Locking Layers but Allow Visual, Allowing selection by Layer

[Jocelyn]

Hi,

I have created layers to sort comments (approved, to review).
I need to prevent editing to comments on "approved" layer, but:

1. A locked layer doesn't allow easy visbility toggling for less well-versed users. I need users to be able to turn off "approved" layer easily to focus on comments "to review".

2. I could lock each object, but comments can't be sorted by layer so it's not easy to select.
I could manual loop select all comments on a page after hiding all other layers, but it's not effecient when I have multiple pages.

3. I can't select objects by layer also (no such option from layer tab), so not a way to easily select objects by this method.

Currently, my solution is:
1. Set status of the comments I want to sort.
2. Sort layer by status.
3. Select all comments under the status to lock the object.
4. Move all objects to the layer I desire.

"Status", however, cannot be customised so I have to remember what I had intended for each status as the default descriptions may not reflect it accurately. Also no hotkey assignment for "status" still it seems (see viewtopic.php?t=41245).

Any better solutions?

[PHK]

Hi,

I have created layers to sort comments (approved, to review).
I need to prevent editing to comments on "approved" layer, but:

1. A locked layer doesn't allow easy visbility toggling for less well-versed users. I need users to be able to turn off "approved" layer easily to focus on comments "to review".

2. I could lock each object, but comments can't be sorted by layer so it's not easy to select.
I could manual loop select all comments on a page after hiding all other layers, but it's not effecient when I have multiple pages.

3. I can't select objects by layer also (no such option from layer tab), so not a way to easily select objects by this method.

Currently, my solution is:
1. Set status of the comments I want to sort.
2. Sort layer by status.
3. Select all comments under the status to lock the object.
4. Move all objects to the layer I desire.

"Status", however, cannot be customised so I have to remember what I had intended for each status as the default descriptions may not reflect it accurately. Also no hotkey assignment for "status" still it seems (see viewtopic.php?t=41245).

Any better solutions?

Hi, Jocelyn,

I am not quite sure exactly what you are doing, i. e., how the comments actually are configured. However, I have an approach for sorting comments that is a bit counter-intuitive that may give you something to think about.

It centers around what is called "Subject" for Comments. The default is to show the type of object it is rather than what I would call a 'subject'. Therefore, objects that are created by, say, the Typewriter tool have "Typewriter" as the subject and "Rectangle" for an object created by the Rectangle tool. I don't regard that as particularly helpful. The properties boxes already have that right above the Subject line, like "Typewriter Properties" and "Rectangle Properties" respectively for the above examples. So, having that as the Subject box is both redundant and misleading; leaving the Subject box filled with the default is a waste of space.

But back to your usage. If you could come up with some simple terms for the object types and enter/paste those terms into the respective Subject boxes, then you can sort the objects by "Subject" and create different Layers appropriately. I hope that helps.

[Dimitar - PDF-XChange]

Thanks for the tips, PHK.

I am also not sure what exactly is the goal here!

[PHK]

...
I am also not sure what exactly is the goal here!

Yes, the absence of feedback frustrates.

[Dimitar - PDF-XChange]

[Jocelyn]

Hi Dimitar, PHK,

My sincere aplogies for missing to feedback in time, it seems I've saved it as draft instead of posting, somehow can't find this draft and lost track of this thread.

My draft had intended to inform all on my findings after testing out PHK's suggestion, but first allow me to further clarify on the intention of this query, which is to find a way to efficiently track approved and implemented redline markups, as well as rejected ones. This method needs to be workable on other PDF platforms as well, (Foxit, in particular).

Upon testing out PHK's suggested method, I have the following findings:
1. This method worked initially, but Foxit does not allow sorting of comments by findings, and does not show the subject prominently enough for productive sorting.
It's sorted nicely in PXE:

image.png

But not prominent enough in Foxit, which does not have sorting by subject function:

image(4).png

2. So, to allow the team to focus on approved but unimplemented markups, I have further implemented "Status" to the comment.

image(2).png

This would allow the team (using Foxit) to sort out the comments that have been approved, and after implementing to change the status to "Completed".

image(3).png

From there, to prevent any accidental changes, I will lock these comments. I will also set them to a layer so that the team can turn it off to focus on other unimplemented comments.

image(1).png

Unfortunately, the status set by different users cause the comment to be shown in all the status groups that have been assigned to the comment. Below is the same comment, with 2 status assigned, and appears in both status grouping.

image(5).png

image(6).png

To resolve this, I now create a new comment to "re-start" the markup process.
Side note: I had to change my identify to show a different name format registered in the comments. I had set some statuses with my old "profile", and I noticed that I can sometimes change back to my old "identity" to retract the status I have previously set. I tried this method with the statuses set by my colleauges, but so far that hasn't worked.

