However, I don’t think I agree with the idea that selecting multiple objects, then applying a transform in the Control panel (for example) should affect each object independently.

When I select more than one object, those objects should behave as though they were grouped. (In fact, I sometimes wish that ID displayed a very faint dashed line around multiple selected objects with corner and side handles, similar to what you get when the objects are grouped.

I tend to want to scale all the selected objects together (as a quasi-group) more often than I want to do a “scale each individually.” So my feeling is that “apply to each” should be an alternate behavior.

Just as you can currently hold down Option/Alt when pressing Enter (after changing a transform field in the Control panel) to make a duplicate while rotating, scaling, or whatever… you should be able to Option/Alt-Command/Ctrl-Enter to apply to each individually. Or something like that.

http://marcautret.free.fr/geek/indd/equalizer/

(sizing and/or rotating individually the selected objects)

Unfortunately, Equalizer has to be updated for CS3…

Nice analogy.

I think what irks me about this particular “Transform Individually” missing feature, though, is that it feels to me like there’s a mistake here. Transform *again* individually is great, but it makes users wonder (okay, just me) gee, where’s the, transform *in the first place* individually?

In fact I’d use the basic “transform each” far more often than its extension, “transform each again.”

Do you not agree? It’s like they included the icing but forgot the cake.

I work mainly with publications at the moment, I haven’t used Illustrator in about 1.5 years for real work, or photoshop for that matter. Besides touching up the odd photograph and changing DPI and colour model, I have no need for photoshop. I only need to draw basic charts and flow charts for the publications (I know I should do this in Illustrator, but it’s an extra step isn’t it), although 3D pie charts I have to do in Illustrator.

For some people, having image control options in InDesign, like DPI and Colour Models controls over images would be advantageous, but not necessary. It’s not that I don’t want to use Illustrator or Photoshop, it’s just not needed for the work that I’m doing now.

Although a few years ago most of my work was based in Illustrator and Photoshop, along with Quark, I was quite good at all 3 programs, but not so much now, really out of practice on Illy and Photoshop.

But now I can do most of what I need to do with InDesign for the type of work I do, and it’s the few things that I need in InDesign that would save me having to buy Illustrator and Photoshop on top of InDesign. I’m sure a lot of small businesses would agree with me too, that the added cost of the programs for basic functions is literally impractical for them, but necessary at the same time.

With that said, we all have things we would like InDesign to do as well as Photoshop and Illustrator, so that’s a massive demand list for InDesign and a lot of things to put in, making it just a mass and mess of 3 different programs.

I agree with you, people should not forget about Illustrator or Photoshop and want InDesign to do everything. What a load that would be for any system. I do 99% of my work in InDesign. It’s pricy to buy Illustrator and Photoshop on top of that for 1% of the work that I do.

I don’t think the steps AM took to actually accomplish the Transform Again Individually were particularly onerous. They only seemed cumbersome because AM is somewhat familiar with Illustrator. (Although I must admit that considering Illustrator a parallel universe is fun.)

Most layout production people would have started by rotating one image frame, then repeating it across horizontally, and then placing new images in the frames.

But the reason I worry is there are already too many people questioning why there is any need for Illustrator when they have InDesign. In fact, one well-known Quark author told me many years ago that he never used any vector-drawing program. He did everything in XP. I understand that he now works in InDesign. I wonder if he uses Illustrator at all.

I fear that the following will happen if Adobe is told to put too much into ID:

• Illustrator development will suffer as Adobe allocates more resources from AI into ID.

• ID users will not learn how to use AI and will consider it a redundant program.

It seems like a small request to put Transform Each into ID, but I’d rather have emphasis on real page layout tools such as x-refs, reading PDF annotations into ID, article threads on PDF export, better SWF integration into PDF export, and better typography controls such as defining indents as % of a column, word widow controls, etc.

Of course you could always just extend your pasteboard vertically to avoid this, but who does that?