Jump to content
You must now use your email address to sign in [click for more info] ×

object Style definition :: detect, redefine


Recommended Posts

• Is there a way to detect on object styles' definition by its single settings? I'd like to read an overview what parameters are set in a style, for instance what effects are used, what object format and what text format is applied. – Or is a styles' visual look applied to an object and a check of its settings in various panels the only way to detect?

• Is it possible to re-define a saved object style? – Or do I need to create a new style instead?

macOS 10.14.6 | MacBookPro Retina 15" | Eizo 27" | Affinity V1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thomaso said:

Or is a styles' visual look applied to an object and a check of its settings in various panels the only way to detect?

That's the only way, as far as I know. Note that the Appearance panel (new in 1.7) may be helpful in looking at the settings.

1 hour ago, thomaso said:

Is it possible to re-define a saved object style? – Or do I need to create a new style instead?

No, you can't redefine a style. You can only assign it to something, then delete the style, then modify the object and create a new style.

-- Walt
Designer, Photo, and Publisher V1 and V2 at latest retail and beta releases
PC:
    Desktop:  Windows 11 Pro, version 23H2, 64GB memory, AMD Ryzen 9 5900 12-Core @ 3.00 GHz, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 

    Laptop:  Windows 11 Pro, version 23H2, 32GB memory, Intel Core i7-10750H @ 2.60GHz, Intel UHD Graphics Comet Lake GT2 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU.
iPad:  iPad Pro M1, 12.9": iPadOS 17.4.1, Apple Pencil 2, Magic Keyboard 
Mac:  2023 M2 MacBook Air 15", 16GB memory, macOS Sonoma 14.4.1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

Appearance panel (new in 1.7)

Hm? I am in Publisher 1.7.x and don't see an "Appearence" panel.

 

14 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

No, you can't redefine a style.

That's an additional tricky info about the difference between text style and object style: Object Style is not linked to any applied object.

I guess to make an object style linked to applied objects it would be necessary to use a symbol as step between compromise, – right?

macOS 10.14.6 | MacBookPro Retina 15" | Eizo 27" | Affinity V1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, thomaso said:

Hm? I am in Publisher 1.7.x and don't see an "Appearence" panel.

Sorry. That seems to be only a Designer feature.

 

10 minutes ago, thomaso said:

That's an additional tricky info about the difference between text style and object style: Object Style is not linked to any applied object.

I guess to make an object style linked to applied objects it would be necessary to use a symbol as step between compromise, – right?

I don't think that Symbols would be useful for assigning Styles, but that's an interesting thought.

-- Walt
Designer, Photo, and Publisher V1 and V2 at latest retail and beta releases
PC:
    Desktop:  Windows 11 Pro, version 23H2, 64GB memory, AMD Ryzen 9 5900 12-Core @ 3.00 GHz, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 

    Laptop:  Windows 11 Pro, version 23H2, 32GB memory, Intel Core i7-10750H @ 2.60GHz, Intel UHD Graphics Comet Lake GT2 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU.
iPad:  iPad Pro M1, 12.9": iPadOS 17.4.1, Apple Pencil 2, Magic Keyboard 
Mac:  2023 M2 MacBook Air 15", 16GB memory, macOS Sonoma 14.4.1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

I don't think that Symbols would be useful for assigning Styles,

Why not? – I see the advantage of both a style or a symbol in its repeatability. So why not combining that kind-of copy-paste with the chance to re-define its setting after it got applied to objects? – I agree, it is not really comfortable. I wonder why object styles aren't linked to their applied objects, like text styles do.

macOS 10.14.6 | MacBookPro Retina 15" | Eizo 27" | Affinity V1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, thomaso said:

Why not? – I see the advantage of both a style or a symbol in its repeatability. So why not combining that kind-of copy-paste with the chance to re-define its setting after it got applied to objects? – I agree, it is not really comfortable. I wonder why object styles aren't linked to their applied objects, like text styles do.

