Jump to content
Our response time is longer than usual currently. We're working to answer users as quickly as possible and thank you for your continued patience.

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, fde101 said:

In existing professional DTP applications such as QuarkXPress and InDesign, ALL layers are global layers, with any per-spread or per-master content being nested within them.  This is how it has been for several decades now and I have never seen complaints by their users that they do not have the option of limiting a given layer to a particular page.

I don't see the need for per-spread local layers so much in Publisher-like applications, but do use them quite heavily in Designer-like applications.  This is a situation where Affinity's choice to have a common document model and file format for all apps in the suite is a double-edged sword.  Any solution for Publisher needs to be a satisfactory solution for Designer.

I would find the "all layers are global layers" decision to be very distressing as a user of Designer.  As a user of Publisher, I probably would not notice.

6 hours ago, fde101 said:

An important point possibly not mentioned until now is that the ordering of global layers is also shared among all spreads (at least, in existing apps).

...

One way to resolve this would be to have the order of global layers independent for each spread - then if you wanted to move Middle behind Back it would only impact the spread you are on, but what happens when you actually WANT the layer to move on all spreads?

Yes, I mentioned this in the context of CorelDRAW, where the ability to set a mixed local/global Z stack order independently on each page is usually unnecessary, sometimes a benefit, but frequently a nuisance.  If you just use the default layering, no problem.  If you make any overrides to the layering, you have to manually confirm that you ended up with the correct layering on each page.  The UI component that shows the mixed local/global ordering only shows one page at a time, unlike the normal layer view, which is much like Designer's layer view in artboard mode, showing local layers within each page and the master global layers within the one master page.  CD does not have the concept of global layers with per-page/spread content.  In CD, all layers shared across multiple pages are master page layers.  All other layers are local per-page/spread layers.

So this is an area where, if the flexibility is offered, then a better UI is required to manage the mixed local/global Z stack order.

6 hours ago, fde101 said:

Consider which of these (or some other behavior) would be most appropriate for your work, then try to consider people working on different types of projects, and realize that the one you pick will still cause problems for someone else.

That's one of the reasons we are having this extended discussion, yes?

As @garrettm30 points out, we need to be careful about terminology.  Letting "page" stand for either page or spread, depending on document setup, I would suggest:

Master pages are about replicated content.  All layers of a master page are added to the effective layers of any page where the master is assigned.  Content in a master page layer is replicated across all pages where the master is applied.

Global layers are about consistent layer structure and management across the document.  All global layers are added to the effective layers of all pages.  Content in a global layer is independent for each page.

Local layers are about local layer structure within a page.  Local layers only appear on a single page.  Content on a local layer is necessarily local to a single page.

Currently, the Affinity suite supports master page layers and local layers, and allows assigning multiple masters to a given page.

Are we at least in agreement on those descriptions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sfriedberg said:

I would find the "all layers are global layers" decision to be very distressing as a user of Designer.

I am not sure whether that part was addressed to me, but in case it was, I would like to clarify that I do not want all layers to be global layers. If what we are asking for were to be implemented, I would expect that the layers that currently exist would continue to work just as they do. The only change might be that we start referring to them as “local layers,” as you have reasonably suggested. If global layers are introduced, I imagine that the person who does not choose to use them would be able to work the same as always, and for the rest, both global and local layers would have their place.

1 hour ago, sfriedberg said:

Are we at least in agreement on those descriptions?

Generally, I think yes. It does look we are getting a lot closer. I would add that everything, including master page layers and local layers, would live inside of global layers. I wasn’t sure if that was what you mean. It could be that by default new documents start out with only one “default” global layer that contains every layer and object, and that one global layer may not even need to be shown in the Layers Studio until more than one global layers exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please revise the layers system so that the layers are global - as in Indesign

If all my text frames are on a layer called "Text" and all my images are on a layer called "Images" and page numbers on a layer called Folio and so on it saves a huge amount of time with organising your entire documents draw order behavior ( follow the example of how InDesign works )

Another example workflow case is , often I create a layer called "Comments" on the top of the layer stack which I place comment text frames ontop of the content that needs to be resolved and once all done I switch the comment layer off and then PDF. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2021 at 12:57 PM, garrettm30 said:

I would add that everything, including master page layers and local layers, would live inside of global layers. I wasn’t sure if that was what you mean.

