Canva's pledge to Affinity

 

After the news was published that Canva had acquired the Affinity programs from Serif, Affinity's forum exploded and most reactions were not particularly positive. The main reason resulted from the fact that Canva is a subscription based web based tool, while the programs from the Affinity suite require a one time payment for each major version upgrade. The users' concern was justified, since by far the most had turned to Affinity after fleeing in droves from the absurdly expensive and monthly recurring fee Adobe suite. Switching platform is very time consuming and not a leisurely stroll in the park, since the file formats are proprietary for all brands, which means that either files need to be converted to the file format of the refuge application and start a new library from scratch, which will not make customers  and designers happy and therefore reduces income. Particularly modifying and updating legacy files that can not be imported into the involuntary chosen application is a horror scenario for graphic designers.

To ease the minds of the Affinity community and prevent coronary accidents, Canva issued a statement shortly after they published the new that Affinity was acquired. It contained four pledges that can be read in the image below and in the accompanying article published by Canva that you can read here. This allowed most Affinity users to decouple from the oxygen pump and helpers discontinue CPR. In theory the pledges contain a hundred percent positive message, that would put Affinity users' minds to rest and offers Serif to accelerate the programs' development, while operating in a larger chunk of the graphic design market segment. We will have to see what the lifespan of these pledges is. For now Canva should get the benefit of the doubt. It has the potential of preventing a massive parade to the exit of users of the Affinity suite as well.

Canva's pledges to Affinity

Past acquisitions for the majority haven't went well for users of the programs that were built by the company that was overtaken. But there is not a lot that users can do about it. Besides a switch that I mentioned in the previous blog post to the superb, one time payment VectorStyler drawing program, there also is the open source Inkscape that in theory has a great potential where the functional usefulness is concerned, but its UI is by far not as intuitive as Affinity's user friendly interface. VectorStyler does a better job at that, considering that the program has so many tools and functions that it even dwarfs Adobe Illustrator in the versatiliy and completeness department. But after users have become familiar with them, working with VectorStyler opens up new worlds. It however has no photo editor and desktop publishing program, which Affinity has turned into a very proficiently integrated suite of programs, that is unique in software.

VectorStyler logo

So, there is nothing else left for the Affinity community to wait what the future brings. It also is possible to continue to work with the latest version after Affinity would have turned to the subscription rip off model, should Canva dump the pledges in the bin at one point. Pixel pushers could look for possibilities to learn open source GIMP as a photo editor. What VectorStyler has done is prove that the instant of software rot still is quite a distance away. Software rot being the moment in which no further improvement to a program can be made, because it already contains all possible tools and functions imaginable. Unfortunately a desktop publishing program of the level of Affinity Publisher is one developed by Adobe and called InDesign, that is a budget unfriendly, perpetual payment rip off.

Inkscape logo

The question is, can or do graphic designers want to live with the restrictions imposed on them, accepting the fact that they will have to use programs of different brands that aren't designed to flawlessly work together or not? Globalism is a devious corporate / government / UN game in which the losers are known from the beginning as well as the winners. This doesn't exclusively apply to graphic designers; it is why the trillion dollar censorship is coerced on everyone that does not have at least a seven digit bankaccount. Any person with more than two properly functioning brain cells should be tempted to see such an iniquitous development in a broader perspective, because there is more at stake than initially meets the eye.

GIMP logo

Today the globalists' aim to separate the haves from the havenots in an illegal and unfeeling way. They have made it a societal problem that will not spontaneously go away, unless people wake up and stand for their rights, which aren't the corrupt laws that the crooked politicians and evil juridical clowns have imposed. Justice is real truth and nothing else what those without a covert, genocidal plan intuitively feel. Waking up lies poured out on us is the only way out of this callous global misery. 

Thanks for visiting and wishing you an independent future.

