SUGGESTION: Live Collaboration?

[pixelstuff]

Have you guys considered the feasibility of creating a live collaboration feature in Affinity Publisher using Dropbox or Google Drive or OneDrive? Something similar to what Word and Excel desktops do.

 

[mvrc_hvnry]

yeahhhhh please

would be mindblowing to see that!!!

Are u planning forward to implement this feature?

 

 

 

[mvrc_hvnry]

Hmmm

Quote

Are u planning forward to implement this feature?

Still no answer?

[Blende21]

Why should anybody answer ?

No (sane) company does tell what it plans - it does and tells then. And since the thread has drawn not attention by others since 2019, it seems it is not such a hotly discussed issue as its promoters may think.

[Jowday]

On 2/14/2019 at 5:53 AM, pixelstuff said:

Have you guys considered the feasibility of creating a live collaboration feature in Affinity Publisher using Dropbox or Google Drive or OneDrive? Something similar to what Word and Excel desktops do.

Is that possible at all? All live collaboration I have seen takes place in the cloud in their own server ecosystem - not working in files stored in file sharing services. Serif is not exactly exploring the cloud possibilities.

Anyway, live collaboration is not a new feature. It is a major change in the architecture and the products themselves. Quite an investment and risk. 

[v_kyr]

Well, how should that work if their file format isn't foolproof & safe for such remote network connections? - They still have problems and unrecoverable files issues even just with faster local hooked on external USB devices, so I better don't imagine what happens with live collaboration & cloud computing file access then.

[pcote]

Also agree on this! Would be very nice to see this feature spread across Affinity Designer and Affinity Photo as well! :)

[fde101]

Last I checked there were still issues that could lead to corruption of Affinity documents if opening them from a "cloud" drive such as these.

If the documents become corrupted when opening them on one computer from cloud drives then I don't believe that using them as the basis for collaboration would be a particularly smart move without first fixing that.

[pixelstuff]

5 hours ago, fde101 said:

Last I checked there were still issues that could lead to corruption of Affinity documents if opening them from a "cloud" drive such as these.

If the documents become corrupted when opening them on one computer from cloud drives then I don't believe that using them as the basis for collaboration would be a particularly smart move without first fixing that.

It would almost certainly require the file to be redesigned slightly to record changes as they happened or possibly have a secondary scratch space that gets synced with each operation.

[fde101]

10 minutes ago, pixelstuff said:

It would almost certainly require the file to be redesigned slightly to record changes as they happened or possibly have a secondary scratch space that gets synced with each operation.

It would require much more than that.

[pixelstuff]

45 minutes ago, fde101 said:

It would require much more than that.

Like what?

[cosmical]

Live collaboration would be this day industry need / feature - just like in video editing:
https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/davinciresolve/collaboration

or in 3D graphics
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/design-visualization/omniverse/

So thumbs up for live collaboration 

[fde101]

5 hours ago, pixelstuff said:

Like what?

The separate instances of the Affinity software would need to be able to coordinate with each other across the internet to avoid writing to the same places in the same file at the same time, corrupting it in the process.

If a document is modified on two systems which are not connected to the internet at the time they are working on the document, then a sensible means of merging the changes between the two editors may be required - and that would require support on the part of the underlying "cloud drive" provider to avoid having it throw out one of them before the software has a chance to see the changes and do something with them.

If changes are made to the document on one computer, the others would need to become aware of those changes having taken place in order to apply them locally.

If two designers try to modify the same thing at the same time in two different ways, there needs to be a policy of some sort to determine which change "wins".  This also needs to account for things like user A deleting a group just before user B adds a new layer to the group, then when trying to sync the changes B could not be added to the group that didn't exist at the time it was being added...

As the document format can track undo history, should the "Undo" command on one computer undo changes that were just made by a different user on a different computer?  If not, how should the undo history be differentiated in the document?  When opening the document within the Affinity software, how does the software know which of potentially multiple undo histories should be presented to the user?  (When someone tries to answer that the undo history for the same user should be used, consider that the same user might have opened the document on two different computers and be working on it in multiple places at the same time...)

Just for starters...

[pixelstuff]

3 hours ago, fde101 said:

The separate instances of the Affinity software would need to be able to coordinate with each other across the internet to avoid writing to the same places in the same file at the same time, corrupting it in the process.