I could live with that, but would prefer not nesting any layers within any other layers.  (Again and still, distinguishing layers from objects and groups of objects).  But if you want to have a global layer entitled "Local layers" and make most/all local layers live in that global layer, well, OK.

Presumably a master page layer (globaly) is nested within exactly one global layer, which constrains the ability to change Z-stacking order on a per-page/artboard basis.  I guess you'd get around that by creating additional global layers above and below the global layer containing the master layer.  So you'd have global layers entitled things like your example of "Top", "Middle" and "Bottom", each containing subsets of local layers.

For the kind of slide set I described earlier, you'd end up with a bunch of global layers which contain a local layer on only one page, and similar things.  That, unfortunately, produces the "a set of layers which is the union of all per-page layers" consequence I'd prefer to avoid.  For Publisher-style documents, this would not trouble me.  For Designer-style documents, it would clutter my life considerably.  If it doesn't have content on the current page/artboard, I generally don't need to (or want to) know about it.  The principal exception is when I am creating new (or moving existing) content and need to select from the possible layers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/24/2021 at 2:38 PM, sfriedberg said:

I would find the "all layers are global layers" decision to be very distressing as a user of Designer.  As a user of Publisher, I probably would not notice.

I agree, which is why I qualified that this only applies to the layers at the very top level, and only if using global layers - mostly because of Designer and Photo I don't believe they should automatically apply to all documents in the Affinity suite, and in particular they should not be available in documents based on artboards (such as those created in Designer), as they don't really have any benefit in such documents anyway.

 

28 minutes ago, sfriedberg said:

Presumably a master page layer (globaly) is nested within exactly one global layer,

Any one layer, yes.  A given master page needs to be able to put things on all of the global layers, but one (per-spread/page/master) layer/object may only be inside of one other layer (global or otherwise) or group.  That much is true already.

 

On 11/24/2021 at 3:57 PM, garrettm30 said:

I would add that everything, including master page layers and local layers, would live inside of global layers.

Agreed, for documents where global layers are used, as explained above.

 

On 11/24/2021 at 3:57 PM, garrettm30 said:

It could be that by default new documents start out with only one “default” global layer that contains every layer and object, and that one global layer may not even need to be shown in the Layers Studio until more than one global layers exist.

That could be an alternative implementation to supporting documents with none at all, but it would be an internal detail for Serif to work out.

 

8 hours ago, Chris Voros-Haynes said:

Please revise the layers system so that the layers are global - as in Indesign

The problem with applying this universally is that the layer system structure is shared by Photo and Designer and global layers would be a pain in documents being worked on primarily in those tools, and provide no benefit when documents do not contain multiple pages, as is the case for documents created in those programs.  As a result, they need to be optional, or at least have the option of hiding them completely and using the current structure from a user perspective (possibly inside of a single default global layer which is invisible to the user) for documents which are intended primarily for those programs.  

Publisher would need to support working with such documents due to the "studio link" feature as well as due to the possibility of opening documents to work on which were previously created in Photo or Designer, while maintaining their structure so they can be sent back into those same programs.

However, I do agree that this functionality should be available for multi-page/spread Publisher documents, as an option the user can choose when to apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/26/2021 at 1:41 AM, sfriedberg said:

I could live with that, but would prefer not nesting any layers within any other layers.  (Again and still, distinguishing layers from objects and groups of objects). 

Here your use of "layer" feels ambiguous to me – although you point out a need to distinguish between various layer types + a need of clear terms in your recent post: "we need to be careful about terminology".

