Hey, long time no see!
Lately, I’ve been working on updates for all my scripts, and it turns out we can now create scripts that work non-destructively. This means that if you run the script a second time on the same path or image, you can modify its parameters instead of having to start over.
I still have some work to do, and I’m a bit hesitant to push the updates because MCP and the scripting system are still in beta. I’m worried that a future update could break the scripts, especially since I’ve been getting a lot of messages from people who use them.
So, I’d like to make a suggestion: could we have some kind of version history for scripts? That way, if an update breaks something, users could easily revert to a previous version.
Here’s another suggestion, based on a lot of feedback I’ve received: could we implement something like “script packs” in the Community tab? For example, I work primarily with vectors, and most of my scripts are vector-based. I’d like to be able to create something like a “VectorPack”, where all the scripts follow a specific standard and work together, providing a more consistent user experience across the whole pack.
For this VectorPack, I wouldn’t only use my own scripts. I’d also like to adapt some scripts created by other people in the community so that they follow the same standards and work consistently together.
This also made me think that, in the future, it might be useful to have some kind of tagging or disclosure system when people upload scripts. For example, whether AI was used during development, what license the script is released under, and potentially other relevant information. This could become increasingly useful with the new EU regulations around AI transparency and disclosure.
From a practical standpoint, we could almost assume that most, if not all, scripts currently being created for ASM are made with AI assistance. I mention this because AI-generated code is still in a bit of a gray area when it comes to copyright. Depending on the jurisdiction and the amount of human contribution involved, AI-generated work may not qualify for copyright protection in the same way as human-created work, including potentially under EU copyright rules.
Because of that, having clear licensing information for scripts would also be really useful. As far as I can tell, many scripts currently don't specify any license at all, which makes it unclear what users are actually allowed to do with them. If a script has no license and potentially isn't protected by copyright, it becomes even more important to clearly define whether users can modify, redistribute, or include it in something like a VectorPack.
One more suggestion regarding the website: I noticed that on Affinity Hub, you can install scripts directly from the site. I’ve run into quite a few people who refuse to download ASM because macOS flags it as a potential virus, or simply because they aren’t tech-savvy enough to bypass the macOS security warnings.
I think being able to install scripts directly from the website could make them much more accessible to a lot of users.
Hey, long time no see!
Lately, I’ve been working on updates for all my scripts, and it turns out we can now create scripts that work non-destructively. This means that if you run the script a second time on the same path or image, you can modify its parameters instead of having to start over.
I still have some work to do, and I’m a bit hesitant to push the updates because MCP and the scripting system are still in beta. I’m worried that a future update could break the scripts, especially since I’ve been getting a lot of messages from people who use them.
So, I’d like to make a suggestion: could we have some kind of version history for scripts? That way, if an update breaks something, users could easily revert to a previous version.
Here’s another suggestion, based on a lot of feedback I’ve received: could we implement something like “script packs” in the Community tab? For example, I work primarily with vectors, and most of my scripts are vector-based. I’d like to be able to create something like a “VectorPack”, where all the scripts follow a specific standard and work together, providing a more consistent user experience across the whole pack.
For this VectorPack, I wouldn’t only use my own scripts. I’d also like to adapt some scripts created by other people in the community so that they follow the same standards and work consistently together.
This also made me think that, in the future, it might be useful to have some kind of tagging or disclosure system when people upload scripts. For example, whether AI was used during development, what license the script is released under, and potentially other relevant information. This could become increasingly useful with the new EU regulations around AI transparency and disclosure.
From a practical standpoint, we could almost assume that most, if not all, scripts currently being created for ASM are made with AI assistance. I mention this because AI-generated code is still in a bit of a gray area when it comes to copyright. Depending on the jurisdiction and the amount of human contribution involved, AI-generated work may not qualify for copyright protection in the same way as human-created work, including potentially under EU copyright rules.
Because of that, having clear licensing information for scripts would also be really useful. As far as I can tell, many scripts currently don't specify any license at all, which makes it unclear what users are actually allowed to do with them. If a script has no license and potentially isn't protected by copyright, it becomes even more important to clearly define whether users can modify, redistribute, or include it in something like a VectorPack.
One more suggestion regarding the website: I noticed that on Affinity Hub, you can install scripts directly from the site. I’ve run into quite a few people who refuse to download ASM because macOS flags it as a potential virus, or simply because they aren’t tech-savvy enough to bypass the macOS security warnings.
I think being able to install scripts directly from the website could make them much more accessible to a lot of users.