InDesign text wraps around invisible images

[Mike_Fernbank]

InDesign CS6. I was going crazy trying to figure out why my text kept jumping around. To my amazment, the text was trying to wrap around an image that was on a different layer that was turned off. The image was not being used and was invisible, but the text was acting like it was there. This is beyond absurd and even more ridiculous as it appears to be the default. Is there anyway to turn this "feature" off? Very perplexing company, this Adobe.

Thanks,

Mike

OS10.8

CS6

[BobLevine]

What's absurd is putting an object into a layout, adding a text wrap to it and then complaining that it works as designed.

Go into the layer options for the layer its on. You should be able to figure it out from there.

And then consider the possibility that people turn off layers so they can work on text without a distraction but still need the wrap applied.

[Mike_Fernbank]

Thanks for your attention, but please re-read my post, Bob. The text is wrapping around an image that is not visible, an image I'm not using on that page, an image that is on a different layer that is TURNED OFF. The text is wrapping around an empty space in the page. It is wrapping around nothing, nothing at all. The image that it is reacting to is not there. It is gone, gone, gone.

Thanks,

Mike

[BobLevine]

I did read it and unless you actually deleted the image, everything is

working as it's supposed to. If you did delete you may have left the

frame which has the wrap applied.

In any event, simply turning off a layer does not kill the text wrap

unless you explicitly set that in the layer options.

Turning off the visibility of something doesn't delete it.

[Mike_Fernbank]

I know it doesn't delete it, but it makes no sense that the text would still wrap around something that is not there. I cannot think of a single instance when I have wanted that to occur, going back to QXP ca1988. When would you want text to wrap around an object that is not visible? If it is working as designed, however, then thanks for letting me know. I can work arouind it and that kind of information is what this forum is for, not for expressing puzzlement. That said, this is about the stupidest feature I think I've ever seen. Thanks again for putting me straight.

Mike

[Sandee Cohen]

I can't remember exactly but I think Harbs showed to a bunch of us hanging around the hall at the last PepCon.  It's a bug.  But I don't think he showed any fix.  It's close to Shabbot in Israel right now. So he may not be available to respond for a day.

[BobLevine]

Sandee, I'm not at all sure why you think this is bug if it's simply a

wrap around a hidden object.

[Sandee Cohen]

You're right (of course) Bob.

I didn't read what the OP said.

It isn't a bug.  It's a feature. And a good one at that.

And I devoted an three illustrations in my book showing the effect.

[Mike_Fernbank]

Interesting, but why would you want the text to wrap when there is nothing there? It seems to be that the default should be that images on hidden layers automatically kill the text wrap. 99.999 percent of the time this is what you would want.

Is this how this example was published, with the jagged left margin (as in your middle image) meandering around a void on the page?

Mike

[vectorbabe]

Wow, you certainly know how to make someone angry.

Yes, this is how it was published. Meandering. A void.

Last time I try to help you.

--

Sandee Cohen

Computer Graphics Trainer

[Mike_Fernbank]

Geez, I wasn't trying to make anyone angry, I just wanted to describe it accurately so you'd know what I was talking about. If everyone agrees that it is more helpful to have the default to wrap around invisible objects then fine. For me, I've never needed to do that. I've only used text wrap to wrap around visible images. I wasn't making a value judgement on your design. You need to find another business if you see personal attacks from a simple disinterested description of your work. I still think it is very, very rare to need text to wrap around something that is not visible. That is all I'm saying. Does everyone disagree?

Mike

[BobLevine]

Everyone? Probably not...but I certainly do. Try working on layouts for

DPS with MSOs and you'll see why both choices are important.

It's a simple setting. One freakin' click and you're making a major deal

out of it.

[John Mensinger]

Most often, layers are hidden as a temporary working measure. If you don't want the content of a particular layer, (and the effects of its presence), on your page ever again, then delete it.

[BobLevine]

Jeez, you only see your own workflow as valid?

Because that's exactly what you're saying here. For the final time, open

the layer options and click the choice to suppress text wrap.

Debating this is a ridiculous waste of my time. Continue on ranting if

you'd like.

[Peter Spier]

Sometimes it helps to turn off a layer so you can more easily select other objects that might be obscured, is one example of when this would be a good thing. Layers are GLOBAL and I wouldn't like to see my threaded text rewrapping because I turned off a layer temporarily and there was a wrapped object on some page other than the one where I'm working trying to get a precise fit or position.

[BobLevine]

Not visible and not there are two different things. I already gave you

one example of why it works that way and how to turn it off with one

simple click.

If that's not the case, please explain exactly what is going on. Did you

or did you not delete the object? Turning off the visibility is not the

same as deleting it.

[Checkup]

I don't want to reopen a wound, but I think Mike has a point.

