Comments on: Why Red Boxes Instead of Blue? http://indesignsecrets.com/why-red-boxes-instead-of-blue.php InDesignSecrets Blog and Podcast Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:59:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Len Zigante http://indesignsecrets.com/why-red-boxes-instead-of-blue.php#comment-324163 Len Zigante Fri, 29 Feb 2008 23:55:12 +0000 http://indesignsecrets.com/why-red-boxes-instead-of-blue.php#comment-324163 Frank, I completely disagree with your reply to Eugene about grouping across layers without the objects actually moving all to one layer (you felt it was “physically” impossible in any computer program for graphical objects to behave that way, since it would violate the very fundamental logic of the object/layer stack). The solution to this problem is not a difficult programming feat at all. It just requires a new menu command such as "Group Layer Objects" and a secondary object/layer stack that would behave similar to the first or "Primary" stack. Objects grouped across this Secondary stack could be moved about just as though they were grouped on the Primary stack but without affecting the layer order indicated in the Primary stack. Undoubtedly Adobe (or 3rd party developer) would have to modify other commands to accommodate this feature but the benefits of grouping without moving everything to the same layer are huge, especially for multi-language publications such the catalogues where each language appears on it's own layer with a common image layer. Indeed, this would be a huge benefit when it comes to database integration where applications like InCatalog require objects to be grouped in order to properly link their contents to the correct database recordsets. Frank, I completely disagree with your reply to Eugene about grouping across layers without the objects actually moving all to one layer (you felt it was “physically” impossible in any computer program for graphical objects to behave that way, since it would violate the very fundamental logic of the object/layer stack).

The solution to this problem is not a difficult programming feat at all. It just requires a new menu command such as “Group Layer Objects” and a secondary object/layer stack that would behave similar to the first or “Primary” stack. Objects grouped across this Secondary stack could be moved about just as though they were grouped on the Primary stack but without affecting the layer order indicated in the Primary stack.

Undoubtedly Adobe (or 3rd party developer) would have to modify other commands to accommodate this feature but the benefits of grouping without moving everything to the same layer are huge, especially for multi-language publications such the catalogues where each language appears on it’s own layer with a common image layer. Indeed, this would be a huge benefit when it comes to database integration where applications like InCatalog require objects to be grouped in order to properly link their contents to the correct database recordsets.

]]> By: David Blatner http://indesignsecrets.com/why-red-boxes-instead-of-blue.php#comment-287675 David Blatner Wed, 06 Feb 2008 18:46:58 +0000 http://indesignsecrets.com/why-red-boxes-instead-of-blue.php#comment-287675 Frank, my suggestion is to check out the lynda.com/IDsecrets link to get a free one-week trial to lynda.com. Then you can watch the videos on InDesign (including threading text frames). Even better, it'd be a good idea to get <a href="http://indesignsecrets.com/books-and-videos/" rel="nofollow">a book on the topic</a>! Frank, my suggestion is to check out the lynda.com/IDsecrets link to get a free one-week trial to lynda.com. Then you can watch the videos on InDesign (including threading text frames). Even better, it’d be a good idea to get a book on the topic!

]]> By: frank morris http://indesignsecrets.com/why-red-boxes-instead-of-blue.php#comment-287313 frank morris Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:50:06 +0000 http://indesignsecrets.com/why-red-boxes-instead-of-blue.php#comment-287313 correction to the linking question. I would like to pre-link text boxes in templates I am preparing correction to the linking question. I would like to pre-link text boxes in templates I am preparing

]]> By: frank morris http://indesignsecrets.com/why-red-boxes-instead-of-blue.php#comment-287307 frank morris Wed, 06 Feb 2008 14:49:05 +0000 http://indesignsecrets.com/why-red-boxes-instead-of-blue.php#comment-287307 I am trying to transition from Quark 6.5 in my current work flow. I am a little stump about linking or threading text. I would like to set up a job with the boxes pre-linked how do I do that. Is there a text box and an image box. The boxes seem to be generic I am trying to transition from Quark 6.5 in my current work flow. I am a little stump about linking or threading text. I would like to set up a job with the boxes pre-linked how do I do that. Is there a text box and an image box. The boxes seem to be generic

]]> By: Klaus Nordby http://indesignsecrets.com/why-red-boxes-instead-of-blue.php#comment-212812 Klaus Nordby Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:40:19 +0000 http://indesignsecrets.com/why-red-boxes-instead-of-blue.php#comment-212812 Anne-Marie: "Ah … the old “traditional blue boxes” issue!" That inspired line of yours has me chuckling still! So when are you two bringing out a new podcast -- aren't we paying customers overdue for a delivery now??? Or did you take my money and abscond to Mexico?! Anne-Marie: “Ah … the old “traditional blue boxes” issue!”

