Jump to content

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, fde101 said:

We could call them Zebras and Anteaters, but in the end they are what they are.

Aha touché! Naming is just what it is; it should be as descriptive, short and unambiguous as possible. Even though in a literal sense that's what they are, “Global” seems to me to be too vague a word; hence my proposal of “Document Layers”, as in “layers belonging to a specific Publisher/Designer file”. And “User” doesn't make any sense, as it has been said here already, so, again, if each app already has established naming conventions, why not use them? In fact, you could have “Document Layers”, “Master Page Layers” and “Page Layers” in Publisher, “Document Layers” and “Artboard Layers” in Designer, and just “Layers”, period, in Photo. Different apps call for somewhat different conventions and UX, and there's nothing wrong in that. As long as they are somewhat consistent across the suite and predictable in their behaviour, users will be fine.

44 minutes ago, fde101 said:

Some layers are groups, but not all.  Shapes, embedded documents, text objects, adjustments, etc. are all layers.  Layers are not automatically created for them, the objects themselves are the layers.  This is a typical behavior of many modern graphics programs (though not so common in page layout software, and most programs use different names for them).  The Affinity Layers studio is roughly the equivalent of Blender's Outliner, for example.

Now this is a bit confusing for me, right now, but as soon as the 29th of this month I'll be sure to check it out…

44 minutes ago, fde101 said:

This can be done already.  There is a menu option that is on by default and hides them when outside of the page area, but you can turn that off.

It's good to know; maybe it's a new feature and I missed it, maybe it's not that easily discoverable, or maybe it's just me who am an idiot. :P Anyway, I'll still ask it again: even if you can toggle it, can you still maintain said hierarchy? AFAIK, seeing how there aren't global layers and pages are always layers themselves, an object can never belong to two artboards at the same time, or not belong to any artboard from the moment it touches one.

Maybe there has to be a mode akin to Illustrator where Artboards are just… I dunno, removed from the Layers panel and get a panel of their own, or something. Or just kicked up to a separate level inside of the current Layers panel. Or maybe those newfangled Document Layers could get their own level above the pages and, as long as you were working on those, you could get an experience similar to that in Illustrator. Or maybe you could intermingle global layers and artboard layers, in a more fluid conception (that would probably be the best UX scenario, as you could have global background elements, global foreground elements, and everything in between). Whatever works for big projects (like, say, website or app mockups) where organising stuff by Artboards isn't the end-all, be-all, which would mean you could instead just use them as glorified export slices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JGD said:

an object can never belong to two artboards at the same time

No, but it can be spread across the pages of a facing pages spread in Publisher, and you can partially work around this using symbols if you really need to.

 

3 hours ago, JGD said:

It's good to know; maybe it's a new feature and I missed it,

Not new and you probably just missed it.  View -> View Mode -> Clip to Canvas.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JGD said:

 In fact, you could have “Document Layers”, “Master Page Layers” and “Page Layers” in Publisher, “Document Layers” and “Artboard Layers” in Designer, and just “Layers”, period, in Photo. Different apps call for somewhat different conventions and UX, and there's nothing wrong in that. As long as they are somewhat consistent across the suite and predictable in their behaviour, users will be fine.

This will certainly break with the common file format philosophy and therefore be troublesome with the Photo & Vector Persona.

Or what do you think how this different layer stacks should work together?


Windows 10 Pro x64 (1903). Intel Core i7-9700K @ 3.60GHz, 32 GB memory, NVidia GTX 780
Affinity Photo 1.7.1.404, Affinity Designer 1.7.1.404, Affinity Publisher 1.7.1.404

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2019 at 1:19 AM, Steps said:

 This will certainly break with the common file format philosophy and therefore be troublesome with the Photo & Vector Persona.

Or what do you think how this different layer stacks should work together?

InDesign already works like this behind the scenes: In scripting, you can cycle through collections, pages, groups etc… in an unrelated fashion.

In other words: there is no reason a set of per-AD-artboard/per-APub-page-layers can't become a set of per-AD-pasteboard/per-APub-document-layers, with the caveat that these two systems might be confusing to one another when starting a doc in one app, then working on it in another one.

OR there could simply be an option "view per artboard/view per page" that groups all layers per artboard/page with a single mouseclick, keeping the understanding that some items that seem to be "on top" in one page, will --after dragging-- end up at the bottom of another page. But with the added bonus that a layer may become accessible in another page (or eg being greyed out?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Domikenens said:

with the caveat that these two systems might be confusing to one another when starting a doc in one app, then working on it in another one.

Everything that might confuse someone results in higher support efforts.

There will be support requests, forum posts and a demand for explaining video tutorials.

I think it's unlikely that Serif wants to add complexity.


Windows 10 Pro x64 (1903). Intel Core i7-9700K @ 3.60GHz, 32 GB memory, NVidia GTX 780
Affinity Photo 1.7.1.404, Affinity Designer 1.7.1.404, Affinity Publisher 1.7.1.404

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

×