Global layers

[thomaso]

1 hour ago, fde101 said:

How would you convert such a document to use global layers in the manner you are suggesting without altering its content?

I don't see an unsolvable conflict. Note that currently IDML files get converted by APub without handling ID's global layers correctly. Instead Serif made a concept decision for a compromise. I never noticed complaints in the Affinity forum about not handling ID's global layers as expected – though people using global layers in ID would of cause have noticed the limiting difference after converting their document to Affinity.

From this experience a conversion of pre-global .afpubs to global layer .afpubs could solve the conflict accordingly with compromises, too. – I assume the "global" number of complex IDML files for conversion to APub is generally larger than the currently existing number of .afpubs using the full flexibility of possible master page combinations.

1 hour ago, fde101 said:

In other words, master A can be above master B on page 1, while master B is above master A on page 2.

The same master page can also be applied multiple times to a document page.

This current flexibility of master pages in Affinity appears odd to me. Besides the fact that for creating such an. afpub you need to temporarily detach all this individualised masters:
– I neither can't imagine a use case for the need of a differing master page layer hierarchy on various document pages. (imho instead I'd use e.g. no master or separate masters)
– Nor can I imagine a use case for applying 1 master multiple times to 1 page. (instead I'd use e.g. separate masters or no master + symbols optionally)
Users who were willing for various detach actions when creating such an .afpub might also be able to adjust/repair some layer differences after a possible pre-global to a global-layer-.afpub conversion.

[prophet]

2 hours ago, fde101 said:

The same master page can also be applied multiple times to a document page.

Found this out this week. Dealing with the troublesome Master Page update issue (see below), I had to remove the Master and re-apply, since just re-applying is not really re-applying, but rather adding a second instance of the Master. Which of course means any "detached" work I did, had to be redone.

 

[thomaso]

27 minutes ago, garrettm30 said:

Secondly, I think tags would give greater flexibility than global layers. Layers imply a defined stack from bottom to top, so each global layer would necessarily be in a strict order in the stack. But tagged objects could be mixed up in any order that made sense.

I can't follow. The layer hierarchy doesn't at all influence multi-language documents only but generally determines the visibility (clipping) of objects covering / intersecting each other. Imagine just a speech-bubble shape with fill color + a text frame on top. How would a tag define that the text shall appear ON the bubble if its layer is placed UNDER it?

27 minutes ago, garrettm30 said:

A side note: (...) missing the Affinity Layer Studio when working in InDesign today. Sometimes it really helps to see a visual representation of the stack of objects, and to be able to select exactly what you want, and this is missing from InDesign.

Hm? You have a Layers Panel in ID, too. But unlike APub, my experience is that I need to use the layer panel in ID less often (e.g. especially to unfold its global layers). – Just 4 min. video of various tutorials about layers in ID:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCSBXPDTXxs

[garrettm30]

3 minutes ago, thomaso said:

I can't follow. The layer hierarchy doesn't at all influence multi-language documents only but generally determines the visibility (clipping) of objects covering / intersecting each other. Imagine just a speech-bubble shape with fill color + a text frame on top. How would a tag define that the text shall appear ON the bubble?

I have the feeling I haven't explained clearly, but I am not sure how I could make it clear. I was suggesting to tag the existing layer system, so the display order would be defined as in the existing system rather than by the tag.

Also, it must be apparent to you that I completely forgot there already is a rudimentary tagging (by color) in place, and 1.9 gets us a lot closer with Designer 1.9's ability to select by tag. If that select by tag could be brought into Publisher and made to work with multiple pages, then we could basically achieve what we need with multi languages.

[prophet]

31 minutes ago, garrettm30 said:

Sometimes it really helps to see a visual representation of the stack of objects, and to be able to select exactly what you want, and this is missing from InDesign

ID does have a layers panel. Affinity has a slight edge in that you can see the layers of the master without having to switch over to the master page. (CS6 on a Mojave Mac)

 

[garrettm30]

8 minutes ago, thomaso said:

You have a Layers Panel in ID, too.

 

1 minute ago, prophet said:

ID does have a layers panel.

I'm aware of the panel. I leave it on permanent display on my InDesign panel layout. But I just don't find it much helpful besides managing global layers. It is harder to navigate. For example, when you select an object in Publisher, the layer studio instantly reflects that. InDesign, it does nothing. If there are more than a few objects on the page, the layers panel in InDesign is really hard to work with.

[prophet]

51 minutes ago, garrettm30 said:

To be able to turn on and off each by tag would solve the multiple languages problem, I would think.

