2 Correct answers
Oh gosh, what are we missing?!!
See the request and comments at https://indesign.uservoice.com/forums/601021-adobe-indesign-feature-requests/suggestions/41850601-improving-the-various-options-of-footnotes
Summary, we need:
- Ability to create a custom set of "numbers" or symbols than just the options in the drop-down menu, such as †, ††, ††† which is what a client gave us a few months ago. Let me create a pattern of any symbols to meet the author's needs.
Footnote options are limited and cont
There are already some feature modification requests about footnotes at InDesign UserVoice.
For example this one where I commented and also voted:
Improving the various options of footnotes
Avraham, Nov 4, 2020
https://indesign.uservoice.com/forums/601021-adobe-indesign-feature-requests/suggestions/41850601-improving-the-various-options-of-footnotes
Regards,
Uwe Laubender
( ACP )
10
Replies
Oh gosh, what are we missing?!!
See the request and comments at https://indesign.uservoice.com/forums/601021-adobe-indesign-feature-requests/suggestions/41850601-im...
Summary, we need:
- Ability to create a custom set of "numbers" or symbols than just the options in the drop-down menu, such as †, ††, ††† which is what a client gave us a few months ago. Let me create a pattern of any symbols to meet the author's needs.
- A different pattern of symbols/numbers for tables. Heck, for each individual table. Many documents we receive use 1, 2, 3 for the body text footnotes, but a, b, c, for the table footnotes. Can't do that right now: tables must use the same pattern as the main body text with Type/Footnote Options.
- Table footnotes can vary from table to table. One table could use a, b, c, and the next could use i, ii, iii. Need to set the pattern for each individual table.
- And table footnotes can have different visual formatting: more or less space, rule above or not, etc.
But the biggest PITAs (pain in the "anatomy") are the insane way that footnotes for tables are formed. I don't know of any document where either of these are acceptable:
- Inline tables are woven into the main footnotes for the entire document. Gah!
On what planet it this numbering system acceptable?!
- Framed tables put the footnotes at the bottom of the table's frame, and not in the table's footer section. Gah! Why in world have a footer section of the table if its footnotes aren't going to be programmed into it?
- And these footnotes use the same footnote numbering pattern as the body text, not a unique one, like a, b, c. More Gah!
- And it starts at "1" which puts two different footnotes called "1" on the same page. Insane Gah!
Footnotes should go in the table's footer row. And should have their own custom numbering system.
And then there are the accessibility errors for table footnotes. Don't get me started.
We specialize in accessible STEM-G (science, technical, engineering, mathematical + government) publications that have lots of long tables with lots of footnotes. The current table footnotes can't be used at all, so each one is manually formatted to control the numbering system, placement/formatting, and the accessibility. Imagine the time it takes to do this for 100+ footnotes.
And mind you, we can do these controls in Word, but not in InDesign.
Use endnote additional as footnotes.
By @Willi Adelberger
That creates an accessibility error per the PDF/UA standard (which Adobe helps create).
Endnotes are tagged differently than footnotes, and they are placed in a different area of the PDF's tag tree.
I've never voted [it's a personal choice] mainly because I'm an hurry guy! … and my Clients too. 😉
Just For Comment:
Screenshot of a Script UI built 4 years ago [Just For Fun!]:
Another sample: Restart footnotes basing on a para style!
(^/) The Jedi
AdChoices