I have just spent an hour trying to work out why every text frame on one particular page is overset. It turned out that I had created a black square to give the page a black background, didn't like it and turned it off (didn't want to delete it in case I changed my mind and didn't want to spend time recreating it again). Left it and forgot it, now all of a sudden the page is repelling text for no apparent reason.

I know I am a noob but try searching help for "How do I find out WTF my text is wrapping around?" You won't find anything and if you delete the page you get "This page contains objects - are you sure?" To which the answer is always NO because I have deleted too many objects by mistake to ignore THAT warning.

I can also see the case for temporarily turning off a layer so it isn't a distraction while preserving wrapping to preserve the overall formatting. These two things seem to be incompatible. I think hiding a layer should kill the wrap unless you specify that wrap must remain ON for testing purposes.

[Daniel Flavin]

We often learn from mistakes, and you likely will remember to check layers henceforth.

I work on many documents I did not create - there are quick checks needed for any document.

Check the Layers panel

Check for Styles

Perform several "Select All" commands. Empty frames are common and problematic.

Toggle Overprint Preview

[Mike_Fernbank]

Derek is reiterating my point. That the default is backward. A person's intuition would suggest that turning off a layer would also defeat the text wrapping around objects on that layer. If you wanted the text to wrap around missing/invisible objects, then you could invoke it. This would eliminate Derek's problem without eliminating this "feature." It is all about what the default should be. For me, it should always be what a reasonable person would infer would happen. That is not presently the case with text wrapping.

[BobLevine]

The default is backward for YOU. It's 100% correct for me. You're making up your mind about what's reasonable based on your own need. I disagree. Any reasonable experienced user knows the value of the layer panel and how it behaves. You're blaming the application for your own lack of knowledge.

It seems to me the real problem here is people jumping into a complicated layout application without actually learning how it works.

[Joel Cherney]

I think hiding a layer should kill the wrap unless you specify that wrap must remain ON for testing purposes.

I don't mean to be snarky, but I think that you need to know what all of the permutations of all the settings will do. It's a tall order, I know, but I'm with Daniel here. I work almost exclusively on documents I didn't create, so I've seen files that required that setting to be on for some workflows, and files that required that setting to be off for other workflows. And, of course, I've seen graphic designers pitch fits about what settings they thought ought to be default for all workflows.

This thread seems to be heavy on the fit-pitching, to be honest. A good workflow will sometimes require conventions that will make light work of some particular task that, in other workflows, would require vast amounts of manual clicking-about. But this is a convention. You get to choose what value you have set for this behavior. It's hard to figure out, but that's what you get when you work in a decade-old page-layout app with buckets of functionality. There are lacunae and dead ends and almost-impossible-to-find toggles that will affect everything in your layout. There are features that are inaccessible by any means but scripting. It's kind of a mess sometimes, but despite the steep learning curve and the abandonded feature-sets that haven't seen a lick of new code since 2006, this app is the industry standard, so it's best to just clamber up the steep learning curve and remember that one person's counterintuitive stumbling block is another person's most important feature.

Like Daniel just said, I have a suite of things I do to every document to test it for, um, funkiness. I have some carefully groomed preflight profiles in both ID and Acrobat that help me find the stuff that will be problematic. I have scripts that act as blink comparitors, scripts that color invisible objects with magenta, scripts that unlock all objects, and so on. Rather than fire off missives about what ought to be default, I suggest that you figure out a way to make the app work for you. I bet that it would take me about fifteen minutes to write the startup script that would always set this value in the direction that you want it set for every document that you touch, and I am a very slow script developer.

[Joel Cherney]

I should get Bob to teach me Ten Tricks Of Incredibly Efficient Posters.

TL, DR: What he said.

[BobLevine]

That could be arranged.

[Mike_Fernbank]

Whether i works 100 percent of the time for you and not 100 percent of the time for me doesn't matter. Two data points don't amount to much. As a designer I have to try to figure out what large numbers of people would do when confronted with something: a coffee maker, a car dashboard or software. All I'm saying in this case is that, in my opinion, if you took the time and expense to have a statistically significant sample of new InDesign users work with the program a majority of them would infer that off layers negate text wrapping. That is all I'm saying. It may not be possible to impliment this in an old piece of software, but I'm simply doing a thought experiment about it...at least at this point. Obviously what Joel says is absolutely true with the real world use of the software. You need to figure outs its quirks and rough spots. If, however, everyone always just accepted what was fed to them we'd never see any advancement in anything.

[BobLevine]

New users? That's irrelevant here, IMO.

Long time users have seen this behavior for 14 years. And now you want

to change it? Sorry, but its your responsibility as a new user to learn

how it works.

As I said when this first came up...it's a simple freakin' click...and

it's document specific, so if it was set that way by whoever supplied

the file, it would still be set that way when you got it. So what

difference would the default make?

I'll answer that for you...none. Not one little bit.