First, it seems cumbersome to me because a Symbol has content, not merely style information. With Styles, you can change the appearance of an object. But using a Symbol you can only create a copy of that Symbol as a new object, defining both some style attributes and content.

You can't take an existing object and change its appearance (fill, stroke, etc.) using a Symbol.

Next, if you did create a new object by using a Symbol, and then changed that object in any way without forgetting to unlink it from the parent symbol, you change all the other copies of that symbol.  That may be what you want, of course, but if what you want is a bunch of copies of something that you can change all at once, you don't need to think about styles at all. That's simply a Symbol function.

 

-- Walt
Designer, Photo, and Publisher V1 and V2 at latest retail and beta releases
PC:
    Desktop:  Windows 11 Pro, version 23H2, 64GB memory, AMD Ryzen 9 5900 12-Core @ 3.00 GHz, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 

    Laptop:  Windows 11 Pro, version 23H2, 32GB memory, Intel Core i7-10750H @ 2.60GHz, Intel UHD Graphics Comet Lake GT2 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU.
iPad:  iPad Pro M1, 12.9": iPadOS 17.4.1, Apple Pencil 2, Magic Keyboard 
Mac:  2023 M2 MacBook Air 15", 16GB memory, macOS Sonoma 14.4.1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, you are right: when I alter anything at a symbols child – either look or content – it gets unlinked and remains un-linked from its mother-symbol forever. That's a pity. Would be nice to be able to toggle a symbols child linked state again and again.

macOS 10.14.6 | MacBookPro Retina 15" | Eizo 27" | Affinity V1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I know this is an old thread (should I start a new one?).

If you delete the style - and a style is a style because it's applied to a series of objects - you then have to search out each object that had that style applied and re-apply the style. I've just done it as a test.

So scenario: you have 25 objects distributed unevenly (randomly) through a 30 page document with a style applied. You want to change the fill from 100% to 30% tint (the client wants them to be more 'subtle'). Do you really have to search the 30 pages to find the tiny square with the coloured fill in order to reapply the style? How would I do what's needed here if not with styles?

What's the point of creating a style? What are styles for here?

I find it hard to believe this is how styles work - effectively dedicated to a single object. I just can't have this right - did I get my test wrong. I must be misunderstanding something here.

Having to bob out to Designer feels like complete overkill for a colour coded square.

There are other scenarios I can think of - such as a coloured box behind text. One on every other page of a 50 page report.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Words are crude implements, difficult to get perfect, easy to get tied in knots with, and often - usually - misunderstood, which is why 'tolarence' is the best word of all.

The word "professional" fits us all - amateur, semi-pro, beginner, advanced, middle, beyond it all, and on....., because professionals are tolerant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the

14 minutes ago, ProDesigner said:

I know this is an old thread (should I start a new one?).

If you delete the style - and a style is a style because it's applied to a series of objects - you then have to search out each object that had that style applied and re-apply the style. I've just done it as a test.

So scenario: you have 25 objects distributed unevenly (randomly) through a 30 page document with a style applied. You want to change the fill from 100% to 30% tint (the client wants them to be more 'subtle'). Do you really have to search the 30 pages to find the tiny square with the coloured fill in order to reapply the style? How would I do what's needed here if not with styles?

What's the point of creating a style? What are styles for here?

I find it hard to believe this is how styles work - effectively dedicated to a single object. I just can't have this right. I must be misunderstanding something here.

Having to bob out to Designer feels like complete overkill for a colour coded square.

There are other scenarios I can think of - such as a coloured box behind text. One on every other page of a 50 page report.

Yep. They are not styles in Designer - rather just presets. The term styles signals something else. I was fooled too. There is also no consistency when a style in Publisher and Designer means something different. There is also no consistency between programs when a style in Publisher and Designer means something different. Usability beginner mistake. 

There is just no way to work with them in their current state in a professional context.