I my opinion it is in fact desired + an advantage that a "layer" may be nested within a "layer". What you possible mean: there is no global layer nested in any layer (the page as kind of the main layer excepted). But this was already mentioned various times above. So actually I don't understand for what purpose you make this statement.

On 11/26/2021 at 1:41 AM, sfriedberg said:

Presumably a master page layer (globaly) is nested within exactly one global layer,

Also this thought is unclear to me. Note: on every page (master or not) each item in the layers panel will be 'nested within exactly one global layer', not only master page layers or especially master page layers. – So, it appears you confuse in this statement "master page layer" with "global layer".

Instead a "master page layer" may occur differently in its various instances. On its master page it refers to single objects (each of them placed on a master page layer), on a documents page this term "master page layer" can refer to the entire master page content (several objects on several layers nested in 1 "master page layer") or refer to one single object of this master page (while several master page objects may be placed on their master page across various parent layers, either a future global layer or a current 'Layer' layer). So, also this paragraph in your post makes me wonder whether it just wants to confirm a known (~mentioned before) idea – or wants to describe a divergence.

On 11/26/2021 at 1:41 AM, sfriedberg said:

If it doesn't have content on the current page/artboard, I generally don't need to (or want to) know about it.

I highlighted this because it – quite silently – seems to answer @TonyB's  initial question, confirming the suggestion 3.):

331862137_TonyBquestions1-3.jpg.1880373271a930532d311d3923d0d2ca.jpg

On 11/26/2021 at 1:41 AM, sfriedberg said:

The principal exception is when I am creating new (or moving existing) content and need to select from the possible layers.

Are you sure? Where do you do this? – For what purpose…
a.) … should exceptionally objects newly created or moved on a master page make their layers appear in the layers panel of document pages?
b.)… would we need the layers panel to select an item which is an instance of a master page – instead just click-selecting the object in the layout view / the documents window?

@TonyB, I agree to your 3.) with the exception: As soon an object of a master page gets modified on a document's page it will appear as a layer in the layers panel + is visually marked as child of a master page (e.g. as currently with the orange stroke). While "modified" means any kind of edit done to master object on a documents page, e.g. locally inserting or editing text locally in an master page text frame / altering any of its attitudes in the detached mode / altering a master objects position in the layer hierarchy, e.g. moving it to a different layer level (a global one or not).

This appearance behavior would also require the possibility to select an object of a master page on a documents page in its layout window. Since its parent master layer would not appear in the Layer panel before any edit it would require another way than "detaching" via right-click menu on the invisible parent master layer but rather via click-select + modifier key on the object in the layout window to be enabled for "detached" editing.

macOS 10.14.6, MacBookPro Retina 15" + Eizo 27"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, thomaso said:
On 11/25/2021 at 4:41 PM, sfriedberg said:

I could live with that, but would prefer not nesting any layers within any other layers.  (Again and still, distinguishing layers from objects and groups of objects). 

Here your use of "layer" feels ambiguous to me – although you point out a need to distinguish between various layer types + a need of clear terms in your recent post: "we need to be careful about terminology".

I my opinion it is in fact desired + an advantage that a "layer" may be nested within a "layer". What you possible mean: there is no global layer nested in any layer (the page as kind of the main layer excepted). But this was already mentioned various times above. So actually I don't understand for what purpose you make this statement.

 I think this is one of our points of divergence.  An object is not a layer!  A group of objects is not a layer!  A layer (any layer) is a container for objects and groups of objects, any number of them, including zero.  This is one of the characteristics which distinguishes a layer from "a group of objects".  There are other such characteristics: layers lack a transform (either position or scale).

An application can support nesting of layers within layers, but this is not essential.  Applications can quite as well support a single set of "top-level only" layers, where all interior nesting comes from groups of objects (which are not layers).  I strongly prefer the 2nd model:  No nesting of layers within layers.  At all.  Now, if you want to make global layers special, so they can contain local page layers and master page layers, I can live with that.

