Will Xara Ever Create a DTP Program (like PagePlus)?

[mwenz]

Well the definition of 'DTP' in this topic was 'like PagePlus'. And by that definition we should be close (better in some ways).

Fair enough. I was actually asking about the types of work versus an application.

So I doubt PagePlus is any more capable of handling 600 pages than we are.

I have done 400+ page books in PP, both for print and eBook output. works fine, but that's about the largest. Not graphic-intensive.

Can it do scripting? Scripting is a 'nice to have' for most people I expect (being a rather technical process).

Not currently.

I doubt that would be high up most people's list. And that's the challenge for us, that most people's wish lists are different.

Serif "suffers" in some respect with the same affliction that other smaller software companies do--client-base driving features to some degree, limited resources and lack of vision for what their products could be (much less how to get there). If Serif's client-base had a greater degree of professionals that used PP for production, scripting would already be in-place. It's on version 18 (X8). Still no running headers/footers, though a recent statement indicates this and some other professional features will make their appearance in X9.

AI and EPS files should come through OK. Modern AI files are really just PDF and our PDF import is very good. Our import / export filters should be up to most jobs (we are aware of the requirement to import PSDs flattened, rather than layered as they are now, or at least have the option.) So if there are cases where you know they do not work - tell us. (We're also aware of the greyscale limitation.)

As you know, PDF is a final presentational form. Not everything that can be expressed in a PDF can be opened for editing, not even by the originating application. AI, for example, cannot interpret its own PDFs fully. But it doesn't need to as there is the private data fork it will open assuming it has been saved in the PDF.

I get many AI files that simply have not been saved with PDF data. I can guarantee XDP cannot open most any of them unless they have been saved in a now-ancient AI format. In other words, I care about opening/importing the AI data, the newer EPS files I get without using another piece of software.

Regarding Text Styles - I think our Style system is as powerful as anyone's, so is it just a usability thing wanting to see the full Style definition in an editable 'properties panel?

Yes, in part. Also would be a useful dialog with all text properties present. As you have some version of ID, and perhaps PP, open a style for editing its properties. They are vastly more comprehensive that what can be achieved in XDP. In that regard, no XDP's text styles are not as "powerful as anyone's." Not even close in nearly any regard.

Nor are text frames in XDP as useful. Nor styles for other objects. For instance, how will Xara handle tables in the future if it desires to be a "DTP" solution? Tables are next to worthless currently but are a staple in many types of documents. And as I have mentioned in the past, tables are one of those things that have applicability for your web customers as well.

(We chose to do it 'on the page' instead of in a separate settings panel.) So to see all the Style values just place the caret in the style and the InfoBar (which is, in effect, our properties panel) shows you all the settings at a glance. To change any Style value just change it in the document and select 'update style'. That's a pretty easy and straightforward and I have difficulty understanding what benefits presenting this another way would have? We could lay that our vertically in a panel, but that would simple take a lot more space.

Yes, currently there is a properties panel arrangement. That is useful in everything I use for layout. I also prefer to have it remain on-screen ala ID and QXP versus the "subject" of this thread, PP. I absolutely dislike the context aware swapping in and out of a properties bar happening as I select various types of items.

For text styles, I believe for the creation of styles, a property bar arrangement is not as efficient as a dialog as per PP, ID, QXP, etc. Further, once created, modifying styles when more than a single property is involved is easier done in a dialog. And, I would prefer a "live" preview on-page of the changes I am making ala ID.

So why a dialog driven means as per ID/QXP/PP, or in a "Gallery" arrangement as per CD? As Xara extends what it can do as regard text properties, there simply will not be room on a property bar for some/many of the properties than can be manipulated. Once Xara adds rules above/below, OT Features, tab control, alignment/spacing, bullets and numbering, breaks, language, initial word, drop caps, etc, Xara will have to rethink how this is presented to the user. I would recommend starting now.

Below is a screen shot of a smallish catalog I did in PP a couple years ago. It makes use of tables extensively for the options of each item. A page will have as few as 2 images, as many as 30. While not a large catalog in terms of page count and asset size, there are nearly 380 images. Laying this out in XDP would be a heavy chore.



So:

(1) Tables. I could care less about math functions myself. My tables are presentational. But there will be others who would like to use such a table feature.

(2) Table styles. All the tables above use table styles. No different than text styles, really. Provides consistency.

(3) Ability to attach a table to Excel data for future updating.

Mike

[Gare]

I'd love to see a different model for Xara's offerings under Magix, because you're going to get the same sort of disagreement (as civilized as this one is!) when you try to address Web Designer's foibles, and so on.