  • "The user interface is supposed to work for me - I am not supposed to work for the user interface."
  • Computer-, operating system- and software agnostic; I am a result oriented professional. Look for a fanboy somewhere else.
  • “When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger.” ― Confucius
  • Not an Affinity user og forum user anymore. The software continued to disappoint and not deliver.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ProDesigner said:

Having to bob out to Designer feels like complete overkill for a colour coded square.

Designer won't help you with that. It would if you were using Artboards, but files with Pages operate differently.

For your scenario I would suggest you experiment with Global colors. If you change a Global color, everything that uses that color will change.

4 minutes ago, Jowday said:

There are other scenarios I can think of - such as a coloured box behind text. One on every other page of a 50 page report.

Master Pages would help with that.

-- Walt
Designer, Photo, and Publisher V1 and V2 at latest retail and beta releases
PC:
    Desktop:  Windows 11 Pro, version 23H2, 64GB memory, AMD Ryzen 9 5900 12-Core @ 3.00 GHz, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 

    Laptop:  Windows 11 Pro, version 23H2, 32GB memory, Intel Core i7-10750H @ 2.60GHz, Intel UHD Graphics Comet Lake GT2 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU.
iPad:  iPad Pro M1, 12.9": iPadOS 17.4.1, Apple Pencil 2, Magic Keyboard 
Mac:  2023 M2 MacBook Air 15", 16GB memory, macOS Sonoma 14.4.1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said that, @walt.farrell 😄

  • "The user interface is supposed to work for me - I am not supposed to work for the user interface."
  • Computer-, operating system- and software agnostic; I am a result oriented professional. Look for a fanboy somewhere else.
  • “When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger.” ― Confucius
  • Not an Affinity user og forum user anymore. The software continued to disappoint and not deliver.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

…would suggest you experiment with Global colors.

You've found the fault in the example I tried to use to illustrate the issue. (I'm completely familiar with global colours)

So I'll explain: I ended up at styles because symbols is absent from Publisher. It's actually a bespoke symbol, but a very-very simple one. A white simple icon on a coloured square. Disappointingly, I couldn't find a glyph for it, so had to make one. I applied a white style and coloured style to each object in the group thinking it was a workaround for the absence of symbols in Publisher. It would have been perfect had styles worked in the way I'm used to.. and consistent with "text styles" (why the inconsistency? Inconsistency in behaviour is not user friendly).

Again... it's so simple a 'glyph' it feels like overkill to use Designer for it and to complicate the file with a link to something effectively external to the file (assuming that's how that works - based on my experience these things work that way).

21 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

Master Pages would help with that.

The boxes are not in the same position, or the same size on any of the pages. Is this possible using a Master page?

-----------------------------------------

26 minutes ago, Jowday said:

There is just no way to work with them in their current state in a professional context.

@Jowday you are 100% correct. They are 99% pointless.

You are right, they are Presets, not styles. "Presets".. betrays the Microsoft DNA in Serif, a legacy they've still not quite got rid of. Microsoft: Template designs for numpties.. I know, I'm being unkind now

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Words are crude implements, difficult to get perfect, easy to get tied in knots with, and often - usually - misunderstood, which is why 'tolarence' is the best word of all.

The word "professional" fits us all - amateur, semi-pro, beginner, advanced, middle, beyond it all, and on....., because professionals are tolerant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Jowday said:

I never said that, @walt.farrell 😄

You're right. I must have quoted from your quote by mistake. Sorry, but I don't seem to be able to edit that to fix it. I would have to hide the post, which would be confusing in other ways.

