I have been building some overlays following the advice given in DPS tips (thanks, Bob) and the help. So far, so good. Nothing very particular or strange.
But since this last weekend (23rd-24th June) or so, the overlays I include have started to act 'funny'. They are very simple things like scrollable frames and slideshows with static pictures (no videos or pan and zoom, nothing but pictures).
First time I upload the folio everything is OK. The overlays scroll and do their duty perfectly, but after a while, when swipping and passing the pages... The scrollable content of a frame appears all of a sudden in the precedent page. It scrolls there and the nesting frame in the following is there but empty.
If I make a tiny change and refresh the culprit article... everything is ok again. Until next random failure.
Is it me? My way of working? Where? I am lost here.
The folio is a PDF with horizontal swipping almost all of it. Just about 30 Mb and only three scrolling frames and one slidshow. I am in Windows7. Adobe suite is updated. DPS is: 12.24.20120611_m_691037 (18.104.22.168)
Any idea, pretty please?
Gustavo (posting from madrid, the oven of Europe)
Know bug with the viewer and it’s been there forever and seems to only happen with horizontal swiping articles.
Workaround: Delete the folio from the viewer by archiving it and then download it again.
I deleted, ulpoaded and... here it comes again. I must confess that I am finding DPS to be a rather buggy software not quite ready for a heavy duty workflow with a tight deadline.
May be it's the heat of the night. Tomorrow morning I'll give this thing another try, if not, I'll have to delete any overlay and the hell with them.
If the Adobe Content Viewer starts behaving erratically, it usually helps to remove it from both iTunes Apps and from the device, sync, and reinstall the Adobe Content Viewer. Restarting the iPad every now and then is also a good idea.
It's not only a PITA. It's that people who take decissions here will decide on what they see on the content viewer before flipping their money on the table. That's rather sensible, I guess. So, that's why any animation will have to go down the drain in the project.
Been there, done that. Twice or thrice and I put my devices to sleep whenever I go to sleep. A mate of mine here suffered the same behaviour, btw.
Good night here.
The simplest way to solve this problem is just split stack. Don't use 'horisontal swipe only' bacause it's always buggy.
Just create single page stack for each page in your muity-pages file.
I am not sure if I understand you fully. Do you mean just not using the 'flattened' option (not marking 'horizontal swipe only) in those pages that have overlays? or do you mean not to use use them at all?
I am not sure that I understand the expression "create single page stack for each page". So sorry.
And thanks for answering,
If you have file with 5 pages you should create 5 different files and upload them into 5 different articles (stacks).
So you will have fully functional folio with all your interactive overlays without buggy "flattened" mode.
Mh... I see
But, allow me one question more: Does DPS admit exporting more than one article from the same document of InDesign? I thought it was mandatory to have 1 document = 1 article for DPS.
Anyway I have body text running through the pages, so I guess I cannot make 1 page (of many) = 1 article (each page) —unless we split pages afterwads in a too laborious handwork.
Thanks for the advice. It's one of possibilties always to keep in mind.
> Does DPS admit exporting more than one article from the same document of InDesign?
> unless we split pages afterwads in a too laborious handwork
Yes, it's not simple sometimes, but it works always.
I think this is only way to fix the problem.
I hate DPS very often in such kind of things.
That is, IMO, a horrible waste of time and will result in even more work setting up the TOC. The only issue with horizontal swipe is with the Adobe Content Viewer and the bug that forces interactivity to the first page. To say this is "always buggy" is a pretty good stretch.
This is easily corrected by updating the article in question.