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

[digitalphaser]

...That takes me maybe to answer one of Digitalphaser question in post #38 when he complains about the dpi of the raster from the RGB effects. You do the same as you do in Illustrator you create a "Bitmap Copy", OK Illy does it showing the area in a very small panel and asking what dpi you want to render the effect but it is still the same.

Hm... You can make a "Bitmap Copy" 2400dpi. Export the document as a AI file. Open your file in Illustrator. What do you see? Your bitmap is 96dpi. Furthermore the bottom layer is rasterized. Your "Bitmap Copy" will be framed by a rectangle different color. It looks very beautiful.
Or I'm wrong?

Xara may well export PDF files. But DTP is not only pdf. PDF good for designer ---> print house communicate. In this chain, the client is lost.

More and more customers want to have a editable copy of the document (flyer, poster, CD or other promotional material).

The ideal format is PSD file. Each firm has in at least one copy of Photoshop and at least one employee who is able to work with Photoshop. The company can easily update their marketing materials self.

For more advanced user it is AI/EPS file.
The designer must open your AI/EPS/PSD file and see. Here is layered CMYK document, here is shape, here is bitmap, text, guidelines etc... The designer knows that this file was created with professional software. It does not matter what the name of the software and what features it has. The main thing is that the software produces a good and professional product.

Of course. There may be some limitations(f.ex. smart objects, adjustmet layers, smart filters etc.)
But the exported document must have the basic minimum:

1. color model (Xara's AI - limited(bitmap RGB), PSD - only RGB)
2. guides (Xara's AI/PSD - no)
3. layers (Xara's AI/ PSD - yes)
4. formated text (Xara's AI/PSD - limited(no text on curve or roteted text))

It's not my imagination. It's reality.

[pauland]

People here are comparing a vector drawing programme to a DTP programme which I think is poor.

Well, the title of the thread asks the question, and Charles also asks the question about what is missing from Xara for use in document/book publishing.

I don't think anyone is being unfair at all.

As a vector drawing program Xara does a reasonable job as a DTP stand-in.
As a DTP program it has many shortcomings.

[digitalphaser]

Is Xara drawing programm?

"Designer Pro is the solution for all types of graphic design work, whether it's vector illustration, DTP, photo editing or composition, web graphics or websites or even Flash animation." (source: http://www.xara.com/uk/designer-pro/advanced/)

[tonylondon]

Pauland Everything you have posted in this thread is spot on.

[Gamerprinter]

I consider Xara Designer Pro to be primarily a vector drawing program, however, every other vector drawing program I've used (Micrografx Designer and Adobe Illustrator) also have desk top publishing capability. While Xara does have some photo editting capability, I tend to use Photoshop for photo-editing and not Xara, personally. For the little web graphics that I do now, I've used Xara for that. I've never used Flash much, even having owned Flash 5 at one time, I never really used it (I found dealing with animations overly complex for my taste). 3D animations are easier, but I use 3D applications for that, not Flash. Using Xara as a desktop publishing program, I've created over a dozen books as both printable PDFs and PDFs intended for use by full printing companies between 36 and 248 pages, and have only used Xara to create them. All my books are highly illustrated. Most being a piece of art every 4 pages, minimum, to books with illustrations on practically every page. I never create text only products.

I have Serif PagePlus, but prefer to use a WYSIWYG page layout program, and PagePlus (and I imagine other primarily DTP programs) use placeholder icons more than actual graphics content, which I find counterintuitive for me to DTP. I'd rather create and visually see that I am doing page layout that will appear to the reader exactly how I create them, rather than relying on placeholder icons for anything.

[tonylondon]

I have Serif PagePlus, but prefer to use a WYSIWYG page layout program, and PagePlus (and I imagine other primarily DTP programs) use placeholder icons more than actual graphics content, which I find counterintuitive for me to DTP. I'd rather create and visually see that I am doing page layout that will appear to the reader exactly how I create them, rather than relying on placeholder icons for anything.

Whenever I have worked on Indesign the images have been visible even though in separate files. The appearance is WYSIWYG. Perhaps I am missing something.

[Gare]

Whenever I have worked on Indesign the images have been visible even though in separate files. The appearance is WYSIWYG. Perhaps I am missing something.

Woah! InDesign can place an EPS file you export from Xara, however the quality of the thumbnail preview is up to how the EPS file is written. EPS files can have different colour depth and perhaps that's why you're saying the "icons" look crummy when you're viewing them. For ages, EPS files had the option of being written with no Preview, a 1 bit per pixel image and as an 8 bit per pixel image, at least on the Mac in Adobe and Aldus programs.

If you decide to move or unlink an original file, the thumbnail will default to 72ppi and will look absolutely crummy, regardless of the file type of the placed graphic.

My Best,

Gary

[mwenz]

ID has a preview quality setting. The default as when installed is a lower res view quality. This can be changed on an instance by instance basis, or globally. This has a lot of advantages in doing larger publications.

QXP as of version 10, and PagePlus as of version X7 utilize adaptive resolution that depends on the view scale. I prefer the way ID handles previews. I only want high-res previews when initially placed or if I need to adjust text to image offsets. I run QXP set to Performance with the image previews. I still like the way QXP handled image previews in version 9 and below (like ID does).

Linked files are a must in larger publications that at least use high-res, larger images. Embedding only creates larger working files and increase the possibility of corruption.

Geez, there I go and respond to this thread again. Chalk it up to a new week, feeble mind and weak-will...

[Gamerprinter]

Whenever I have worked on Indesign the images have been visible even though in separate files. The appearance is WYSIWYG. Perhaps I am missing something.

I never mentioned InDesign in my post, I only mentioned PagePlus, which is the only "purely DTP" I've ever looked at (or owned and never use), so why are you defending a program that has nothing to do with my post - something I didn't attack? InDesign may do that, I just haven't looked to know or not. Xara has worked perfectly for my needs so far, so I've had little reason to look. If it couldn't do the job, I might look elsewhere, but if the process works, what needs to be fixed - nothing.

[mwenz]

Yeah, Ya did through inclusion via "other primarily DTP programs."

Basically your statements are incorrect about PagePlus and "other primarily DTP programs" as regards how 8mages are handled. But that's OK. Your experience and preferences are yours.