On 24 May 2004 at 18:12, Darcy James Argue wrote: > On 24 May 2004, at 05:29 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > > If Photoshop's pallettes are not dockable, then I'd find it a user- > > hostile environment to work in. > > I don't know if you are able to dock the palettes in Photoshop -- but > if so, I've never seen a Windows user do that.
Maybe they don't know it can be done? Dockable toolbars have their problems, at least the way MS has implemented them, of course. > >> I agree that there should be the option to make the palette a > >> toolbar in MacFin, but I don't know if I'd actually use it -- I've > >> removed the useless tools (hand, magnifying glass, ossia, > >> hyperscribe) from my Finale palette and have it arranged in two > >> horizontal rows in the bottom-left corner of the screen, just above > >> and to the left of the scroll bars. . . > > > > You've converted it into a toolbar, then, just not docked. > > I think the difference is that, because of the way I have the palette > arranged, I still have quite a lot of active screen space to the left > of it. If it were a true toolbar, I'd lose all of that, right? Yes, in the MS implementation of them, that's the way it works. I see no reason, though, why they couldn't be implemented to allow free space. > > Actually, back in the days before Finale had dockable toolbars, the > > real annoyance was that the pallettes stayed in the same place in > > scroll and page view. If Finale had been smartly designed, it would > > have had independent positioning for the two views, since the aspect > > ratio of the two data display areas is completely different. If that > > had been implemented, so I could have had my pallettes at the bottom > > in scroll view, and automatically go to the right side of the page > > in page view, I wouldn't have found them annoying. It was the > > pallettes' ignorance of the view I was in that made them annoying. > > Hmmm. That might be nice, too, although bottom left keeps them mostly > out of the way in both scroll and page view. In page view? Bottom left? You mean bottom right, no? Actually, it wouldn't be an issue at the screen resolution I'm running at now, where there's plenty of room for them to live bottom right. But back in the day when I had the problem, I didn't have the screen resolution for that. > >> Isn't it possible to make the tools menu a floating palette in > >> FinWin? > > > > Not sure what you mean -- the actual tools menu turned into a > > floating pallette? What good is that, as it replicates all the > > existing toolbars? > > Sorry, this was a terminology problem. I think what I meant to say, > in Windows-ese, is "Isn't it possible to undock the toolbars in > Finale?" In other words, can't you do what I do in FinMac, with a > floating palette in the bottom left corner? Yes, of course it's possible to undock all of them. That's why I don't see why all pallettes shouldn't be dockable -- you can still float them if you like. > >> If so, surely those who prefer it that way could benefit from > >> transparency, just as Mac users could. And, as I already > >> mentioned, there are the big plugin windows like Staff List > >> Manager. > > > > Sorry, I don't get what you're interested in here, as I always > > thought the Tools menu was there for use by macro recorders. > > I didn't mean to bring up the Tools menu. I meant the Tools palette. > > And the point of that last sentence was, even with a docked Tools > palette, there are several plugin dialogs (like TGTools Staff List > Manger) that would benefit enormously from transparency. I don't tend to use any plugins in a manner that I need to leave them onscreen. On the other hand, if you mean that it's useful to be able to see what's behind them when working with them, I can kind of see that, but honestly haven't run onto a situation where that would have been useful, unless the plugin was non-modal and allowed me to scroll the window behind so that I could browse around the document while still viewing the contents of the plugin dialog. [] > >>> Well, floating pallettes are anethema, as far as I'm concerned. I > >>> don't have any applications that don't allow them to be treated as > >>> dockable toolbars, and that's the only way I like to use them. > >> > >> But there are lots of standard Windows apps (like, say, Photoshop) > >> that require floating palettes. > > > > "Require?" > > In the sense of, "I don't think you can dock them." All I know is, > I've never seen them docked. Maybe a Windows Photoshop user could > weigh in. But surely you wouldn't object to dockable pallettes, as long as they could still float? I don't know of any implementation of dockable toolbars that *isn't* implemented in precisely that way, so that's way it never occurred to me that you might be assuming that dockable and floating were somehow mutually exclusive. > > But it's definitely an idea that is not fundamental. It is at a > > level that is surface only, and this fits with my thesis that the > > only things MS is really copying from OS X are entirely at the > > surface level (and those only incompletely realized), not in > > anything truly significant from the point of view of OS > > functionality or UI. > > That's between you and Philip. I don't have a dog in that fight. I > just wanted to stand up for transparency as a potentially useful UI > enhancement. >From what you've said it sounds to me like it would be functionally beneficial to me only in some very narrow situations, and for all the rest, merely cosmetic. I would prefer that Microsoft spent their time on fundamentals rather than on the window dressing, as it were. Of course, I have some doubts that I'll ever use Longhorn, in any event -- Microsoft has now simply diverged much too far from what I consider useful that I can't see investing in it. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