10 hours ago, thomaso said:
On 11/25/2021 at 4:41 PM, sfriedberg said:

Presumably a master page layer (globaly) is nested within exactly one global layer,

Also this thought is unclear to me. Note: on every page (master or not) each item in the layers panel will be 'nested within exactly one global layer', not only master page layers or especially master page layers. – So, it appears you confuse in this statement "master page layer" with "global layer".

No, I did not make any such confusion.  I was referring back to @garrettm30's example with three global layers, and master page layers from one master page assigned to different global layers.  The assertion I was rehearsing was that a given, specific master page layer always and everywhere belongs to a single global layer.

And while I can grit my teeth and tolerate it, I really don't see the need for local page layers to be nested within (any) global layers.

10 hours ago, thomaso said:

Instead a "master page layer" may occur differently in its various instances. On its master page it refers to single objects (each of them placed on a master page layer), on a documents page this term "master page layer" can refer to the entire master page content (several objects on several layers nested in 1 "master page layer") or refer to one single object of this master page (while several master page objects may be placed on their master page across various parent layers, either a future global layer or a current 'Layer' layer). So, also this paragraph in your post makes me wonder whether it just wants to confirm a known (~mentioned before) idea – or wants to describe a divergence.

1) Why do you restrict master page layers to single objects?  "It refers to single objects (each of them placed on a mater page layer)" is a substantial confusion of object and layer, in my opinion.

2) On a documents page, "master page layer" had better refer to one layer of the master page, not all the layers of the master page!  The master page(s) has as many layers as the user defines it to have.  They are distinct layers.  They better be visible and manageable as distinct entities.  In the previous conversation, the various layers of a master page would be assigned to different global layers.  So you can't possibly "refer to the entire master page contents".

3) As mentioned above, I was trying to capture my understanding of the discussion.  Your reply has dashed any hopes I have of claiming comprehension and agreement.

10 hours ago, thomaso said:
  On 11/25/2021 at 4:41 PM, sfriedberg said:

If it doesn't have content on the current page/artboard, I generally don't need to (or want to) know about it.

10 hours ago, thomaso said:
On 11/25/2021 at 4:41 PM, sfriedberg said:

The principal exception is when I am creating new (or moving existing) content and need to select from the possible layers.

Are you sure? Where do you do this? – For what purpose…
a.) … should exceptionally objects newly created or moved on a master page make their layers appear in the layers panel of document pages?
b.)… would we need the layers panel to select an item which is an instance of a master page – instead just click-selecting the object in the layout view / the documents window?

For the purpose of assigning the content to a layer, of course.  If the layer is empty (on the current page), then by the green highlighted phrase, in my preferred cleaned-up UI, the layer will not be shown.  In order to assign content (for the first time on the current page) to such an empty layer, I have to see that the layer exists.

I have no particular desire to see master page layers editable when the user is focused on an ordinary page/spread/artboard.  If the user is focused on a master page, then obviously the content is going to go into a master page layer.  If the user is focused on an ordinary page/spread/artboard, content generally is not going to go into a master page layer, and I would be happy with a prohibition against it.

If you (the reader, not @thomaso specifically) believe that local page layers must be nested inside global layers, then that's where local page content is going to go.  If you (the reader) believe that local page layers are not nested inside global layers, then the question becomes moot because local page layers only appear on one page, by definition.

And just for completeness, there must obviously be facilities for defining new layers (of all types).  I don't care whether or not that can be done as part of the create new (or move existing) content functions, as it's easy to either create the destination layer before creating content, or create the layer after creating content and move the (then existing) content into the recently created, empty layer.  And that is the point of "the principal exception".  If there is an empty layer, which is not being shown to me because it is empty, I need to see it in the list of potential destination layers.  Full stop.

In response to a)

1) I was discussing creation (or moving) of ordinary content on ordinary pages, not master pages.