I'm a strong proponent of global layers, but with tags, we can almost do it. I don't think we can name the tags, but I can tag elements "globally" throughout the document pages with the same tag color and then toggle the visibility of one to make them all toggle. A few extra steps, but getting there.

[prophet]

 

38 minutes ago, garrettm30 said:

If that select by tag could be brought into Publisher and made to work with multiple pages

Sorry, missed @garrettm30's last comment. Hadn't realized selecting tags doesn't work across multiple pages.

[thomaso]

9 minutes ago, prophet said:

but I can tag elements "globally" throughout the document pages with the same tag color and then toggle the visibility of one to make them all toggle.

Note from various posts above the use of Global Layers isn't setting visibility mainly or only. Besides visibility its use is rather working all time in a rough layer set easily. Once you have selected a certain global layer any new object gets created within that layer, regardless of the page and throughout the entire document – whereas in APub you have to check + select a layer on every page to create a new object at a certain layer position. There is no way for a global layer "text" vs. "images" for instance.

[prophet]

55 minutes ago, garrettm30 said:

I was suggesting to tag the existing layer system, so the display order would be defined as in the existing system rather than by the tag

So…define a specific layer order/visibility "set" and be able to apply that on demand. An interesting approach.

A potential example: I have a collage or grouping of images that are in a specific layout. I want all faded except for one that I want to feature along with a corresponding language caption. I could make a German "layer set" with all non-featured images sitting behind an overlay with the featured German pic on the top layer with the German caption showing. I could have a separate French "layer set" where the layer order shifts to bring the French feature on top of the overlay, hides the German caption and shows the French one.

[thomaso]

@garretm30, @prophet, do I understand right that you seem to forget or don't mind:

• Once you are able to create a specific, document wide layer set then you can use this also to set its layer's visibility – and don't need the tagging idea.

• Vice versa if you don't have such a layer set your tagging idea isn't able to care for the hierarchical layer order but their visibility only – and therefore doesn't deliver the fully  options of Global Layers but is rather a compromise like the current workaround suggestions of using master pages instead.

[fde101]

I've actually suggested the tags concept before, over a year ago:

 

As I explained in that post, however, tags are not a true replacement for global layers, mostly because of the lack of interaction with master pages.

The problem is that with global layers and master pages, you do want to be able to establish parts of master pages to sit on top of other document content and parts to be on the bottom.  Global layers (as implemented in other programs) allow for that, but the tag system suggested here does not provide a clear means by which to establish that.  It is by nature independent of ordering.

The "color tags" come part way.  They have a fixed finite number (rather than being named and allowing for further expansion), they are limited to one per layer, and as far as I can tell there is currently no global visibility or lock toggle for them.  Those things at least should be addressed.

I think there are use cases for both tags and global layers, and they each have advantages over the other, with neither one really replacing the other.

As I explained previously, the catch is that there is no clear way to import documents from the current system into one with a strict global layer system due to the arbitrary layer ordering that is currently possible with master pages.

[Opera]

There's no question about it: Global Layers are essential for any professional or even semi-professional workflow. If some guys here want to sell us Master Pages as a replacement for Global Layers, the only reason is that there are no Global Layers in Publisher.

[TonyB]

On 9/28/2021 at 12:28 PM, Opera said:

Global Layers are essential for any professional or even semi-professional workflow

So let's imagine I agree, how should it work within Affinity?

• We add a new parent layer type called Global Layer and it should be the default type for Publisher.
• When you add Global Layers they are added to all Spreads and Master Pages
• When you hide, show, colour tag or re-order, it will happen across all Spreads and Master Pages

Easy so far.

When you apply a Master Page (Master-A) to a Spread then what would you see in the Layer Panel when that Spread is selected?

1. It should show nothing ever.
2. When you expand a Global layer It should show Master-A for the corresponding Global Layer.
3. As above but only show Master-A if the Master Page has items on the corresponding Global Layer.
4. Something different.

 If you choose 2 or 3 then you could still select the items and even drag the Master-A parent above your Spread items to change Z order within your Spread items.

Discuss...

[prophet]

24 minutes ago, TonyB said:

When you apply a Master Page (Master-A) to a Spread then what would you see in the Layer Panel when that Spread is selected?

To me, the Layers in Affinity need to be a more rigid structure, particularly as it relates to Masters. The fact that I can apply a Master to a page and then move the entire Master "group/layer/set of layers" up and down within the Layer structure is wrong. The Layer structure should hold true to the Master and the Pages.