Software update craze & subscription model rip off

I watched several Facebook threads of disgruntled users in the QuarkXpress user group and it really is sad to notice the disdain of software companies like Apple, Google Adobe and Quark (not to mention Microsoft) towards their users, many of whom have been loyal for decades. Users who find that the software for which they paid, no longer works, commonly tend to become displeased, but companies that provide software seem to be less bothered by the fact that their products fail to deliver. Such an implausible attitude of course contributes to the user discontent.

I used Quark up to the 2016 version until it crashed beyond repair. In the past the program has shown great potential, that was so good in fact that I never needed the assistance of their support department. Plus, I like to dive into matters and figure out how to get things to work. But the industry's upgrade frenzy finally got me, which is to be blamed on the fact that an increasing chunk of the upgrading and support requires an on line connection to the companies' servers. When support for a version has been terminated or the software on the server does not work, it simply means there will be no support. Period. 

Force to subscibe and therefore auto-update

The companies' urge to increasingly rapidly upgrade, goes hand in hand with a decreasing inclination to provide proper service and support, because those things add little to their intention to make immediate profits, since they have to continually please their shareholders, whose sole interest is the dividend corporations listed in the stock exchange will pay (or not). To put it differently: They don't give a toss about client satisfaction. It may sound rather crude, but that actually is what it comes down to.

Dealing with this situation is increasingly difficult for the software companies' customers, whose profit / survival money goes out the window when the coercive corporate upgrade craze causes them to be unable to continue their business. Mainly because companies ceased to support usually older versions or properly maintain the upgrade and support software on their servers. 

Adobe's subscription model's main purpose - besides gaining disproportionately huge profits - is to force their entire user base into accepting and paying for their upgrade policy without the need to spend time and money on promoting and selling upgrades for a fee and offering support to customers that run into trouble after upgrading. Do not give clients the option to choose whether or not they want to upgrade, just force them to use whatever upgrade the company feels is necessary and make them pay for it. If they decline this 'offer' simply refuse to let them use the software, which makes them unable to access files they have created earlier with  the software.

Being the market leader in the main stream of the graphic art, publishing and printing industry, allowed Adobe to get away with this user unfriendly strategy. Clients that disagreed with their new approach and turned their back on the behemoth often found themselves in a place void of solutions to their professional problems and an abundance of workarounds necessary to get the job at hand done if they are available at all.

Not long after Adobe forced their users into a mortgage like payment system, its competition began to pick up on the advantages of the more or less concealed aspects of that rip off model, that makes their business a lot easier, while ensuring a more steady and predictable profit, which prevented them from ending up in a nasty dispute with their all powerful shareholders. The fact that it also caused them to land in disagreement with their users does not bother them to the extent that made them willing to change their policy. 

An other detrimental effect of the upscaling of the upgrade pace is the fact that developers have their panties twisted. Doing more work in less time with fewer people is an unfailing recipe for causing stress and discomfort, which commonly results in an increased number of errors or bugs in the software. This in turn makes it hard for clients who use the buggy software to produce decent files within the deadline limits. But as long as shareholders see their bank accounts grow fat, there is little to worry about for the management of software corporations. At least, that is what they think they can afford to assume in the short term.

Assumption is the mother of all evil

In the long run however, the world is an entirely different place. While developers end up gulping Prozac or relocate to an asylum and clients of the software companies go bankrupt, managers simply continue their career in a next project, where they repeat their mistakes for a generous fee. Reproducing blunders is what is generally meant by experience in resumes - the more often a person repeats his or her mistakes, the more experienced (s)he is considered to be. This is how modern market reason works. It is meritocracy interpreted in the most harmful way possible. But since everybody does it, only few notice it is a disastrous perception. 

Because in the end earning money and making profits only is possible when there is production of things that markets need. In order to be able to continue this type of symbiosis the produce has to work properly. If this isn't the case, that market segment will at some point collapse. This implosion will affect those involved in the perpetuation of that particular portion of the trade. Some may be able to venture into different directions, but many will just suffer the consequence of mankind's aversion to admit that caring for all is possible only in a logical setting. Limitless greed does not comply with this universal principle.