If a document is modified on two systems which are not connected to the internet at the time they are working on the document, then a sensible means of merging the changes between the two editors may be required - and that would require support on the part of the underlying "cloud drive" provider to avoid having it throw out one of them before the software has a chance to see the changes and do something with them.

If changes are made to the document on one computer, the others would need to become aware of those changes having taken place in order to apply them locally.

If two designers try to modify the same thing at the same time in two different ways, there needs to be a policy of some sort to determine which change "wins".  This also needs to account for things like user A deleting a group just before user B adds a new layer to the group, then when trying to sync the changes B could not be added to the group that didn't exist at the time it was being added...

As the document format can track undo history, should the "Undo" command on one computer undo changes that were just made by a different user on a different computer?  If not, how should the undo history be differentiated in the document?  When opening the document within the Affinity software, how does the software know which of potentially multiple undo histories should be presented to the user?  (When someone tries to answer that the undo history for the same user should be used, consider that the same user might have opened the document on two different computers and be working on it in multiple places at the same time...)

Just for starters...

I think what that means is the third party services like Dropbox probably won't be adequate and they'll need to develop a project server component like Black Magic Design did for Davinci Resolve.

[fde101]

4 hours ago, pixelstuff said:

third party services like Dropbox probably won't be adequate

Dropbox provides an API which includes functionality such as file locking and custom properties, so it may theoretically be possible to build on those features to make this possible, but it probably wouldn't be optimal, and it would still be a lot of work either way.

Short version, I don't disagree that there would be use cases for this, but I don't really see Serif devoting resources to it until some of the other requests (global layers, tracing bitmaps to vectors in Designer, "free transform", etc.) have been addressed.

[garrettm30]

4 hours ago, fde101 said:

Short version, I don't disagree that there would be use cases for this, but I don't really see Serif devoting resources to it until some of the other requests (global layers, tracing bitmaps to vectors in Designer, "free transform", etc.) have been addressed.

I do agree with this short summary. I think collaboration would be a good candidate to “take it to the next level,” after some of the more basic or “essential” (in quotes because what is essential can be rather subjective) are firmly in place.

[LGFern]

Honestly I would love live collaboration in Affinity Publisher.

I do think it's a hard problem to solve if you got the route of multiple users on one file without having one instance acting as a "Parent" and all other instances being limited "child" instances. "Child" Instances could make edits or changes but these edits would show up on a panel in the "Parent" instance. It's up to the "Parent" instance to approve the edits in a sort of, if approved the documents change for all future instances, with current instances being able to "see" the differences between their current version and updated version before committing to the newly edited one.

_______

1. I think it would be easier to have Affinity Publisher create a file and have the ability to send out the file for review as a special filetype that can then be "imported/referenced" by the original file, with all changes showing up in a panel, showing the affected area and the change that happens on hover, Click shows the option to delete the edit suggestion, approve/enact it, archive, or go back/do nothing

OR

2. Purely as a web-based review system - admittedly this would be pretty limited, with all changes having to be a mix of selecting areas on the document and typing up what the edit should be. With those edits showing up in a panel, showing the affected area and the suggestion written out. It would be extremely difficult to get edits in the web version to automatically apply to the file upon approval of the edit


I would prefer Idea 1, even though it is not truly live, it allows for easy review, and with everything staying inside Affinity Publisher. The additional capabilities needed are reduced/easier to code. For example, An "original file" could save a "review file" with a tag that tells Affinity Publisher to document all changes and Package/Embed all imported items. Upon attempting to save the file, it gets saved as a separate "reviewED file" this "reviewED file" flattens all items/objects/text/page that were not edited into low/mid quality PNG's OR Deletes everything that was not edited, only preserving edited items/objects/text on pages that were edited. (This is done to reduce file size as documenting all changes and saving embedded images would bloat the file). Using the "Original File" from which the "review file" originated we import the "reviewED file" where all changes show up in a panel for approval.

(Ex. Someone swapped the image on page 1, in the panel of the "Original File" I have the option to delete the edit or approve it, If I approve it the images get swapped the newly imported image is now embedded into the "Original File" but I have the option to un-embed the file and save it where all my other linked files are) (Ex.2 Someone edited copy on page 3, the edit shows up on the panel and I have the option to delete, ignore, or approve the edit. If I approve the edit, the copy changes automatically) 

Something needed in order to make this work perfectly is the codifying of pages/page numbers, Like an excel sheet all pages would have to have either an identifier, a number, a letter, or both. These pages retain their identifiers even if earlier or later pages are deleted, that way if edits were created to page 2 (Identifier 1B), and Page 1 was deleted, the edits would apply to the "new" Page 1 (Identifier 1B)


 

[pixelstuff]

I wonder, if instead of sharing file changes during the live session the program could just share commands and let the remote computer make the same changes. Users would see multiple mouse cursors running around detailing what the other users were working on. If a new external source was dropped into the document then everyone would have to wait for the file to sync across before they could continue.