Charles, you mentioned a long time ago that Xara is envisioned as an "everything under one roof" design application, not solely a vector drawing program, and by definition, I think this is why Xara is seen as walking a slippery slope. Rather than seeing Designer Pro as "a vector drawing program, but also so much more!", it's being seen as "It's not quite a DTP program, it's not quite a paint program...", and it's because some users are depending on the program as a complete solution in one area of visual communications.

You either sell it as a vector drawing program plus... or you re-strategize and let each module grow into its own thing, instead of packing all the other modules' new features under one roof. You probably don't have the engineer power to do this, but at least you wouldn't be in the situation of explaining away its perceived shortcomings.

Adobe doesn't enjoy this problem with its suite because each program grew up on its own, and then a synergy was created wherever there was the possibility of product cross-over with features.


-g

[angelize]

Maybe the solution would be a module set up similar to the way On1 photo suite works there is the browse module that is the starting point and all the different modules come with browse. The modules can all be purchased separately or all together as the suite. The browse module is what ties them together. If Xara products could work this way you could have a kind of browse module and DTP, Illustration, Photo editing, Web design and 3D modules. There could still be an every thing under one roof for those that want it (the full suite) or users could just buy the modules they want and they would work together

[Gare]

Maybe the solution would be a module set up similar to the way On1 photo suite works there is the browse module that is the starting point and all the different modules come with browse.

That could be a terrific business model for Xara/Magix if the code was written in a way that could be modular.

-g

[pauland]

I'm quite saddened by this discussion - not because it's happening, or that everyone doesn't make worthwhile points, but the fundamental issue about document publishing is entirely missing and we are left with the technical minutae that facilitates DTP.

If I want to make an illustration, I want everything I do to be about that task.
If I want to make a web page/site, I want everything I do to be about that task.
If I wanted to make a book, I want everything I do to be about making that book.

What makes creating a book pleasurable and easy is entirely missing from this discussion, instead we seem focused on the possibility rather than ease of execution. It is ease of execution that makes a great product rather than a merely functional one.

Personally, I could care less for functional products. I buy products that make tasks easy, or easier, or pleasurable. Preferably easy and pleasurable.

You could make a book using MS paint by creating bitmap images of every page.

While Xara software can do lots of things, including making books, in many ways it's a bit like me hitting a couple of nails the other day with a spanner because my hammer was missing. It worked but it was a kludge.

I'm no expert. The last time I created a book-like document I wanted master pages, left and right facing, automatic chapter numbering, content-page and index-creation, automated flows as content changed, easy change gutters and columns. Those kind of things that are important for a book but not of consequence for any other document.

Charles, I'm frankly shocked that you don't see what's missing or why Xara software isn't great for producing books.

When Xara Studio 1.0 came out I was gobsmacked. It did something I couldn't do with other software at an affordable price-point. Now there's plenty of choice and the all-in-one solution idea looks increasingly wobbly as the ease of use is compromised by the jack-of-all-trades compromise.

Unlike most users of Xara software I see website creation and book creation as assembly activities. I don't suddenly start creating graphics as I'm building a web page or creating a book. Xara software doesn't support the basic workflow of book-building, even if it facilitates it.

[mwenz]

I'm quite saddened by this discussion - not because it's happening, or that everyone doesn't make worthwhile points, but the fundamental issue about document publishing is entirely missing and we are left with the technical minutae that facilitates DTP.[/I]

I'm saddened about world hunger, what's happening in repressive regimes. Not so much about forum posts.

What makes creating a book pleasurable and easy is entirely missing from this discussion, instead we seem focused on the possibility rather than ease of execution. It is ease of execution that makes a great product rather than a merely functional one.

I agree with what I think you are stating in the sentiment. But it is the inclusion of that minutiae that makes the possibility a reality.

Personally, I could care less for functional products. I buy products that make tasks easy, or easier, or pleasurable. Preferably easy and pleasurable...

That gets to the heart of the how the minutiae is presented to the end user. But the minutiae has to be there in order for the UI to make those functions able to be presented to the end user. The ease of use part is how the UI presents those functions to the user.

Charles, I'm frankly shocked that you don't see what's missing or why Xara software isn't great for producing books.

I think Charles is fully aware. I think there is a certain amount of marketing spin as to what is currently possible and what will yet be added in Charles' statements in my opinion. Which is fine--I have to separate reality from spin with every software I purchase. What is true to me is that while those functions exist that Charles stated, they are not user friendly and not as functional as they could be for the end user.

Unlike most users of Xara software I see website creation and book creation as assembly activities. I don't suddenly start creating graphics as I'm building a web page or creating a book. Xara software doesn't support the basic workflow of book-building, even if it facilitates it.