2) I have no difficulty accepting all master page layers including empty ones, from master pages assigned to the current page, shown in the list of layers affecting the current page, because I expect that to be a vanishingly rare and entirely transient situation.  If a master page layer has no content, it might as well be removed.

3) If a layer (any layer, from any source) has content on the current page/spread, then obviously the user needs to see the content and the containing layer.

4) If a layer (any layer, from any source) does not have content on the current page/spread/artboard, (here's that green highlighted statement again), I generally don't need (or want to) know about it.    But as noted in #2 above, I am not going to gas about empty master page layers.  And as noted in "the principal exception", I need to see even the empty layers when creating new (or moving existing) content.

In response to b)

1) Again, I don't really understand why you are narrowing in on master pages.  As I stated above, if you want to show all master page layers regardless of whether they are empty, from master pages assigned to the current page/spread/artboard, in the list of layers applicable to the current page, go right ahead.  And if I assign some content to a global layer which was previously empty on the current page, then I do want to see it in the page layer list (in fact, must see it).  And if I remove all content on the current page/spread/artboard from a global layer, then I usually don't want to see it (the global layer), but I will grant you a dispensation for useless empty master page layers which were assigned to that global layer.  But the focus of my statement was not about master pages, but ordinary pages.

2) Assuming it's possible to mouse pick the desired object (i.e., not covered in the Z stack), yes, it is just fine to select the object in the viewport instead of the layers panel.  I am not sure what I might have said to suggest otherwise.  Depending on the situation, it might be more convenient to select it in the layers panel, but that's entirely dependent on the situation.

-----------

I intend to take a break from this discussion for some time.  I will continue to read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Hens While I love a good chart, I think the shared file format requires some different thinking.

In your hierarchy, I would suggest the Global Layer belongs directly under the Document. The next level down would then address how the Global Layer is handled/seen/manipulated depending on the Application. In Publisher, how is the Global Layer dealt with on a Page. In Designer, on an Artboard. In Photo, on a…Canvas?

If we didn't think Global Layers would work well in Designer or Photo, I think using the current "convert Artboards to Spreads" workflow as seen in Publisher would be a reasonable model. When opening a Publisher file with Global Layers in Design/Photo, we would see in the Layers panel a message like "This document contains Global Layers. To continue working with it, confirm conversion of Global Layer into… (page layers? , local layers? whatever we call them)"

As for 2-way conversion between what you call Base Layer and Global Layer, I'm not sure that would work well. If I converted 2 Global layers to Base Layers, presumably all those elements would be intermingled together with no "container" holding them. How would the application then return them to their original Global layer should I want to convert back to Global?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, fde101 said:

If the pages and masters are presented as rows of a table, the global layers need to be columns.

Hmmm. I think a "pivot" of this metaphor would be more accurate. The Global Layers are the rows (the stacking order is of key importance), and the Pages are the columns.

However, as some have been suggesting and I agree, Masters shouldn't really be considered "layers". Elements of a Master should be treated more akin to symbols. When a Master is applied to a page, you essentially get all the content from that Master placed as symbolic elements. They are still tied to the Master and will follow any edits done there (excepting the detached ones).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, prophet said:

Masters shouldn't really be considered "layers".

Correct.

The confusion here likely comes from the way Publisher currently represents the content of a master page as a layer amongst the layers on each page.  Other DTP apps don't do this, but due to the lack of global layers, this design choice could lead to users thinking of a master as a shared layer across pages, which muddies their understanding of what is supposed to be going on.

That is kind of part of why I had suggested eliminating that behavior and making the layers of the master(s) of a page accessible in the layers panel by using a drop-down list to choose which layers you are looking at in the panel, rather than continuing to present them as if they were yet another layer on the page (though technically they are...)

If the master page layers are instead shown as they currently are inside each global layer for which they present content, this does avoid the potential import issues with existing documents, but it also has the potential to make things even more confusing: if the master page layers show up in three places in the layers panel because it has content on three global layers, does deleting one of them remove only the master page content of that layer from the page, or do the others disappear along with it?  If only that one, and I have master page content for five language-specific layers plus two language-independent layers, do I need to delete seven layers to take the master off of a page?