Regardless of how affluent one is, how influential, how well educated, well dressed and respected because of ones pretended sincerity and empathy, a carefully concealed greed ridden mindset will ultimately destroy any collaboration that was established, in which the producing portion of the factions involved was kept in the dark about the unbalanced reward method of that system. The sad part of such events is that the system's break down harms those who were held unaware of the deceitful nature of the setup.

Is QuarkXpress a serious contender to InDesign?

It is quite noticeable on the Internet that the dislike of Adobe's subscription policy (some even call it prisonware) is increasing. In spite of the comprehensiveness of the collaborating programs in Adobe's suit, many DTP-ers are looking for alternatives to continue their work. At first glance it seems there aren't many serious competitors to InDesign, at least not ones that are similarly feature rich. But for users to be driven to consider a switch to an other program, because they feel plundered, in spite of the magnificent features of InDesign, indicates that something is wrong with the capacity to make proper decisions in Adobe's management (although the bloke that persuaded them to do it, most likely reached his target with a rousing fanfare - Subscriptions to Adobe’s popular Creative Cloud software have powered a 44 percent increase in revenue since 2013...). Users have to overcome a steep learning curve in order to be able to work with an alternative program and have to convert a number of their documents that they created in InDesign. But the time, effort and money that it costs, does not seem to stop many from looking for alternatives nevertheless. That should ring some bells at Adobe, but I assume they think that their industry leader position prevents them from losing too many users, which they believe will be more than compensated by the revenues resulting from their grippingly expensive subscription policy.

An other flaw that InDesign has, is that it is incapable of integrating SQL data, which would be a very useful function for a lot of companies (that must print labels or other printed docs that often recur, requiring change). There are rather expensive and not 100% properly working third party plug-ins to solve this problem (somewhat), but on top of Adobe's already expensive program this would put off many users that would have potential use for it. A simple program like Microsoft Word handles SQL data without a plug-in a lot better than InDesign.

In the past Aldus PageMaker was a program that re-invented the art of Desktop Publishing. It became available for Macintosh computers in 1985 and for Windows machines in 1987. No contending program was able to match its features. In 1994 PageMaker was bought by Adobe. Its latest release was version 7.0 that was launched in 2001.

Before that time an other DTP-program, named QuarkXpress had conquered the DTP market, because it had many more functions than PageMaker. QuarkXpress 4.0 made that company grow so fast that Quark intended to buy Adobe. The latter averted the take over and developed InDesign that was based on Shuksan or K2 that Aldus had already began to develop in the time it was bought by Adobe. That eventually resulted in Adobe issuing InDesign. This program rapidly gained Adobe a leading position in the DTP realm, which it has been able to expand over time.

But Adobe's subscription model forces users to pay indefinitely for the right to use its programs. Its monopoly on the market probably prompted the company to make such a choice, thinking that professional users in Desktop Publishing would have no choice but to use InDesign. I am not on some type of crusade against Adobe, but I just feel it is exploiting its market position. Their suit is excellent and its programs work together in a great way. However, expecting users to endlessly pay for programs instead of buying a license and allowing users to decide to upgrade when they feel it is necessary, is not good business conduct.

An other contender, Microsoft's Publisher, is not taken seriously by professionals due to its lack of advanced features, while FrameMaker - suited to create large, structured documents - purchased from Frame by Adobe in 1995, used mainly in big business environments where less fancy lay-out features are required. FrameMaker is commonly used for database publishing, which is a specialized trade. It reads ODBC / SQL / XML objects and links them in documents automatically, so whenever the information in the database is changed, they are applied in the document instantly. It is a tool particularly useful for companies that continuously need to process large amounts of data, to which DTP-specialists have to do few or no editing at all. Airliners for example, quarterly receive approximately 150,000 pages that update the manual for a specific large type of aircraft. These include legacy data (bitmaps) and editable data. FrameMaker is therefore almost never used as a single program production platform; many other programs are involved in the update process - database shells, programs for vectorizing bitmaps (rasters), OCR etc.