But to answer the particular question…

29 minutes ago, TonyB said:

When you apply a Master Page (Master-A) to a Spread then what would you see in the Layer Panel when that Spread is selected?

I would expect to see each Global Layer (GL) as it's own delineated section/group within the Layers panel. Within each GL, I would see: all elements within that GL that are on the regular page, all elements within that GL that belong to the applied Master (these would be appropriately indicated as Master elements with the UI.)

[prophet]

Super simple example.

In the below structure I could…
• Reorder or Show/Hide the Global Layers and that would apply across all Pages and Masters
• Within the GL, Reorder or Show/Hide Page or Master elements that only applies to that single page.

[TonyB]

10 minutes ago, prophet said:

To me, the Layers in Affinity need to be a more rigid structure, particularly as it relates to Masters. The fact that I can apply a Master to a page and then move the entire Master "group/layer/set of layers" up and down within the Layer structure is wrong. The Layer structure should hold true to the Master and the Pages.

I agree but you could move the Master-A parent node up and down scoped within the specific Spread Global Layer without any major issues.

I think the bigger question is whether seeing the Master-A node within the current Spread would confuse people as it will only show the objects from the same Global Layer  that they are expanded within.

[prophet]

5 minutes ago, TonyB said:

I agree but you could move the Master-A parent node up and down scoped within the specific Spread Global Layer without any major issues.

Sure. That has some nice flexibility when needed.

6 minutes ago, TonyB said:

I think the bigger question is whether seeing the Master-A node within the current Spread would confuse people as it will only show the objects from the same Global Layer  that they are expanded within.

I don't think this would be that confusing since the same Global Layer structure would be seen when editing the Master page. Meaning, when I add something to a Master Page, I would have had to make the decision of which Global Layer to place it on in the first place. So, when viewing the GL structure in the normal pages, I would have that structural knowledge in mind already.

When viewing each GL, it wouldn't be that hard to understand "Look at all these nice page elements in this GL. And look! Those clearly marked elements are the ones brought in from the Master page. How nice."

[TonyB]

Do you think we need Global Layer previews in the Layers Panel? I think it would look simpler and cleaner without.

[Mithferion]

This is one of the things that I'd like to see a video about, to understand fully what are the possibilities.

Best regards!

[prophet]

17 minutes ago, TonyB said:

Do you think we need Global Layer previews in the Layers Panel? I think it would look simpler and cleaner without.

Well, I assume we'd keep the ability to expand and collapse by Global Layer, so I'd say the preview/thumbnail would have to stay, at least in the collapsed state.

[sfriedberg]

I am pretty sure I've described this document setup in another thread, so forgive the repetition if you read it elsewhere.

Using CorelDRAW, which has a single master page with global layers, I created a set of about 50 documents, each of which contains the content for one digitally-sold product.  Each product is made in several variations, by turning on or off various combinations of per-page and global layers. Most of the global layers are positioned below all the per-page layers, but a few are positioned near the top of the Z stack, below just a couple of per-page layers.

In a typical file, there are 7 per-page layers on odd pages, 2 per-page layers on even pages, and 7 global layers.  In this application, I use global layers like master pages, for content which is identical on all pages on which they appear.  The global layers in this set of documents include:  guides, registration marks for my automated vinyl cutter, manual cutting guides for people using scissors, feature boundaries, a printable background grid, an internal-use positioning grid, and the document-wide pasteboard.

On a per-page basis, every even/odd page uses exactly the same layer setup.  Odd pages have two layers of labels or text content, and two pairs of boundary and fill layers, plus a layer of guides.  Even pages have one layer of labels or text content, and a layer of guides.   For this situation, I could use the "global layers with per-page content" feature that I believe thomaso is describing.  However, I find it comfortable to have the truly replicated content on the global layers, and a parallel but independent set of layers per-page.  Assuming a sane UI for duplicating pages or copying global layer content between pages, I could work either way.  Using global layers with per-page contents would definitely speed up the process of turning on/off the necessary layers for a variation of the product.

(If you are wondering why there are so many guide layers, these are a built-in feature of CorelDRAW.  Every page has one, and there is also a master one.  The master page pasteboard is also a built-in feature.)

One feature of CorelDRAW's layer system that is a bit unpleasant:  The ordering of master page global layers can be different on each page.  So I have to visit each page and drag the global layers to their proper positions in the Z stack, interleaved with the per-page layers.  I only have to do this once, during document setup.  But I have changed my mind after the first dozen or so documents were created, so had to revisit every page of those documents correcting the stacking order.  This problem presumably would be eliminated using global layers with per-page contents, as there'd be a consistent master page stacking order for the global layers.