-- Walt
Designer, Photo, and Publisher V1 and V2 at latest retail and beta releases
PC:
    Desktop:  Windows 11 Pro, version 23H2, 64GB memory, AMD Ryzen 9 5900 12-Core @ 3.00 GHz, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 

    Laptop:  Windows 11 Pro, version 23H2, 32GB memory, Intel Core i7-10750H @ 2.60GHz, Intel UHD Graphics Comet Lake GT2 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU.
iPad:  iPad Pro M1, 12.9": iPadOS 17.4.1, Apple Pencil 2, Magic Keyboard 
Mac:  2023 M2 MacBook Air 15", 16GB memory, macOS Sonoma 14.4.1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ProDesigner said:

So I'll explain: I ended up at styles because symbols is absent from Publisher. It's actually a bespoke symbol, but a very-very simple one. A white simple icon on a coloured square. Disappointingly, I couldn't find a glyph for it, so had to make one. I applied a white style and coloured style to each object in the group thinking it was a workaround for the absence of symbols in Publisher. Again... it's so simple a 'glyph' it feels like overkill to use Designer for it and to complicate the file with a link to something effectively external to the file.

You can use Symbols in Publisher via the Designer Persona.

7 minutes ago, ProDesigner said:

The boxes are not in the same position, or the same size on any of the pages. Is this possible using a Master page?

Yes, for your stated scenario of wanting to change the color. No, for some other scenarios.

-- Walt
Designer, Photo, and Publisher V1 and V2 at latest retail and beta releases
PC:
    Desktop:  Windows 11 Pro, version 23H2, 64GB memory, AMD Ryzen 9 5900 12-Core @ 3.00 GHz, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 

    Laptop:  Windows 11 Pro, version 23H2, 32GB memory, Intel Core i7-10750H @ 2.60GHz, Intel UHD Graphics Comet Lake GT2 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU.
iPad:  iPad Pro M1, 12.9": iPadOS 17.4.1, Apple Pencil 2, Magic Keyboard 
Mac:  2023 M2 MacBook Air 15", 16GB memory, macOS Sonoma 14.4.1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

You can use Symbols in Publisher via the Designer Persona.

Does "Designer Persona" actually boot-up the Designer app?

The symbol created, where does it 'live'? Within the Publisher file, or is it in fact something external to the file?

I appreciate you trying to help out here @walt.farrell

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Words are crude implements, difficult to get perfect, easy to get tied in knots with, and often - usually - misunderstood, which is why 'tolarence' is the best word of all.

The word "professional" fits us all - amateur, semi-pro, beginner, advanced, middle, beyond it all, and on....., because professionals are tolerant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ProDesigner said:

Does "Designer Persona" actually boot-up the Designer app?

No. But it gives you access in Publisher to anything you can do in the Designer Persona in the same release level of the Designer application. (Assuming you actually have Designer installed, of course.)

 

4 minutes ago, ProDesigner said:

The symbol created, where does it 'live'? Within the Publisher file, or is it in fact something external to the file?

Symbols are specific to a document, and therefore live there. However, you can also add them to the Assets panel, and use them in another document that way.

(Or, of course, you can put them in a Template and use that Template when creating other documents.)

-- Walt
Designer, Photo, and Publisher V1 and V2 at latest retail and beta releases
PC:
    Desktop:  Windows 11 Pro, version 23H2, 64GB memory, AMD Ryzen 9 5900 12-Core @ 3.00 GHz, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 

    Laptop:  Windows 11 Pro, version 23H2, 32GB memory, Intel Core i7-10750H @ 2.60GHz, Intel UHD Graphics Comet Lake GT2 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU.
iPad:  iPad Pro M1, 12.9": iPadOS 17.4.1, Apple Pencil 2, Magic Keyboard 
Mac:  2023 M2 MacBook Air 15", 16GB memory, macOS Sonoma 14.4.1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you @walt.farrell

Feeling a bit bamboozled - not a comment on your attempt to help.

Adobe has a similar thing to Personas, which boots illustrator from InDesign, say. If you have to have Designer installed, then that suggests the Designer app is booting. It's possibly a bit more sophisticated than what I'm used to. What I don't know is whether the appearance is more sophisticated (giving the impression it's not booting), or if there's something outside my understanding right now that's more sophisticated. That's why I'm bamboozled - trying to square my understanding of the fundamentals here, with this new info.