Open source Lyx that is a shell based on Latex typesetting that does not follow the WYSIWYG principle that has become the standard in the DTP world. It is predominantly used in academic circles and is perfectly capable of creating and integrating (editable) complex mathematical formulae in documents, but it does not attract many users outside of its niche and does not seem to attempt to do so. It is not created to do general publishing, but is very good at composing large, structured documents.

A great DTP program that once adorned the business of lay-out enhancing artists is Ventura that was bought by Corel in 1993. Ventura had been around from the pre-Windows era, running on DOS. Its transition to Windows was excellent. Renown for the way it handled styles and its magnificent interface, it slowly dissolved into oblivion after Corel didn't bother to give it some TLC. It might have earned them tons of money, but apparently the Corel company had other priorities. Some of its functionality found its way into their flagship CorelDRAW, but that is not a specialist DTP program. A missed opportunity I think.

Finally Scribus is also an open source DTP program which interface resembles word processing applications at first glance. I've tried to use it, but I find it difficult to find the features that would allow it to properly function as a professional DTP program. My biggest objection against Scribus is the fact that it can not properly anchor images in text fields; this is a major requirement in professional DTP-programs and this flaw should urgently be addressed before it can considered to be a serious contender in the publishing realm. Another problem is the fact that native tables can't be configured and edited properly, which especially is a shortcoming for people that have specialized in making technical and commercial documentation. Perhaps it's just me having no feeling with Scribus User Interface, because it excels at hiding key functions very well. I think it is an admirable project and have a lot of respect for programmers that work on open source projects, but key features must be added to this program, before professionals will consider to use it. But for the time being, I am trying to familiarize myself with QuarkXpress to create DTP documents.

So, is QuarkXpress a good alternative to InDesign? It probably is, but its UI is entirely different and it requires a lot of effort for users accustomed to InDesign to create documents of similar complexity and appearance. While in the process of learning QuarkXpress I intensively explored the program's user forum and Youtube to find out where the functions are and how they work. InDesign users may find QuarkXpress' UI not logical in a number of respects. Some functions, like anchoring an image inside a text box, require cut and paste instead of being available as a dedicated function that is easy to find in the menus or by right clicking. In addition anchoring images requires a specific sequence of actions for it to work properly - create an image box, cut and paste it where the image should be anchored inside the text and lastly import the image in the pasted box. After that fiddling with inserts and tabs is necessary to position the runaround text. The image box consequently starts to behave as text..., eventhough some (but not all) of the image properties remain editable.

I'm not saying InDesign's anchoring function is flawless, but it is more intuitive, is less difficult to find (because it is in a logical position in the menus), faster to accomplish and edit, while significantly less tedious and more flexible for users to work with. And what is more: it bloody works! I mention this feature specifically, because it is a crucial function for those creating and editing long documents, especially if items or pages have to be inserted in the beginning of a document. Note: No one seems to dig deep in to core of this fundamental DTP-function in the QuarkXpress forum and Youtube, I suspect because it is a shortcoming so far not addressed. Five paragraphs below this one I refer to problems with legacy functions that developers must deal with in order to maintain UI logic and accessibility of functions, without confusing existing users of a program. It may be the root of this problem in QuarkXpress.

An other example, for call-out creation and editing, Quark placed that function in the Item menu, while related functions are in the Edit, Style and Window menus. Why not combine them all in one place or make them accessible in one dialogue box? It all works when properly applied, but users shouldn't have to do exhaustive digging in the menu structure to get the job done. It feels more like a workaround instead of a dedicated function. I'm aware of the fact that veteran QuarkXpress users may shrug their shoulders over my remarks, but if QuarkXpress aims to expand its audience, then something should be done about these things, because they are oddities that all new users (that aim to switch from InDesign for example) run into.