Will users start to complain that they can't move the master page layer to a different global layer (or if they can, what is the actual effect of that)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having an option that a layer is shown/hidden with just one click on all pages is indispensable. Without this basic function, a publishing software is unusable.
I have lot's of multi-lingual user manuals imported from InDesign. These have one layer for the pictures and one layer for each language. And if I like to change language, a click on english layer, for example, must hide the english layer on all pages, and a click on the german layer will show the german text on all pages. How Publisher works currently, the resulting document will be a language chaos.
A simple Option "Link Layers accross all pages" would do the job for me. If this option is enabled, a loop has to go thru all pages and do the same I have to do manually at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lukas T said:

A simple Option "Link Layers accross all pages" would do the job for me.

How would that work?

Currently layers are independent on each page and master.  As a result, the option would have no way to associate which layer on each page corresponds to the layer(s) on another page.  I might have three layers on one page and no layers at all on some other page, with only one layer on a third.  How would the system know which of the three layers should match the one, and what should happen on the page without any?

Layers can even be children of other layers; they can be grouped, etc. - how would the application behave when faced with that?

An entirely new type of layer is needed for this or it will quickly descend into chaos.

If the new type of layer is not introduced, then the use of a tags mechanism as was previously suggested would provide an alternative, but it would not really be a complete solution (and the color tags are not really sufficient as they currently exist).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, fde101 said:

How would that work?

Currently layers are independent on each page and master.  As a result, the option would have no way to associate which layer on each page corresponds to the layer(s) on another page.  I might have three layers on one page and no layers at all on some other page, with only one layer on a third.  How would the system know which of the three layers should match the one, and what should happen on the page without any?

Layers can even be children of other layers; they can be grouped, etc. - how would the application behave when faced with that?

An entirely new type of layer is needed for this or it will quickly descend into chaos.

If the new type of layer is not introduced, then the use of a tags mechanism as was previously suggested would provide an alternative, but it would not really be a complete solution (and the color tags are not really sufficient as they currently exist).

InDesign does it and it is very simple and it would be managed by what Name you give the parent layer, InDesign layers also have child sub-layers which are the content/objects (unique to each page) and the parent layers are consistent across all the pages and this is what makes content draw order control extremely simple and quick to edit at a late stage of a project which is often the case.

I.e. page numbers go on a global a parent layer called page numbers, and so on for other object types.... and if the draw order / layer stack need to be adjusted later on so that they don't get obstructed - then you drag the page number layer above others as needed no matter which page you were viewing and problem solved

Attached is a typical global layer stack structure I use for all my documents

 

Document Layer Structure.JPG

Edited by Chris Voros-Haynes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2021 at 8:23 PM, prophet said:

My attempt at a simple representation of Global Layers.

In addition to @prohet's graphic and to avoid confusion of master & global layer: every item has to be a child of a global layer + all created global layers do always exist an all pages, also if empty.

There is no item at all exterior of a global layer. This includes also e.g. an adjustment / filter layer. If an adjustment / filter layer is used on a global layer it affects also the global layer(s) below unless the adjustment / filter layer is nested – as currently – in a Layer layer or a group layer or an object layer.

25793787_globallayerillu_ot.thumb.png.3e76bd6d342934c8e2b8309fb7cdeef4.png

macOS 10.14.6, MacBookPro Retina 15" + Eizo 27"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Chris Voros-Haynes said:

and the parent layers are consistent across all the pages

InDesign has done this correctly from day 1.  All of its layers are what we are referring to as "Global Layers" - same as QuarkXPress.

The existing layers in the Affinity apps do not work this way and will not serve this purpose.

We cannot really ask to make this a "simple" option and change the behavior of the existing layers because it would substantially break existing functionality and documents.