Perhaps Affinity's Personas is more robust and less prone to failure than Adobe's version of this.

As for where the symbols live.. it's one of those things that only by 'doing' will my brain make sense of it. I'll give it a whirl. (Edit: I suspect this is a linked or embedded thing.. or a half way: embedded but with a flag for origin).

Again, thanks for trying to help here, Walt. Much appreciated.

---------------------------

Bottomline: I won't be using object Styles for anything. They add minimal value as 'presets'. Object styles that operate in a way that's consistent with text styles are really useful and I'll miss them (another thing lost in the move from Adobe).

Object Styles get a 👎 from me.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Words are crude implements, difficult to get perfect, easy to get tied in knots with, and often - usually - misunderstood, which is why 'tolarence' is the best word of all.

The word "professional" fits us all - amateur, semi-pro, beginner, advanced, middle, beyond it all, and on....., because professionals are tolerant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're welcome.

The code in the Personas really is part of the base application, and runs as part of that application. So, there is both Designer code and Photo code within Publisher, but they are only enabled for users who have purchased the full Designer and Photo applications.

But it is only a subset of Designer and Photo. For Designer, it is only the Designer Persona, not the Export nor the Pixel Personas that you get with the full Designer application. For Photo it is only the Photo Persona, and even there it is a limited version of the Photo Persona.

If you need the full Designer or Photo application function, you need to run the full applications.

-- Walt
Designer, Photo, and Publisher V1 and V2 at latest retail and beta releases
PC:
    Desktop:  Windows 11 Pro, version 23H2, 64GB memory, AMD Ryzen 9 5900 12-Core @ 3.00 GHz, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 

    Laptop:  Windows 11 Pro, version 23H2, 32GB memory, Intel Core i7-10750H @ 2.60GHz, Intel UHD Graphics Comet Lake GT2 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Laptop GPU.
iPad:  iPad Pro M1, 12.9": iPadOS 17.4.1, Apple Pencil 2, Magic Keyboard 
Mac:  2023 M2 MacBook Air 15", 16GB memory, macOS Sonoma 14.4.1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, walt.farrell said:

The code in the Personas really is part of the base application, and runs as part of that application. So, there is both Designer code and Photo code within Publisher, but they are only enabled for users who have purchased the full Designer and Photo applications.

Yeah, fascinating. You know, I've used the Personas in AF Photo and not given them a second thought. But then, Liquify, and Develop are dedicated to Photo manipulation and have no place logically in other apps if you follow. They all felt like part of Photo, just different 'modes'.

Personas in Publisher however, look more like external links (the same as Adobe), designed to open linked files placed in Publisher and work with them.

I've just mucked about with creating a symbol using the Designer Persona in Publisher. As you say, it's a 'lite' Designer (and the Designer Icon in the Mac Dock is not indicating it's booted-up). Fascinating. Something clever going on I've not seen before.

Totally logical, that anything complex needs to be done outside Publisher, in the dedicated app. Totally get-it. Good stuff.

---------------------

Background: I've tended to push Adobe InDesign with vector based artwork. You can create sophisticated artwork with simple boulean operations, a tweak of standard shapes here and there, and copy/pasted vectors.

I had a young designer join me on a project who insisted on dropping into Adobe Illustrator every time something occurred that wasn't simply plonk down a picture, or flow-in some text. The myraid of files to keep track of, links management, and 'packaging', that then ensued was a right royal pain. Not to mention the freezes when opening the files. Hence I've been reluctant to 'go here', thinking Personas in Publisher were the same thing.

I've made quite a journey today, thanks to you, Walt.

It's a huge investment (time, patience, persistence) moving from Adobe to Affinity - really hard, really painful. I sometimes wonder if the commercial world of creative agencies would ever make the move, as Serif probably hope.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Words are crude implements, difficult to get perfect, easy to get tied in knots with, and often - usually - misunderstood, which is why 'tolarence' is the best word of all.