Yep, agree. One of the problems a lot of users have when they begin layout work is attempting to write the book (leaflet, brochure, etc) inside the layout application. But layout is a presentational form, just like a web site is. The design of a book (leaflet, brochure, etc), the writing and layout are all separate activities best left to using what is better for those tasks.

Anyway, I'm now fairly bored with the conversation. I don't feel that an honest conversation is happening between the users and Xara and so it is unlikely to have a beneficial impact on the future of Xara products. I hope I am dead wrong about this. But until I see Xara getting real about the what and how these things are done in real life, XDP is going to continue the development according to the current vision for the product.

BTW, the previous paragraph doesn't only apply to Xara. It also applies to other companies' software I use. Seems that product managers and those higher up the food chain from them--you know, people who don't make a living from using their products--always seem to have a better idea of what we, the users, need to make our work more efficient or even capable.

Mike

[Gare]

...the fundamental issue about document publishing is entirely missing and we are left with the technical minutae that facilitates DTP.

Hi Paul—

I read your post several times and it still leaves me scratching my head. The gist of this thread is about how Xara currently lacks high-end DTP features, which is a legitimate gripe even though I encourage members no to hold their breath for too long. These requests are hardly "technical minutiae", I beg to disagree. Cumulatively, they represent for many a decision-making process forced upon them...a one or a zero if you will...whether to begin a long document in Xara, or to choose a different program (that has all the features needed).

I'm not sure, even with the examples you've provided, I understand what the fundamental issue about document publishing is, nor why we all have missed (that I do not understand). My own workflow is to accept the gig after seeing how much work is involved, grunt and groan and resent having ever taken a "not fun" assignment (when I'd prefer to be drawing!), and my salve during the process, that which makes a professional PITA enjoyable, is the feature set of the application in which I work. It can make the task at hand fun, or a chore.

Features do indeed count, Paul, as they do with the task of drawing. Frankly, I'd prefer this roll the developers are on to put drawing in the front seat of the Xara automobile after being ignored for three versions. The Art Brushes are a very admirable first step; I'd like to see dynamic polygons, stroke width controls on a control point, and a few other "catch up" features from CorelDRAW and Illustrator.

I'm not holding my breath, though.

If you're going to talk the talk, be prepared to walk the walk. That is: don't add a few bitmap features and then advertise a product as the next Photoshop killer. That's hubris. Show me the Features of Doom for Adobe Systems..

My Best,

Gary

[pauland]

Hi Gary,

A lot of programs can cover very technical bullet-point minutia very well. It doesn't mean they are good at the task they do. For a car, it's a given that there are wheel, a steering wheel, brakes, etc. When you drive a car some designs can make the journey pleasurable or a real pain. Some cars can carry half your house contents, others you can barely fit into.

I had a car you could barely fit into. It was great. Every journey a pleasure. Two seats - useless for a family or carrying anything. I did my longest journey ever in it - 950 miles. Now I have a car that carries four or five people and I've moved a washing machine and bed using it. It merely does the job (functional family transport). It doesn't make me smile like that two seater (fun and pleasure). They are both cars with different purposes.

My point is, technical points are great, but they miss the broad flow.

How does Xara manage chapters, content pages, indexes, paragraph-related drop-caps, etc. ?

All of the book related software I have seen understands content pages (able to assign automatically changing page numbers to the content list), can create indexes, provide word-counts, automatically generate page numbers, odd and even pages, double-page spreads, all with minimal effort from the page setter.

When you have that task-specific capability, creating a book is a pleasure, not a chore. Doing that stuff with Xara software is a chore.

[Charles Moir]

Charles, I'm frankly shocked that you don't see what's missing or why Xara software isn't great for producing books.

Where did that come from? I never said, and none of our marketing material ever claimed Designer is suitable for creating books (although people have created books in our software). I mean we don't even have e-book export, so this not something we aim for. In fact I specifically said 600 page documents were beyond what Designer is aimed at.

Regarding the point about whether it's better to have separate programs for creative document production, or one like Designer Pro, I think some people are brainwashed by the Adobe approach which is simply an accident of history. When you know how it came about it has little merit. On the contrary, a suite of separate, large, complex, memory hogging programs has a world of pain associated with it.

Do people imagine the Adobe Creative Suite was deliberately designed and planned this way? It was not. It's a suite of totally different products, most of which started life in separate companies, acquired by Adobe. They are totally different code bases, and even Adobe would not consider attempting to merge them into one. So they did the only sensible things they could. They tried to make their UI consistent as they could, and bundled them as a suite of applications. It's an accident of history - they had little choice.

