Affinity Designer 1.8 New features list?

[Pšenda]

On 12/9/2019 at 10:06 AM, haakoo said:

Stop this constant hurling of your opinion.

I wanted to read something about the new features in version 1.8 (as the thread title says), but unfortunately I bump again to this monotonous promotion of their views, so I won't read anything :-( I don't have for it time or nerves, i'll wait for the official feature introduction.

[Patrick Connor]

@Pšenda

teasers here and here and heavy hints here and here. Still nothing official

[Kuttyjoe]

On 12/7/2019 at 12:15 PM, Mithferion said:

Adobe Illustrator is whatever you might describe, except for user-friendly. It's a piece of Software with many great Tools but to this day it's something I don't enjoy using. On the other hand, even when you consider its shortcomings, Affinity Designer is way more user-frienly.

Best regards!

It's not that simple.  User friendliness also depends on the individual user's experience, expectations, etc.  And every program has some areas where it does well and others that need work. 

[Frozen Death Knight]

24 minutes ago, Kuttyjoe said:

It's not that simple.  User friendliness also depends on the individual user's experience, expectations, etc.  And every program has some areas where it does well and others that need work. 

Sure, but since Adobe want to sell their software line-up as an ecosystem to people with their business model, it's reasonable to criticize stuff in one software especially when you think one of their other softwares have done a better job with the user experience. While I think Adobe have got a bunch of decent software where they have done a lot to bridge the gap between different workflows, they haven't always done a good job at unifying the user experience when jumping between each software.

As a Photoshop user there are plenty of things that bug me when jumping from Photoshop to Illustrator.  What takes one context sensitive R click to open the layers menu to create a clipping mask in Photoshop, I have to instead open up a menu at the top of the screen to access that same feature. Sure, you can use shortcuts to speed up the process, but it's those inconsistencies that make the transition less intuitive. I really like how Photoshop handles layers, so when Illustrator doesn't take pointers from that I get pretty disappointed.

The reason I like Designer more than Illustrator despite the latter having more features is that it has more in common with Photo/Photoshop than it does with Illustrator, especially regarding layers. If I want to do a clipping mask, I just do the same action I do in Photo. Granted, not every action is translated over 100%, but it's something I appreciate nonetheless.

[Kuttyjoe]

9 hours ago, Frozen Death Knight said:

As a Photoshop user there are plenty of things that bug me when jumping from Photoshop to Illustrator.  What takes one context sensitive R click to open the layers menu to create a clipping mask in Photoshop, I have to instead open up a menu at the top of the screen to access that same feature. Sure, you can use shortcuts to speed up the process, but it's those inconsistencies that make the transition less intuitive. I really like how Photoshop handles layers, so when Illustrator doesn't take pointers from that I get pretty disappointed.

You’re saying that if two programs are made by the same company, then they should work exactly the same way, or one of them is unintuitive.  I can’t really understand that.  But that’s what I was saying before about user experiences and expectations.  My expectations and standards are much simpler.  If a program can achieve a task easy, or fast, then you won’t ever hear me say anything much about it. As it is, Photoshop and Illustrator are both great at masking, fast and easy.  If you’d not mentioned that they aren’t exactly the same, the idea would never have crossed my mind.  If one did it very well and the other did not, then I would notice that quickly, but that’s not the case at all.  So for me, that would be really nitpicking.  I can’t figure out how what you pointed out is harming me.  It’s not slowing me down.  It’s not preventing me from doing the work.  You say you’re getting pretty disappointed because, why?  You say that you could work faster by using keyboard shortcuts, but you don’t.  So, speed is not your goal.  Working more slowly is not the problem.  You’re not finding either software to be difficult to achieve a mask so that’s also not the problem.  So what exactly is the thing that’s making you disappointed?  Is it just the arbitrary notion of form, rather than focusing on function?

[Mithferion]

On 12/8/2019 at 6:13 PM, JGD said:

Also, not what I said. Overall, AD is indeed more user-friendly. I did mention its intuitive tools, didn't I? As for Ai, I believe I mentioned it before but it does bear repeating: it has a steep learning curve and features some positively horrible vector editing tools.

It's great that we agree on that. NOthing else to discuss on that matter, I think.

 

On 12/8/2019 at 6:13 PM, JGD said:

But for someone who's more of a perfectionist (re-read my comments regarding artwork repositioning in more complex documents), the current document model may start to irk them a bit…

And that's why I mentioned that you rightly asked for these changes. The great news: it's coming in the "near" future.