The word "professional" fits us all - amateur, semi-pro, beginner, advanced, middle, beyond it all, and on....., because professionals are tolerant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ProDesigner said:

It's a huge investment (time, patience, persistence) moving from Adobe to Affinity - really hard, really painful. I sometimes wonder if the commercial world of creative agencies would ever make the move, as Serif probably hope.

As I have repeated here endlessly - if they really want that to happen they HAVE to hire a user experience designer. At least one. A lot of user testing, networking with companies and adjusting to do. Let the developers code, focus on their craft, and let the user experience designers build - and own - the user interface across all apps.

We now have SEVEN for our work. That Serif doesn't have ONE is surreal.

  • "The user interface is supposed to work for me - I am not supposed to work for the user interface."
  • Computer-, operating system- and software agnostic; I am a result oriented professional. Look for a fanboy somewhere else.
  • “When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger.” ― Confucius
  • Not an Affinity user og forum user anymore. The software continued to disappoint and not deliver.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Jowday said:

We now have SEVEN for our work. That Serif doesn't have ONE is surreal.

Really? Wow. Why on earth would they ignore User Experience? I find that hard to believe. Your line of work suggests you may well know the insider story. It would explain a lot.

I don't think they've ever even got-in anyone who is a dyed-in-the-wool Advanced Adobe User, either. The mistakes (like Object Styles) wouldn't be there if they had.

I'm guessing what they'd say. Something along the lines of "yeah, but".... not Adobe, new not copy, do it better, time to move on... blah, blah. I commend their aims, get-it and agree actually. They've done well taking a fresh eye to some things.

However, all that said - if they are really serious about getting the creative agencies  to move over (doubling, trebling their turnover), then they need to think through how that's going to happen.

The 'pain' of moving to Affinity is big for me as a freelancer. I've had the luxury of a light workload at the moment, enough to tick over (I actually hope it'll stay this way, though sans virus, obviously). I can afford to spend twice as long on something, right now (Hence working on a Sunday). Even a small agency with say as few as five designers to feed, is a whole other prospect.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Words are crude implements, difficult to get perfect, easy to get tied in knots with, and often - usually - misunderstood, which is why 'tolarence' is the best word of all.

The word "professional" fits us all - amateur, semi-pro, beginner, advanced, middle, beyond it all, and on....., because professionals are tolerant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ProDesigner said:

Really? Wow. Why on earth would they ignore User Experience? I find that hard to believe. Your line of work suggests you may well know the insider story. It would explain a lot.

It is just obvious from what they do and what they admit directly and indirectly here.

I baffles me. We have a company working for us - big, international, but still it worked the same way since it was smaller - it has user experience designers and we as a customer have now seven. The IT company actively involves their usability specialists and appreciate ours as well because they focus a delivering top quality. They actually helped raise our standard years ago by constantly asking polite but insisting questions about our whishes when they knew it could be done in a better way. Then we started hiring user experience designers because we raised the bar significantly ourselves.

The difference between how we worked and what we delivered 10 years ago and today is significant. Projects now include a lot of usability design, user tests of early ideas, ideas later and of course in the last stages of development. But the user interface rarely gets any negative feedback anymore. The developers rarely have to make changes to the interface. Users are not crash test dummies and we don't get any negative press about the products themselves. That was the case years ago before usability got priority and funding.

Now we can focus on accessibility, new features, improved architecture and optimal code. Besides three senior architects in our dev team most developers are quite young - but hand picked and incredibly talented - and they "grew up" with usability and accessibility specialists in projects. It is natural for them with several experts and natural to stick to their own territory and work. Older developers and companies tend not to understand their line of work. You wouldn't believe the arrogant bullshit I have heard years ago. It is just like covid-19 where your local shoe salesman pretends to know everything about viruses, masks and what not.