One other quick observation:
Frequently, one comment may require multiple markups. However, because markups can't be group, there is a slight issue with identifying which markup is related to the same comment. Currently I insert a reply to the markup (because if it's a text, I can't insert this number into the base comment as it will show up as part of the text), and then I will search the number in the comment tool pane, but then I have many tiny sticky bubbles all over the page.
I can't take a snapshot because of copyright issues, but image many of this bubbles all over the drawing, sometimes stacking over each other. Of course, when we zoom out these bubbles get bigger also.

image(8).png

This post is slightly long, I will end this post here for now for your valued inputs to see if this workflow can be improved first.

[PHK]

Thanks for getting back to us. Who hasn't had a forgotten draft somewhere along the line!?!

So, if I'm getting this correctly the problem is that Foxit does not handle your comment notations the same way as PDF-XCE. Unfortunately, I have no working knowledge of Foxit as it is all I can do to keep up with PDF-XCE. I can appreciate your stress over bubble-bloat and I use PDF-XCE's Callout Tool very sparingly for that reason. I much prefer to use the plain old Highlight Tool. If I have multiple comments for the same text or space (rarely because I am not in a multi-user environment as you apparently are), I may use different colors to represent differing focuses (foci?). Or even no color at all. That way I can have several Comments at the same place without obliterating the page view. Note: you can use 'color' as sort and layer options for Comments. Might it be possible to have different users post in different colors? Even slight differences in the color specifications would be enough to have cogent differentiations.

That's about what I can think of within PDF-XCE and I am sorry that I am a Foxit dunce. But Foxit might be able to sort by color.

[Jocelyn]

Hi PHK,

Thank you for your kind understanding on my admittedly untimely reply and for reading my long post!

Yes, part of my issue is how manage the markup in such a way that it's friendly for multiple platforms. I see that it is not PFE-XCE responsibility to adjust (or even in someway, downgrade) to suit other platforms, but it would definitely be a plus point if it was compatible, or even better.

I would say that my primary issue, however, is how to maximise PDF-XCE's available features to make efficient redline markups, or identify room for improvement on this functionality. Unfortunately, to make proper engineering redline markups the highlight tool is not sufficient as a basic tool, as lines and pipe fittings need to be drawn out for clear illustration on changes made. and I list them as follows:

#1: Allow visbility toggle for locked layers.
E.g. Layers locked for approval can be hidden during drawing updating, but visible during checking.
Currently visibility of locked layers is also locked. Less proficient users have trouble toggling visibility.

Locking the layer also does not prevent adding replies, toggling of checkmark, or setting of status. Not sure if this is by design, but can consider allowing users to defind what shall be "locked", rather than just locking the comment or the layer.

#2: Allow sorting of comments by layer. (Funtionality current unavailable.)
If other users like me are using layers to show/hide comments based on layer, this group can allows users to see what comments are under which layer.

Current workaround: As per PHK's method, to set the Subject and group objects by Subject.

#3: Allow grouping of comments to allow grouping by topic. (Functionality currently unavailable.)
Users can identify the markups related to a comment/topic.

Current workaround: As per PHK's method, set comment color (background, not border).

#4: Allow users to customise/add statuses. (Functionality currently unavailable.)
To allow users to suit their markup review procedure.

These are what I have experienced thus far. Does PDF-XCE have any recommended methods for this use case (i.e.making detailed redline markups and keeping track of review and comment developments)? Does the method I have described in my earlier post similar to what PDF-XCE expects its users to handle such a case?

Thanks for any feedback! If there are any functionalities I've missed I'd be more than happy to learn about them!

[PHK]

Thank you, Jocelyn, for elaborating on your objectives and description of the working context of your interests.

It seems that you are concerned not only about multiple platforms but also multiple users who may or may not be using PDF-XCE.

Yes, part of my issue is how manage the markup in such a way that it's friendly for multiple platforms.

And whilst you acknowledge that our friendly provider of this app cannot have any influence over others' platforms, it seems to me that the only real solution is an enterprise-wide or at least department-wide single application for all users that does all, or most of, what needs doing. As a sole practitioner, I have no idea what is entailed in accomplishing that.

And would it be proper for us to infer that there are basically two classes of users; admin level such as yourself and plain users such as managers, designers, and engineers? And further that some users are creating drawings that are alternative to the base drawing and what you call 'redline markups'?

I would say that my primary issue, however, is how to maximise PDF-XCE's available features to make efficient redline markups, or identify room for improvement on this functionality. Unfortunately, to make proper engineering redline markups the highlight tool is not sufficient as a basic tool, as lines and pipe fittings need to be drawn out for clear illustration on changes made.

Have you looked at what can be done with Content? It is a slightly more complicated feature than simple highlighting but perhaps comes closer to meeting your needs. One caution: this feature may not be available in non-PDF-XCE apps. Users can create a new drawing incorporating design changes (your 'redline markups'?) even if a small section of a larger drawing that can be copied as a stamp that is placed into the Comments panel (but not the Stamps palette) that is saved in the app working memory (but not the Windows memory) that is 'there' until the app is closed or the PC is turned off. In other words, stamps created thusly are more volatile than Stamps in the Stamps palette. Then, that stamp can be named, copied, and pasted either to the source file or another file which then can be superimposed over the original drawing image. The new stamp's size, scale, placement, opacity, and other characteristics can be adjusted easily. Furthermore, such stamps can be assigned to specific layers along with other objects such as text comments and highlights. For instance, user A can have a layer titled "User A", etc,, or each revision generation can have its own layer and stamps can be assigned to multiple layers.