In the CorelDRAW object manager (which is basically like the Affinity suite layers panel), you can choose to display a list of all the pages (master page included) with the Z-stacking of layers per-page, or just the current page with the interleaved Z-stack of per-page and global layers.  Both views are convenient.  I normally use the all-pages view, but when correcting the interleaved stacking order (see previous paragraph) it is necessary to use the current page interleaved view.

[Old Bruce]

4 hours ago, TonyB said:

Discuss...

I have to say that I do not have any idea what a Global Layer offers me that is essential. I have read other threads and comments about Global Layers and their absolute necessity but I must say that all the arguments made in favour are too abstruse for me me to truly grasp why the Global Layer system is essential. 

The original post has used the example of a multi-lingual publication in one file. I do not see how it cannot be done with a Master Page and Layer for French Text, Layer for German Text and Layer for Spanish Text. Turn on the language you want and the text frames with the text in that language are on every page. Two clicks, on for French and off for Spanish, every page is now in French instead of Spanish.

Another example used Seasonal decorations. It is essential to have Global Layers so this can be done. Why not just have a Master Page with Layers for Fall, Winter, Spring and Summer.

I include a Publisher Document to illustrate my earlier points about seasons, languages and Master Pages.

Multi format.afpub

[fde101]

20 hours ago, TonyB said:

So let's imagine I agree, how should it work within Affinity?

• We add a new parent layer type called Global Layer and it should be the default type for Publisher.
• When you add Global Layers they are added to all Spreads and Master Pages
• When you hide, show, colour tag or re-order, it will happen across all Spreads and Master Pages

Add to this:

• Global layers must be at the top level and may not be children of other layers.
• Global layers are probably not compatible with artboards?

 

20 hours ago, TonyB said:

When you apply a Master Page (Master-A) to a Spread then what would you see in the Layer Panel when that Spread is selected?

1. It should show nothing ever.
2. When you expand a Global layer It should show Master-A for the corresponding Global Layer.
3. As above but only show Master-A if the Master Page has items on the corresponding Global Layer.
4. Something different.

I vote for a flavor of #4, though this may complicate importing existing documents into the new scheme and some may not import cleanly:

• Add a drop-down at the top of the layers panel which lists the spread and any masters applied to the spread.
• Whichever of those is selected in the drop-down, the layers from the spread or the selected master are then listed in the layers panel, organized under their global layers.
• A new panel should list the masters applied to the page and allow them to be re-ordered or removed, and masters could be dragged from the Pages panel to a specific position in the new Applied Masters panel (or whatever it winds up being called).
• Within a given global layer, spread-specific content is at the top, with content from masters underneath it, in the order in which those masters appear in the Applied Masters panel

 

The documents from the current scheme which will convert most easily to this scheme are those for which all masters still have their master layers at the bottom of the layers stack, as it is by default.

As long as the master layers are not children of other layers and there are not top-level adjustment / live filter layers which could impact them, a clean import to the new scheme can be made by adding global layers each time a master layer appears above a non-master layer in the layers panel and distributing the content of each spread such that the master content retains its relative position in the stack.

The ones that may not be possible to convert cleanly to the new scheme (thus the reason that this should have been done BEFORE Publisher was released, to avoid breaking existing documents) are those with masters that might be impacted by adjustment or live effect layers, and those with masters which are not at the top level of the layers stack (such as those which are in groups with other layers).

Personally I think it is worth breaking existing documents which use those obscure constructs in order to get this feature in place, as it really should have been there from day 1, but now that Publisher is released and people may have documents which could be materially altered by conversion to this scheme, you may need to consider keeping the current behavior for existing documents but with the option to "convert" to the new scheme when people first add a global layer to the document, which they would need to understand may have ramifications in such cases.  I think you will run into that issue with ANY attempt to implement global layers in any reasonable way now that you have implemented it the way that you have.

[sfriedberg]

10 hours ago, fde101 said:

Add to this:

• Global layers must be at the top level and may not be children of other layers.

If you mean simply that they are not children of other layers, sure.  If you mean they must be at the top of the Z stacking order, then no.  There are lots of uses for "background" global layers which are under most/all other layers in the Z stack.

BTW, many other applications distinguish between layers and groups of objects.  In most of those applications, all layers are "at the top level" because you can't place layers inside other layers.  And you can meaningfully have an empty layer, which is great when you also have scripting.