We didn't and don't pick such old school IT companies either. It is 2021. All of us here involved user experience designers because IT products are maturing and people demand much, much better and easier products now than just a few years ago. We have perhaps only reached the end of the beginning. 

  • "The user interface is supposed to work for me - I am not supposed to work for the user interface."
  • Computer-, operating system- and software agnostic; I am a result oriented professional. Look for a fanboy somewhere else.
  • “When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger.” ― Confucius
  • Not an Affinity user og forum user anymore. The software continued to disappoint and not deliver.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting @Jowday

Sounds familiar. I'm guessing UX design is seen as "fluffy" by many. The root of the bull you had to listen to no doubt. Was ever thus. I work outside the creative sphere a lot, as a creative. In the hard-nosed bit of business where design is perenially viewed as nothing more than a "make it look pretty" activity, so of minimal to no value. Fools, they are, every one of them.

I've added an uplift in sales that makes people cough in astonishment - all I did was change the graphics. The management didn't like it because it didn't look as pretty. The customer.. voted with their money.

The lack of consistency between the Affinity Apps (especially iPad to Desktop) is a big red flag by way of evidence that you're correct, to me (not to mention the inconsistency within apps, such as this one above). They 'appear' the same in the pretty bits, but they don't work the same. It's a bit blatant when I think about it. UX'ers would understand implicitly the need for as much harmonisation and consistency as possible - and they'd police it.

Good stuff. Onwards.. no point hanging back with those who will not see.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Words are crude implements, difficult to get perfect, easy to get tied in knots with, and often - usually - misunderstood, which is why 'tolarence' is the best word of all.

The word "professional" fits us all - amateur, semi-pro, beginner, advanced, middle, beyond it all, and on....., because professionals are tolerant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ProDesigner said:

Interesting @Jowday

Sounds familiar. I'm guessing UX design is seen as "fluffy" by many. The root of the bull you had to listen to no doubt. Was ever thus.

Not just fluffy. I have heard every bad and wrong argument, a few:

  • "It is just common sense" (No. Chances are you don't know the difference between any two groups of people, cultures, age groups, etc. You probably don't get out too much.)
  • "I have worked with computers for 30 years, so I know how software should work" (The sentence itself shows how bad a listener you are. And you are wrong.)
  • "I know what our customers want - have 30 years of experience." (No, what some wanted. The sentence itself shows how bad a listener and trend observer you are.)
  • "Not two user experience designers say the same" (They do not give personal advice, they should use knowledge about best practice from the field, current trends, involve end users (in the real world in labs), perform several iterations of user testing (live) and generally be an ambassador for the customers.
  • "We can just look at the competitors and follow their example" (Unless you steal their entire workflow and UI and YOUR customers like it and you will not stand tall in front of a judge, no. Look at previous bullet.)

And the list goes on. If the lack of user experience designers is due to a decision made by management, oh boy. 

And as you experienced yourself. It adds value and sales. Loyal customers. Increased productivity and happier customer. Fewer support tickets/forum posts. Fewer re-designs and a possible smoother transition to major versions. Any given software product have enough problems and challenges in producing stable code and and an optimal architecture. And there is never enough time.

Indeed user experience would police harmonization and consistency because they would - and must - OWN the user interface and management would support them every inch of the way.

So you know the feeling ... talking to dead eyes and closed ears. I was there... 25... years ago?  I personally worked with user experience designers since... 1998. So onwards indeed... why sit here 20+ years later and observe the errors of the past being re-implemented.

Take care, @ProDesigner - and never, ever give up.

  • "The user interface is supposed to work for me - I am not supposed to work for the user interface."
  • Computer-, operating system- and software agnostic; I am a result oriented professional. Look for a fanboy somewhere else.
  • “When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger.” ― Confucius
  • Not an Affinity user og forum user anymore. The software continued to disappoint and not deliver.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.