If someone made changes to a collaboration document while the other participants weren't connected, then the saved file changes would be synced, or an option to fork it and make a non-collaborative copy.

Image collaboration would work best over a LAN or with upper tier internet services.

[lunaalexandra24]

I would also love this feature. I have one client who prefers Figma and I always miss the live collaboration feature when I come back to Affinity. Not sure why so many people were so quick to point out every issue they could think of as if roadblocks mean it cannot be done, but Figma would be a good reference for how to handle some of them.

[PaoloT]

On 8/17/2021 at 9:27 PM, LGFern said:

I do think it's a hard problem to solve if you got the route of multiple users on one file without having one instance acting as a "Parent" and all other instances being limited "child" instances. […]

1. I think it would be easier to have Affinity Publisher create a file and have the ability to send out the file for review as a special filetype that can then be "imported/referenced" by the original file

I think this is what DaVinci Resolve does. The shared project has to be in a server machine, and all the contributors work on that project. It's not a true collaboration between peers.

I see a collaboration in an Affinity project more like the one in Resolve, that the one in Word. An editorial project resides in a server machine. The graphic artists, the text editors, the layout artist all work on that one, with the permission granted by the owner of the project.

Paolo

 

[PaoloT]

Just reopening this thread, to ask what collaboration between peers would be used for, and how. I usually want to keep control of my documents, without anybody doing direct changes to them. I want my reviewers to give me their edits clearly highlighted in a PDF file, or suggest them while in live conferencing, but wouldn't want they to mess with the InDesign/Publisher tools.

Can anybody suggest me a scenario where live collaboration on a shared document would work, and how would it work?

Paolo

 

[Pšenda]

On 11/10/2021 at 12:30 PM, PaoloT said:

Can anybody suggest me a scenario where live collaboration on a shared document would work, and how would it work?

One writer writes page 1, the other writer writes page 2, and in the meantime the illustrator draws pictures on pages 1 and 2, .... 🙂

[PaoloT]

1 hour ago, Pšenda said:

One writer writes page 1, the other writer writes page 2, and in the meantime the illustrator draws pictures on pages 1 and 2, .... 🙂

Hard to understand why this would have to be done with a file shared between peers, with equal access rights to the document. The reason why this is usually done on a document with controlled permission is that nobody can damage the work of others.

In this scenario, without a dedicated solution from Affinity (something similar to what Adobe does with Team Projects or what DaVinci Resolve supplies), I would use something like Confluence, with a team leader assigning tasks, with no access to the tasks of others. And with the developers of the separate contributions asking for feedback only when they are ready to do it.

That's also one of the reasons for which we need a Book function, with each project broken down into separate documents.

Paolo

 

[pixelstuff]

On 11/10/2021 at 6:30 AM, PaoloT said:

I usually want to keep control of my documents, without anybody doing direct changes to them.

snip snip...

Can anybody suggest me a scenario where live collaboration on a shared document would work, and how would it work?

Paolo

 

Your first objection is already an issue if you share documents in network shares. Anyone can open shared files and make changes without your knowledge. Maybe you don't work in such an environment, but I do. If we lock down the permissions then it prevents others from getting the job done and can create a bottle neck.

Aside from that I also occasionally have more direct back-and-forth situations when designing something like a poster where another experienced designer makes a suggestion, I make the change, export a low res JPEG, and drop it into a chat room. They look at it and make more suggestions. I sometimes end up exporting dozens of times or more.

With some collaboration features I could imagine two scenarios. 1. a non-experienced user in view-only mode being able to see every change instantly. 2. with an experienced designer, when they make a suggestion about transparency, alignment, text wording, etc, I could tell them to show me what they are imagining and we'll both decide what looks best.

[dgoerz]

It seems that with the new packaging feature in affinity, there is the possibility of checking out specific pages of the document.Possibly allowing for centralized synchronization, reducing corruption. similar, yet easier than Adobe.