Each application is more powerful Designer Pro for sure. But the price you pay is considerable. Say your creative job (like most) combines vector, photos, text layout, probably output to PDF and probably deployed, in one way or another on the Web. In the modern world PDF and Web are the mainstay methods of distributing creative artwork and documents of all types.

- So that's four or more separate apps you have to use to produce the one creative document.
- There is some consistency between these apps, but fundamentally they are different apps, with separate leaning curves.
- The compute resources are considerable - like 4 times greater and Xara's single app. It's not just memory, but CPU and now GPU requirements. If you update your computer every year - you're in luck you've probably got the horsepower.
- Consider the workflow. Remember I'm producing one creative document that happens to combine vector, photos, text layout. Do I really have to switch apps to do tweak my vector artwork, or my photos?
- And the final cost, don't forget, is the actual monetary cost of this.

And Adobe are aware of the fundamental inefficiencies of this work-flow. They keep adding more overlap in functionality to the suite. So InDeisgn can now do basic vector editing (as can Photoshop). Why did they add this - when Illustrator is their prime vector tool? Because of the absurdity of having to switch apps to do basic vector work.

Take something as simple and common as soft shadows - every Adobe product has re-implemented a way of adding soft shadows. But they are all slightly different, most (actually I think all of them) raster based not vector, with slightly different UIs and radically different engines to produce the same effect. And for all of them the UI sucks (IMO).

We just thought, from the very beginning, that it was absurd to insist, to force users to buy separate apps for what is one creative process, with the aim of producing one final document. And when you look at the spectrum of graphic design work, everything from posters to web design, to brochures, flyers, magazines (online or offline), blogs, or artwork on the sides of lorries and buses, it all, almost always, combines photography, vector and page / text layout.

So why, when I'm producing my artwork for the side of the bus, or for my website come to think of it, do I have to use separate programs? It's not right. Adobe just happened to evolve that way. If you'd planned it from the beginning you'd never have done it this way.

So Designer (Camelot) is not and never was intended to be the supreme vector design tool (or photo tool, or DTP tool, or web tool). It was and is meant to be the supreme tool for producing ALL these document types in one place, covering the creative document universe (at least 90% of the time) with a fraction of the learning curve, computer resources, time and budget.

So if you're a hard core, professional photo manipulator, use Photoshop. But for most people, most of the time, Xara's photo editing is more than fine - in fact it's great in most ways. And if I want to go remove a blemish in a photo I'm placing on the page (web page, print page, poster, whatever) I do not have to go start an (expensive) monster of a separate app, switch to it, do my one-click blemish removal, save, switch back load again blar, blar. So I still maintain our approach IS far, far more productive and cost effective than anything else, for almost all creative work.

Similarly if you want to do bleeding edge web design go use Dreamweaver (but be prepared to become a programmer, not just a designer). But for most people web design is a design process not a programming one, that involves pretty simple layout of photos, text and vector artwork. And I'd rather like the ability to edit that vector artwork in-situ, in my web designer, than do it in some external dedicated app.

Sorry, got a bit off topic there.

[digitalphaser]

Thank you Charles for Adobe's story. But Adobe is still the standard for graphic- and typographic design.
I believe that any software, wich calls itself a "professional software", required to strive to common standards.

The most important Xara's drawbacks are
1. no color management
2. the weak export function.

For example. You make the package layout. The client requires a file for further processing. What can Xara offer? PSD? No. Xara can not export CMYK PSD files.
AI, EPS? Very limitedly.
If you using raster elements, all the lower layers are converted to raster, too. Yes, you can clipp the bitmap elements. If you open your AI file in Illustrator, you will see that your bitmap is RGB and 96dpi. ???
Thank you Charles for Adobe's story. But Adobe is still the standard for graphic- and typographic design.
I believe that any software, wich calls himself a "professional software", required to strive to common standards.

The most important Xara's drawbacks are
1. no color management
2. the weak export function.

For example. You make the package layout. The client requires a file for further processing. What can Xara offer? PSD? No. Xara can not export CMYK PSD files.
AI, EPS? Very limitedly.
If you using raster elements, all the lower layers are converted to raster, too. Yes, you can clipp the bitmap elements. If you open your AI file in Illustrator, you will see that your bitmap is RGB and 96dpi. ???
The list is long but I do not want to argue. The fact is that serious Xara's limitations make impossible work in a designer team or creating full editable files.
You say PDF? Yes, very limited too. I do not know a software that can natively edit created in another program PDF files.

By the way. Web-rogrammers who make inline SVG animations prefer Inkscape. Xara generate a complex and difficult-to-read SVG code.

Is Xara professional software?