Thus a new type of layer which we are calling "global layers" is needed in order to provide for this functionality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, loukash said:

Once I've understood how this works, I've stopped missing "global layers à la Adobe" immediately.

That might be fine for your purposes, but if in general, then you are missing something.

Consider that in a given book there can be different kinds of pages: a page with all text, one with an image in the top half and text at the bottom, a special chapter title format, etc.

You might have several common masters reflecting different layouts, but in a book which is translated, you might have five different languages (for example) and each master might have one or more text frames on a separate layer for each language.

If you have an English layer and a Klingon layer (random language choices) on each of three or four masters, you could toggle the layers within the masters to show or hide each language, but you would have to go through and do it separately for each master, then you still wouldn't catch page-specific objects which are not on the master page(s).

With global layers, you could toggle the visibility for a language across ALL masters and pages in ONE STEP by having them all on a common layer.

The ability to have multiple masters assigned to a single page is interesting, but it does absolutely nothing to help with this problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, fde101 said:

With global layers, you could toggle the visibility for a language across ALL masters and pages in ONE STEP by having them all on a common layer.

Point taken, this scenario is not something I'd need to do at this time.

On the other hand though, I'd be very surprised if you could actually fit multiple translations of a book onto an exactly same basic layout, same amount of pages, you name it. So this looks like a very hypothetical scenario to me.

9 minutes ago, fde101 said:

The ability to have multiple masters assigned to a single page is interesting, but it does absolutely nothing to help with this problem.

Hm… I've found solutions to other "unsolvable problems" before. :D I'll look into it if I have some time…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, fde101 said:

How would that work?

Currently layers are independent on each page and master.  As a result, the option would have no way to associate which layer on each page corresponds to the layer(s) on another page.  I might have three layers on one page and no layers at all on some other page, with only one layer on a third.  How would the system know which of the three layers should match the one, and what should happen on the page without any?

Layers can even be children of other layers; they can be grouped, etc. - how would the application behave when faced with that?

An entirely new type of layer is needed for this or it will quickly descend into chaos.

If the new type of layer is not introduced, then the use of a tags mechanism as was previously suggested would provide an alternative, but it would not really be a complete solution (and the color tags are not really sufficient as they currently exist).

Well, that's very simple. If we import from InDesign, there are no individual layers on different pages. All pages have the same Layers. Thus the script has to show or hide thruout all pages the Layer with the same name. If one later on creates a new layer, affinity should ask if this layer has to be created on all pages or only on the current page. If one creats a new layer on just one page, the of course this one is excluded from global show/hide. If one renames or deletes a Layer which exists thruout the whole document, Affinity has to ask if that layer should be renamed (and kept linked) or deleted on all pages, or only on the current page. And if a previousely linked layer does not exist anymore on one page, this should not affect the functionality on any other pages.

Or another attempt would be the possibility to have a Master page for each Layer with no content at all, and that I can add some individual Text frames on each page which are associated / linked to that Master page. And the Master Page will then only work as global show/hide. I'm still struggeling with the strange functionality of Master pages in Affinity, but it seams to work already half way like this. However, if a document is imported from InDesign, the relation between this Master page and its childes on the pages must be kept.

I did also test Viva, and this does not have this Layer issue. Usingb Viva, Layers imported from inDesign do work as expected. I see no reason why this should not work in Affinity??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, loukash said:

Point taken, this scenario is not something I'd need to do at this time.

On the other hand though, I'd be very surprised if you could actually fit multiple translations of a book onto an exactly same basic layout, same amount of pages, you name it. So this looks like a very hypothetical scenario to me.

Hm… I've found solutions to other "unsolvable problems" before. :D I'll look into it if I have some time…

May be it does not make sense for a 400 page novel, but it makes definitely sense for a users manual which contains lots of pictures and/or screenschots and an explanation below each picture.

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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please note there is currently a delay in replying to some post. See pinned thread in the Questions forum. These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | 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.