No document-wide replace font?

[SoftZoom]

I suppose this is one of those "When you know where to look for it, it's simple" things, but it still baffles me that this is not a function that also happens to be in the font manager - a place where it makes sense to perform functions like that.

[Lorox]

Maybe this all sort of works more or less if you have actually assigned Text Formats to all your type before. If not (as it often the case in smaller documents) it still is a real pain in the butt to have missing fonts reliably substituted all over the document.

To me it seems absolutely pointless of Publisher to stop short of a possibility to (lastingly) "Assign“ the substitutions documentwide once you've made your choices in the Font Manager.

Up to now I thought I was missing something or making a mistake somewhere – I actually cannot believe that this is "officially" still so awkward! I don't think that the whole Find and Replace business "on the document's surface" is a professional solution. What's needed is a "Find and Replace" within the internal document data which is triggered by an "Apply" button in the Font Manager – not more, but also no less.

This is such a simple concept that it is definitely not useful to excuse its "non-implementation" by referring to some alleged "semi pro"-ness of Publisher. Just look at all of Serif's announcements and the way the app is advertised: it IS meant as a professional tool for print design after all and as such it is quite a shame that this – actually not so special – feature still poises such a problem in the everyday workflow.

Don't get me wrong: I DO love the Affinity apps and I really DO try to make the transition from "Big A" but things like these tend to put my patience to a test nevertheless...

[F+C]

Agreed.

I think Affinity needs to work with an experienced production consultant. Someone who has spent many years in the print industry and agencies actually producing printed material in the real world. There are really good reasons why Adobe stuff does what it does (although they've added a ton of other features) - it's not just a feature.

They could hire me, I started with Quark 2.11 . . . and paste-up!

[Lorox]

8 minutes ago, F+C said:

I think Affinity needs to work with an experienced production consultant. Someone who has spent many years in the print industry and agencies actually producing printed material in the real world.

A good point! I have found myself thinking likewise, too. Not only as Publisher is concerned – also in Designer there are certain features missing that at least one or two from a pool of 5–10 "real world" Illustrators would point their fingers to after not too long a time working with the app (say: Line Width Tool, Image Tracer etc.).

IMHO software designers just tend to think differently from "design designers" – about which features people would need (or not) and what's "cool" to have for some reason or other. And, of course, HOW thing are done (or should be done) – meaning how to structure a certain workflow through the design of the app's UI. I felt – for example – that some places for settings in the apps seem to be a bit almost randomly scattered over the UI although – in a "design designer's" way of thinking and working – they should actually be in closer logical vicinity.

Being a real expert in one field of knowledge unfortunately sometimes prevents you from seeking solid advice on subjects you have not really all the experience and the sense for possible inconsistencies in.

[F+C]

very true.

In fact, most professional design work is pretty boring. After the conceptualization it's really about execution, and that's the difference between pro's and normals.

A pro is more interested in speed of layout, stability.

It's more about getting 15 ad's out by 5, or that 75 page AR that the client has been slow at getting the source material to you so you're 2 weeks behind and it needs to get to proofing next morning and it's 3pm.

You don't get a chance to do all the wacky things that the programs allow you to do in real-life.