That inspired line of yours has me chuckling still!

So when are you two bringing out a new podcast — aren’t we paying customers overdue for a delivery now??? Or did you take my money and abscond to Mexico?!

]]> By: Klaus Nordby http://indesignsecrets.com/why-red-boxes-instead-of-blue.php#comment-209977 Klaus Nordby Tue, 04 Dec 2007 02:31:01 +0000 http://indesignsecrets.com/why-red-boxes-instead-of-blue.php#comment-209977 Anne-Marie, that's amazing! I've not touched QXP since AD 2000, I'm pleased to report -- though I briefly looked at their 7.3 demo version two weeks ago, and just said "Ugh, I'm not using that ugly, crude beast!" OK, I'm happy to stand corrected -- then we can maybe get that feature in ID, too. Anne-Marie, that’s amazing! I’ve not touched QXP since AD 2000, I’m pleased to report — though I briefly looked at their 7.3 demo version two weeks ago, and just said “Ugh, I’m not using that ugly, crude beast!”

OK, I’m happy to stand corrected — then we can maybe get that feature in ID, too.

]]> By: Anne-Marie http://indesignsecrets.com/why-red-boxes-instead-of-blue.php#comment-209955 Anne-Marie Tue, 04 Dec 2007 01:46:32 +0000 http://indesignsecrets.com/why-red-boxes-instead-of-blue.php#comment-209955 Actually Klaus, QuarkXPress has no problem with cross-layer grouping. And it behaves logically too ... if you select a "loose" non-grouped object that's above another object (which is part of a cross-layer group) on the same layer and Send to Back, that "loose" object jumps right behind the object that's part of the group, but stays on its original layer. Cross-layer groups cannot be sent to back/front (the commands are greyed out). Regular groups can be sent to front/back. Actually Klaus, QuarkXPress has no problem with cross-layer grouping. And it behaves logically too … if you select a “loose” non-grouped object that’s above another object (which is part of a cross-layer group) on the same layer and Send to Back, that “loose” object jumps right behind the object that’s part of the group, but stays on its original layer.

Cross-layer groups cannot be sent to back/front (the commands are greyed out). Regular groups can be sent to front/back.

]]> By: Klaus Nordby http://indesignsecrets.com/why-red-boxes-instead-of-blue.php#comment-209920 Klaus Nordby Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:10:11 +0000 http://indesignsecrets.com/why-red-boxes-instead-of-blue.php#comment-209920 Eugene, such cross-layer grouping would of course be useful in some cases -- but I strongly fear it's "physically" impossible in any computer program for graphical objects to behave that way, since it would violate the very fundamental logic of the object/layer stack. Eugene, such cross-layer grouping would of course be useful in some cases — but I strongly fear it’s “physically” impossible in any computer program for graphical objects to behave that way, since it would violate the very fundamental logic of the object/layer stack.

]]> By: Eugene http://indesignsecrets.com/why-red-boxes-instead-of-blue.php#comment-209790 Eugene Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:48:54 +0000 http://indesignsecrets.com/why-red-boxes-instead-of-blue.php#comment-209790 I would love to be able to group things across layers without them going to the same layer. I would love to be able to group things across layers without them going to the same layer.

]]> By: "Technical" Terry http://indesignsecrets.com/why-red-boxes-instead-of-blue.php#comment-209714 "Technical" Terry Mon, 03 Dec 2007 16:19:09 +0000 http://indesignsecrets.com/why-red-boxes-instead-of-blue.php#comment-209714 If you need to get everything onto just one layer quickly (and still maintain relative placement for X, Y & Z) do the following: 1. Open the layers palette (or panel) 2. Make sure all layers are unlocked 3. Edit > Select All (Cmd + A) 4. Object > Group (Cmd + G) (now objects are all on one layer you can drag the little colored square in the layers palette to whichever layer you wish to have the objects on.) 5. Object > Ungroup (Cmd + Shift + G) 6. In the layers palette, drag unused layers to the little trash icon to tidy things up. If you need to get everything onto just one layer quickly (and still maintain relative placement for X, Y & Z) do the following:

1. Open the layers palette (or panel)
2. Make sure all layers are unlocked
3. Edit > Select All (Cmd + A)
4. Object > Group (Cmd + G)
(now objects are all on one layer you can drag the little colored square in the layers palette to whichever layer you wish to have the objects on.)
5. Object > Ungroup (Cmd + Shift + G)
6. In the layers palette, drag unused layers to the little trash icon to tidy things up.

]]>