying core feature in the forum?

The best way to get a core feature programmed into the application is to provide arguments that convince the team. "Everybody has it" is not an argument. APub seems not to aim to be like everybody. That's a core feature.

[Raymondo]

Oh dear, you can quarantee a troll will come out of the woodwork when you post something here. Affinity forum has become almost like a Facebook’s troll platform. I have merely ask if Serif will give me an honest answer to a simple question which they have not even responded to. If the answer is “no” then fine but it will alienate a lot of professionals and design houses/ agencies etc from adopting APub. Why would you switch to a program that has less functionality. I think Thomaso that you under estimate why virtually all professionals engaged in design work use Indesign or Quark...there is a very good reason, and it’s not for whistles and bells!

I’m, despite what you might think Tomaso, fully behind Serif but I think you need to understand, full page functionality is not a whistle and bell wish list. Oh and finally, Serif should not need anyone to convince them of page functionality as they have been around long enough to know how designers use layout programs.

I appreciate Walt its not a bug and maybe the topic is not in the right place but it will probably be more to the fore here than elsewhere.

[walt.farrell]

52 minutes ago, Raymondo said:

I appreciate Walt its not a bug and maybe the topic is not in the right place but it will probably be more to the fore here than elsewhere

But unless your intent is to be annoying or to act like a troll, it's best to post in the proper places

By the way, from what I've seen and read in these forums, the Serif staff generally do not comment on feature requests, for a variety of reasons. 

[MikeW]

8 hours ago, thomaso said:

Aha. Core. And now? Whose task is it to define "core"? Can we delegate the question to Raymondo, who almost fears to bore us?

Ideas like "I want the important only" are no useful demand as long "important" is not defined. Or, with other words: "APub fulfills every wish which is really important. Really. Important." – Before you, or Raymondo, get too exited: what makes you write more posts? Does the lack of core features even cause a satisfying core feature in the forum?

The best way to get a core feature programmed into the application is to provide arguments that convince the team. "Everybody has it" is not an argument. APub seems not to aim to be like everybody. That's a core feature.

Serif has their own vision of how things are to be done, and to a good degree what those things are. Currently some of those decisions are at odds with an efficient work-flow. As regards functionality, in none of the Affinity applications are swatches implemented well and certainly not in APub, for instance. While we may get master page "primary text frames," they are not yet implemented and simply have to be. Text styles, the very heart of a layout application have had a minor change in APub, but still are either buggy or not implemented well.

I have laid out 3 of the same books in Q & APub. Simple books from "plain" novels to something slightly less than a fully-illustrated novel. I have done these this way, do one completely in Q using the source file I was handed, then do the same book in APub using the same source. Because of APub not handling tagged text, the ones in APub were using the same Word source that I exported the tagged text from for the Q version. They were frustrating to do in APub, from styles to layout. For instance as regards layout, at the proofing stage, I received word from the publisher that they wanted a margin change. Try that in APub on a book at the proof stage. It can certainly be done, but it isn't as quick and assured.

There are other, what I call core functionality, things that could also change...but they are likely not going to.

However, Affinity applications are Serif's vision. Not mine. Serif will do what they believe is best. I agree with that. And, like AD, I will continue to financially support Serif. As a financial stake-holder, I believe I have the right to speak my mind about work-flow and functionality issues. 

If it makes ya feel better, I also point out what I think is well and good both here on the forum and elsewhere.

Mike

[Raymondo]

Well said MikeW. I too financially support Serif's AP and AD as a stake holder. I also realise that it's early days in the overall development scheme of things and I'm sure Serif's vision for it's suite will get better with time.

[Raymondo]

Walt, not sure what you classify as potentially being annoying or trolling. I believe my post have been to the point without being nasty. the post may well be in the incorrect place but I hardly think it qualifies as having any annoying or trolling intent.

[Old Bruce]

1 hour ago, MikeW said:

For instance as regards layout, at the proofing stage, I received word from the publisher that they wanted a margin change. Try that in APub on a book at the proof stage. It can certainly be done, but it isn't as quick and assured.

I know what you mean. There are a couple of things (anchored objects/image/tables and Text Frames on the Master Pages behaving like a Master Page Text Frame) which flabbergast me with their absence. 

As much as I am enjoying the bug hunt and wrapping my brain around another piece of software I can say I will not buy it until those are included.

[walt.farrell]

33 minutes ago, Raymondo said:

Walt, not sure what you classify as potentially being annoying or trolling. I believe my post have been to the point without being nasty. the post may well be in the incorrect place but I hardly think it qualifies as having any annoying or trolling intent.

When you start out by acknowledging that you're posting repetitively on the same issue, and you do it in multiple places/topics, and when you intentionally post in the wrong place (to get more attention, as you later said), it's at least annoying and impolite, and arguably (in my opinion) trollish.

Feel free to disagree, of course

[MikeW]

4 minutes ago, Old Bruce said:

I know what you mean. There are a couple of things (anchored objects/image/tables and Text Frames on the Master Pages behaving like a Master Page Text Frame) which flabbergast me with their absence. ...

I would add that clearing paragraph and/or character styles has been a hit or miss for me as to whether it actually happens or not. Heck, creating bullet lists has been difficult for me at times. Sometimes certain properties happen right off, sometimes I have to make the same settings more than once. Just having those check boxes in p.styles & c.styles have 3 states is weird. My list is quite a bit longer...but also includes those you mention.

I still have a few spare brain cells to learn a new application and how it operates. I'm more or less OK with deviating from the standard layout applications. But any thing that impedes my productivity, whether it be missing features that add too much time or dumb work-arounds, or if included features add too much time, or whatever oddity that consumes time is bad for me. I only make money if I can use an application that can (more or less) compete time-wise with the others. Too much time loss affects the revenue that me & my family depend upon year after year.

[Old Bruce]

10 minutes ago, MikeW said:

I would add that clearing paragraph and/or character styles has been a hit or miss for me as to whether it actually happens or not.

Doesn't seem to be A way to do that very simple job. (have you yelled "Stop That!" at the screen whilst trying?)

[MikeW]

1 minute ago, Old Bruce said:

Doesn't seem to be A way to do that very simple job. (have you yelled "Stop That!" at the screen whilst trying?)

Er, no I haven't. My wife claims she has heard me use a very different expression, though. It is easily written WTF.

Speaking of my wife. She has only used a layout application once before (PagePlus years ago). So I asked her to make an 8-page family newsletter from a design that I made an printed off. I didn't give her any assets. For the type, I had her use my type rule to figure out size. Assets (shapes mainly) needed to get created in-application. It got done in 3 layout applications. Her and APub didn't get along too well.