 

On 12/8/2019 at 6:13 PM, JGD said:

As you should know, when it comes to software usability and workflows, things are anything but obvious and linear. Once you get past that learning curve, economies of scale kick in, and I can assure you that whatever workarounds I'd have to come up with in AD would be way worse and time-wasting than having to deal with Ai's horrid tools every now and then. I know, because I tried them.

And I don't say anything to argue you on that, because we are different and we use the Software for different things.

Best regards!

[JET_Affinity]

On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 3:05 PM, MattP said:

With regards to artboards being ‘glorified clipping paths’ I’d argue that they are less like ‘glorified clipping paths’ than Illustrators artboards are like ‘glorified rectangles’ - our artboards are containers, as are XD’s artboards, even as are Photoshop’s artboards. We have pages in Publisher for when you’re trying to achieve things which would be more appropriately constructed that way..

From a user's conceptual perspective, Layers and Pages are fundamentally and purposefully distinct. Proper layers provide a document level organizational mechanism based on the users' working purposes that is independent of pages. That's why they exist. Moving objects onto, off of, or between pages has no business changing their position in the object stacking order of the whole document.

It's called a "Layers Palette" for a reason: From the beginning in the 80s, the Layers Palettes in object-based graphics programs did not even list objects. That unnecessary (and frankly, ill-conceived) notion came much later. The Layers Palette only listed Layers, because it was not just another method to merely "bracket" a range of objects on a particular page that are contiguous in the  Z-stacking order. There are already other means by which to do that. That's what groups and nested groups do. (Any kind of group, including special construct groups like clipping paths, blends, symbols, etc.)

Proper layers are not about that.

Example A. Suppose I'm working on a document which consists of a set of nine drawings on pages (Sheets) of varying sizes. I have a group consisting of a few lines and text objects called a Title Block. Each Sheet (page) has its own inset border (different size/shape for each page). Each sheet has its own reference grid with its own X and Y legend. I put all that stuff on the same single document-spanning Layer called "Sheet Frames."

I have another Layer named "Temp_Trace." Anytime I need to temporarily import a raster image (say a scan of a sketch) for tracing, I import it to the Temp-Trace layer. I create that Layer once. I toggle its visibility on or off with one click, regardless of what page I'm on. I can drag a sketch image on that Layer from page to page, without it jumping to somewhere else within the overall document's object stack.

Example B. Another project consists of press-sheets for a product identity project. A 19" x 22"  layout (page) contains  a ganged-up set of labels of various sizes for several different sizes of jars. A letter-size layout contains a gang of business cards for six different employees. Another layout contains both sides of a 9" x 12" (trim) trifold product brochure arranged for work-and-turn printing (i.e., one set of press plates, minimized pre-press setup and finishing chores).

I put trim marks, fold marks, color bars and other production references on all of those sheets and I want them all to reside on a single document-wide layer called "Printer Marks." Two of the sheets involve die cuts. I want all of those paths on a single document-wide layer called "Die Cuts."

I put foil stamps, embosses, varnishes, and sometimes spot ink objects on document-level Layers.

When printing or exporting, I can toggle on or off those auxiliary layers, as needed, document-wide. When finished with a temporary-purpose layer, I can delete it, document-wide. I can turn off "technical" layers across all pages in the document and then export all pages as approval comps.

Example C. Another project consists of a set of 50 wiring schematics of various page-sizes for a vehicle. The set is to be delivered to plants in the US and Mexico. All the myriad circuit labels reside on two whole-document-spanning layers: English and Spanish. When the document is exported as a PDF, the Retain Document Layers option is on. A Javascript button is added to the PDF to allow the user to toggle the entire document between languages with a single click.

All of those hypothetical but very real and common situations are entirely artwork-intensive projects. None are bookish, text-heavy documents involving high page count, repetitive page-to-page designs requiring master pages, tables of contents, indexes, etc. In other words, none require (nor is even appropriate for) a page-layout application. Document-level layers is just as important for illustration/design applications as it is for page-layout applications.

"Container" (clipping path) treatment of pages is neither advantageous nor a suitable substitute for conventional document-wide page independent layers. Calling a page an "artboard" doesn't change that.

Given that this ship has probably sailed, I know I and others are probably fighting a loosing battle here. But failure to provide proper document level layers is a serious competitive disadvantage.

JET
 

[dominik]

1 hour ago, JET_Affinity said:

Example A. ...

Example B. ...

Example C. ...

Thank you for these detailed examples. Even though I have an understanding of the concept of document wide layers I missed real world examples in many of the posts on this topic (not just in this thread).

d.