Text Frame styles

[cubesquareredux]

[I did a search for topic titles containing "text frame style" but found nothing.]

1. Is there a way to save all attributes of a text frame as a "text frame style" that can be re-applied to other text frames when necessary?

2. Related question: If a second text frame is linked to a first one, is there a way to specify that all attributes of the first text frame be applied to the second one?

3. Other related question: Can (or will) a master page hold a text frame with all required text-frame attributes such that text can be flowed in when not in "master-page mode"?

 

[walt.farrell]

21 hours ago, cubesquareredux said:

1. Is there a way to save all attributes of a text frame as a "text frame style" that can be re-applied to other text frames when necessary?

Try setting the frame as you want it, and with the frame selected to to the the Styles panel. Click the hamburger menu, and Add Style from Selection.

Later you can drag that style onto another Text Frame to change it to match. (Note, though, that this will also override the styles of any text within that frame, too.)

[Jpburns]

Just running into this problem now. Saving the style won't save things like curved corners. Bummer.

[Catshill]

Have you tried setting the frame parameters and then making it an asset?

[walt.farrell]

22 hours ago, Jpburns said:

Just running into this problem now. Saving the style won't save things like curved corners. Bummer.

As far as I know Text Frames don't have curved corners.

Shape Text can have curved corners, but it looks like a Style won't apply them to a different shape.

[Jpburns]

If you take a shape, say a rectangle with curved corners and convert it into a text frame, then, yes, text frames can have curved corners. 

[walt.farrell]

56 minutes ago, Jpburns said:

If you take a shape, say a rectangle with curved corners and convert it into a text frame, then, yes, text frames can have curved corners. 

True.

But then it's not exactly a text frame. It's a frame around Shape Text, not Frame Text, as shown in the Layers panel.

It acts just like a text frame, as far as I know, though there may be differences I haven't discovered.

In any case, there's some info about an object that Styles won't handle.

 

[Jpburns]

Yeah, but that's why I'm saying that should be improved.

Just to give you some backstory... I'm trying to use publisher to format comic book pages, and I'd like the flexibility to have repeatable styles of custom text frames (word balloons, pull quotes, text boxes, etc.).

 

[walt.farrell]

19 minutes ago, Jpburns said:

Just to give you some backstory... I'm trying to use publisher to format comic book pages, and I'd like the flexibility to have repeatable styles of custom text frames (word balloons, pull quotes, text boxes, etc.).

Assets, as mentioned above.

Styles don't handle corner info at all (even for, e.g., Rounded Rectangles). And they won't let you change one kind of shape object into another.

[Catshill]

12 hours ago, Jpburns said:

Yeah, but that's why I'm saying that should be improved.

Just to give you some backstory... I'm trying to use publisher to format comic book pages, and I'd like the flexibility to have repeatable styles of custom text frames (word balloons, pull quotes, text boxes, etc.).

 

I do this all the time in my publications and use assets for this.

[Jpburns]

This seems like a good solution, although I’d still like more control over text boxes. 
 

Another thing this seems to fix is the lack of a “Make composite shape” tool in publisher. Am I missing something? Composite shapes cut/pasted from designer seem to work, but I can’t figure out how to make an (editable) composite shape natively in Publisher. But as I said, a composite shape saved in assets seems to work. I’m using it for word balloons (a body, and a tail).

[Catshill]

13 hours ago, Jpburns said:

This seems like a good solution, although I’d still like more control over text boxes. 
 

Another thing this seems to fix is the lack of a “Make composite shape” tool in publisher. Am I missing something? Composite shapes cut/pasted from designer seem to work, but I can’t figure out how to make an (editable) composite shape natively in Publisher. But as I said, a composite shape saved in assets seems to work. I’m using it for word balloons (a body, and a tail).

I swap between APu , ADe and APh all the time depending on the task. That is how the suite is meant to be used.

[Jpburns]

Yeah, but… if you’ve added that ability to one program, there’s no reason to not add it to the other. It’s not like reinventing the wheel…

[Catshill]

I disagree. 

23 hours ago, Jpburns said:

Yeah, but… if you’ve added that ability to one program, there’s no reason to not add it to the other. It’s not like reinventing the wheel…

If your model was implemented, you would end up with one (bloated and unwieldy) application. I can appreciate why you would want a Swiss Army knife but I think separate tools are more powerful and ultimately easier to use.

[walt.farrell]

1 hour ago, Catshill said:

I disagree. 

If your model was implemented, you would end up with one (bloated and unwieldy) application. I can appreciate why you would want a Swiss Army knife but I think separate tools are more powerful and ultimately easier to use.

I think that is one reason that the Affinity team has stated for partitioning the functions as they have them. Unfortunately, no partitioning will ever be 100% successful, but I think it's a good approach.

It is one reason, though, that I find Publisher useful. It lets you have the main tools from both Photo and Designer in one application, if you own licenses for all three.

[Jpburns]

In a general sense, you’re right, but I’m talking about a specific feature that just makes sense, that for some reason isn’t implemented across programs. It works when you cut/paste - you should be able to create a compound path in a program that accepts them.
 

It’d be like… ok this marquee selection thing is nice, but you’ll have to jump programs in order to use it. 
 

No need to keep rebuking my mild suggestions. They’ll either do it or not. But I’m saying it makes sense. Your mileage may vary. 
 

I’m a fan of the suite. I’ve bought all of them all on 2 platforms. I just want them to work better. 
 

take care. 

[walt.farrell]

2 minutes ago, Jpburns said:

In a general sense, you’re right, but I’m talking about a specific feature that just makes sense, that for some reason isn’t implemented across programs.

That's a good point.

However, from extensive experience in these forums, I think it's safe to say that there are many users who each could say that about one favorite feature of theirs, and for each it might be a different feature.

It's basically the same problem as with the many users who each say "this application would be perfect if you just implemented X" where, for each of them, X is a different feature.

5 minutes ago, Jpburns said:

No need to keep rebuking my mild suggestions. They’ll either do it or not. But I’m saying it makes sense.

Please don't take our comments as rebukes. You're entitled to your opinion, and to make your requests. And you're right that in the end it's up to Serif to decide how their programs will work. But there are a lot of newer users (of the applications, or these forums) who are not familiar with the history of the applications, and the rationale for them looking/working as they do, and it may help them to have these things pointed out. Unfortunately, we can't tell what you already understand.