InDesign has a wealth of filters that allow images to be transparent with a number of properties, including fading transparency that can be applied instantly. These are not available as dedicated functions in QuarkXpress and require more clicks after users have figured out where to find the functions and how they work. Editing in photo / bitmap editing programs can sometimes not be avoided, because it can't be done in QuarkXpress; editing of fading transparency of images or boxes at an angle of choice for example. Also creating interactive documents in QuarkXpress forces users to look for functions that are not user friendly or simply non-existing. In view of this, I think the QuarkXpress forum is lacking in proper assistance and there aren't many video clips on Youtube that shed an efficient light on complex DTP matters either. That means that users that want to make the switch from InDesign to QuarkXpress have to figure out these things by themselves. That is a shame really, since many DTP-ers simply do not have the time to discover these functionalities. It is a situation that the people at QuarkXpress have to seriously consider, especially now that there is a lot of annoyance among DTP-ers with regard to Adobe's subscription policies, urging them to find usable alternatives. QuarkXpress puts a lot of emphasis on persuading users to opt for their less expensive licensing policy, but neglects making a greater effort of improving their program's UI and functionality, while leaving their support section with a lack of support.

Meanwhile, rumours have it that Serif, that also developed Affinity Photo and Affinity Designer, is in the process of creating a DTP program as well - Affinity Publisher. Date of issue has been delayed several times, but in view of Affinity Photo's and Affinity Designer's most outstanding capabilities, expecting that their future DTP program may have similarly magnificent features is probably not far off the mark. The current situation in the DTP market should force Adobe and QuarkXpress to reconsider their chosen paths; Adobe might rethink if its subscription policy may have been an unfortunate decision, capable of harming Adobe's market share in the long run and QuarkXpress should probably do some work on its UI and extend its user support.

It isn't a disgraceful thing for QuarkXpress to mimic the useful parts of Adobe's UI - the Corel suit allows users to chose between several interfaces, which means it is feasible for programmers to achieve such a feat. Most importantly: it makes switching from Adobe to QuarkXpress much easier. If Adobe and QuarkXpress miss the boat in the departments indicated, Serif may pass them both in the near future, especially since the combination of Affinity Photo, Designer and Publisher would make their suit quite complete. Perhaps adding a webdesign program would be the cherry on the cake.

Affinity's advantage over both InDesign and QuarkXpress, is that Serif has no need to consider legacy functionality - it can do things right from scratch and it has no legacy tool functions to take into account (unless it is going to transform its Serif Plus DTP-program into Affinity Publisher...). A lack of legacy functions to consider, tends to make programs easier, faster and cheaper to develop, resulting in a more user friendly UI that requires less clicks and endless plunging into menus. Serif has shown to be well capable of doing exactly that with Affinity Photo and Designer. This observation may have the ability to cause Adobe and QuarkXpress to worry, because they're basically stuck with modifying legacy functionaly.

In addition Affinity's low price policy may tempt users, companies and print shops to (re)calculate their (long term) operational costs, which may not lead to conclusions that are favorable for Adobe and QuarkXpress, provided that Serif will be able to manage its programs' pre-press compatibility with existing hardware in a way that will not force print shops to make investments necessary to make proper prints that require much time to complete. I will most certainly keep an eye on Serif's progress with regard to the development of Affinity Publisher and write about it once they have issued the program.


Update February 2019

Since a couple of months ago Serif issued a number of the beta versions of Affinity Publisher and although it is not a finished product yet, it looks very promising. What jumps out is the interface that is very intuitive and is already prepared (but not yet functioning) to integrate with Affinity Photo and Designer. Bearing in mind that Serif has the necessary experience with DTP (the excellent PagePlus program) I don't doubt that they will be able to bring Publisher up to speed within a reasonable amount of time. They have stated that they will not use the unaltered code of PagePlus, but build Publisher from the ground up, making it meet the most modern requirements and prevent their team of developers from having to work-around / work with legacy code, which generally tends to make programs slow and / or bloated (and / or even buggy).