Unfortunately, this is a relatively inefficient medium for discussion of complex applications such as yours but I hope this helps a bit.

[Daniel - PDF-XChange]

Hello,

Thank you PHK for your timely assistance here.

@Jocelyn,
I should preface this by saying, "layers" in PDF are only intended to be used as visibility toggles, not really for any other functionality. This article offers more information. Making things work outside of the PDF Specifications definitions, without breaking compatibility with other PDF handlers, is very difficult, and so we avoid it wherever possible. That said, I will dig into each of your requests below, and pass them along to the Dev team where appropriate:

1. Allow visibility toggle for locked layers - This one would theoretically be possible, but as the core purpose of layers is a visibility toggle, the clear intent of the lock function is to prevent visibility toggling. So, this request is likely to be rejected by the dev team as it somewhat defeats the purpose of lock even being an option.

2. Allow sorting of comments by layer - This one actually has been discussed in the past, I cannot promise when, but the Dev team reviewing if it is possible to offer it in a future release.

3. Allow grouping of comments to allow grouping by topic - There are two ways to interpret this one.

1. Comment grouping on the page is in a somewhat unique spot. It is not fully defined by the specification, there are some special methods we can use, and we are working on an implementation that should help somewhat in these areas, without breaking compatibility with other apps that do not yet support grouping (this last bit is of critical importance, and so this project will likely be very long in the making however).
2. Alternatively, you may mean inside the comment pane itself, having "subgroups" available. EG; something like this, where you could sort by comment type, and then sub-sort by comment page, and inside of that, have the comments displayed normally, organized by either date, color, alphabetically by subject name, etc.
   image.png
   If that is the case, I have put through multiple requests, both my own suggestions, and at users requests, so far the answer has been unfortunate. While it is an objective "goal" for the far future, it is far more complex than it sounds, and we cannot prioritize it at this time.

4. Allow users to customize/add statuses - This one I am unsure of personally. I do not believe that custom status is defined by the specification. That is to say, to my knowledge, the options currently present are the only ones allowed to be in any PDF software, and trying to apply a custom value may lead to data loss (likely the comment in question being deleted by software that misunderstands it).

I am sorry that I could not offer more good news for you, and I am also sorry to hear that the mixed environment you are in is causing some headache.

• I should note that PHK is correct, if you want to standardize the process users are following, the best first step would be to ensure that are all using the same software at the root. While the "data" present in a document is fairly strictly defined by the Specification (everything we offer for commenting is in the Spec, even if Foxit doesn't use it), the actual functionality and method of manipulating that data is in much more flux.
  You will likely find that the only reliable way to ensure the same process is available to everyone, is to ensure they have the same toolkit as a base. If you want to find a good process beforehand, that is excellent and I fully support it! Just that you may need to do so planning for the near inevitability that any such process will require that everyone learns to use a single unified software, be that Foxit, our Editor, or another PDF application entirely.

Kind regards,

[PHK]

Well, Daniel, there are intended consequences and there are unintended consequences. Perhaps, just because something is not intended it is not necessarily 'bad.'

It just seems to me that if assigning stamps to layers is permissible, why not have stamps of images that can be layered?

See the file attached as an example. Perhaps this is the sort of thing Jocelyn is looking for. It starts with a base drawing to which three notional contributors submit their 'input.' Their pages are converted to stamps and assigned to layers on the base page. Those layers can be toggled, etc.

I don't see how this corrupts anything or breaks any rules, so why not?

Layered Drawings.pdf

[Daniel - PDF-XChange]

Hello, PHK

I am sorry if it seemed otherwise, I was not saying there are any problems with your proposed solutions, I was warning that some of what is being requested later on may not be possible because of the specification. Your current suggestion is perfectly fine, and the fact that the steps you take are able to accomplish it, is itself confirmation that it is already possible to do that much within the spec.

Indeed there are always unintended effects of any implementation and in many cases, they are positive use cases, but we are heavily restricted on which of those unintended uses we can actually expand on, because of the Specification.

We will be looking into offering all that has been suggested so far, but for the reasons above I cannot yet make any promises of what will or wont be possible to actually offer by the time all is said and done.

Kind regards,

[PHK]

Many thanks, Daniel.

I hope this is helpful to Jocelyn.

[Jocelyn]

Hello PHK and Daniel,

I truly appreciate the patience and evident effort you've invested in assisting me with this issue.

Through our discussion I've been able to refine my workflow, and I hope this thread offers some useful insights for others working on similar challenges as I am.

I'll continue exploring this workflow further to identify any additional functionalities I may not have fully utilized yet.

Consider this thread closed, and thank you both!

[PHK]

Glad to have been of some help. Good luck, Jocelyn.

[Dimitar - PDF-XChange]