Digital cartoons

Apart from analog airbrushing, I create digital artwork on my Huion graphic tablet from time to time. The advantage over crafting analog art is that digital tools have an undo function and allows to work in layers. It is also possible to apply filters with which the appearance of objects can be changed at will. These properties are hue, color, contrast, brightness and texture while a range of other manipulation tools can be used as well.

The programs I use are the Adobe and Corel suits of which both the vector and bitmap applications I use. They are increasingly integrated, which allows to combine organic shapes with geometric forms. Making cartoons is a somewhat tricky business, not unlike making portraits, but there's a twist to it. While exaggerating certain facial features and reducing other ones, the likeness to the subject's appearance has to be preserved. Depending on the character this is at times a thin rope walk.

Dutch TV presenter Sierd de Vos

The cartoon above is one of a Dutch TV presenter who specializes in Spanish soccer, the Primera Division. He has a unique way of reporting that often is hilarious, giving all sorts of background information about the players, their girlfriends and / or wives and local restaurants in Barcelona or Madrid during the match. Although some think he should restrict himself to talking about what is taking place on the pitch, the humorous anecdotes he weaves in his accounts, caused him to gain a rather large number of fans, which resulted in him being awarded a TV program of his own by the broadcasting company.

Regular guest in a Dutch TV show Johan Derksen

One of the persons who thinks he wanders off too much while reporting a soccer match is an other Dutch TV presenter, who is a regular guest in an other program that focuses on football. This program is well known in Holland for casual football related talk as is often encountered in the pub before and after the matches among supporters. An attempt to a cartoon of this man you see above this paragraph. He has taken grumpiness to a different level, never worrying about political correctness or consensus. It got him onto trouble a few times, but that didn't bother him too much either.

Second regular guest in the soccer show is Rene van der Gijp

The second regular guest in the soccer show is an ex top player, who could have gotten more out of his career is he had put his talent to proper use. His urge to clown and do whatever he felt like won the battle. He can nevertheless look back on a reasonable record. He tends to solve tense situations with a humorous response that disarms whoever tries to escalate matters. This talent lets him get away with saying things that other people would probably be wise to keep inside. The soccer show is one of Hollands most watched TV program.

Dutch TV football talkshow host Wilfred Genee

The TV show referred to above, is hosted by the bloke you see above. In view of the guests he has on the show this isn't always an easy task, since the regulars are at times unguided missiles that blurt anything that pops up in their minds, unrestricted by what is commonly regarded as civilized conversation. He also appears in radio shows in which he is allowed to take part in discussions not related to football, which he does quite well too, casually switching from surprisingly in-depth remarks to witty nonsensical rants.

Ajax Amsterdam coach Peter Bosz

Finally, yet an other football related cartoon is one of Ajax Amsterdam coach Peter Bosz who managed to transform their game from numbing to exciting within less than one season. Quite an achievement, since his predecessor Frank de Boer won four Dutch league championships and as a result was granted sainthood by the fans, even though Ajax' play was rough on the eyeballs. Moreover, Bosz has a past in Ajax' mortal enemy camp Feyenoord. Many fans initially weren't pleased with that at all, but Bosz simply ignored that and went on to teach Ajax his game of continuous pressure and attacking style.

He made Ajax return to playing the type of football that gained the team worldwide acclaim. They made it to the semi final of the Europe League this year, which hasn't happened in 16 years. If they survive the away match against Lyon they may even make it to the final... So kudos to him for that.

In the cartoons I tried several different techniques, in attempt to find the best way to make them. As those who use digital programs know there are many ways to achieve certain effects. Other cartoons I made (digital and analog), can be found in the cartoon section of this blog-site to which you find a link in the navigation bar at the top of each page.