On Mar 4, 2005, at 12:22 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
OK, that makes sense. I'm in the habit of doing all my layout adjustments only after layout is set, so the change wouldn't really benefit me much, but I can see how it would be a great help to people who make large changes to a piece after layout has already been set.
You never change your mind?
I usually lay out a piece onscreen, then print it and then make adjustments to the layout because of problems I couldn't perceive onscreen.
When I print a rough draft to visualize layout, it's generally before I've adjusted the spacing of staves within systems. That is, I'm looking at a printout that has unoptimized systems (um, my definition of "unoptimized", I mean) and I'm just visualizing what the spacing needs will be. Later I'll make further adjustments, but it's rare that it includes changing any system breaks.
That is, if as I suggest, all systems in page view had two handles (as happens currently after optimization), then there would no longer be any relationship between vertical staff spacing and the process of optimization, and the ability to uncheck "Remove Empty Staves" would then serve no function whatsoever, since right now, all it does is turn on the ability to space staves vertically (if it's unchecked).
As I mentioned before, I agree with you about separating the functions. Our only difference is that I'm accustomed to using the word "optimizing" for the other half of the conjoined function.
I understand your point of view that changing inter-system spacing is part of "optimizing" your layout for the pages, but I think it's a mistake in the design of Finale, as it means that, in cases where you *don't* want staves hidden if empty, you have to turn on optimization before you can adjust vertical spacing. I think that's a ridiculous requirement.
I personally have no use for a system with only one handle. If there were a function that acted to restore any system to its scroll view defaults, that should pretty much take care of anyone who ever has use for the my-definition half of "remove optimization".
There very well might be better conceptual ways to implement this than what I've described, but I think my point is clear: the way Finale works requires more work than it need have, as it requires you to think of systems as empty slots that the music pours into, and that the slots have their own characteristics (vertical spacing, hidden staves) that are independent of what music is displayed in them. Now, yes, we can all think of unusual situations where this can actually be turned to advantage, but it is still antithetical to the most obvious way of thinking about how it should happen (in my opinion). Spacing of systems and hidden blank staves should be determined by the content of the music, not by which system slot the measures end up in.
Well, this is a larger matter than just splitting the two optimization functions or having vertical-spacing requirements attached to measures. I think you can see how the numbered system as an item to which qualities are attached is pretty fundamental to its data structure, in terms of drawing the page and so forth. I'm not saying that couldn't be changed, mind you, I'm just saying that it's a rather large reworking of Finale's definition that's going to be a lot more programming work with a lot more cans of worms opened along the way.
I agree that pouring into system slots sometimes makes things awkward, and I can see how those problems would be compounded for someone who makes system-based adjustments and then later makes a large addition or deletion which bumps a lot of music into different systems. But at the same time, I don't think you can let go of systems as fundamental units, because many things really do depend on the system context and not just the music within its measures. Changing divisis from one staff to two really does happen at a system break. I really do decide whether to leave a blank vocal staff showing or remove it depending on the vertical density of the page as a whole.
There are certain decisions that can only be made within the context of the completely laid out page.
I still don't understand what you mean by "system margins".
In Page View, click on the handle in the upper left of the system and from the context menu choose EDIT MARGINS. That's what I'm talking about -- the margins of the system.
Ah! How funny. I use that dialog all the time but somehow I never paid any attention to the name of it. I leave that window open at all times, so that it automatically shows whenever I go to the Page Layout tool.
As I said above, you were talking about spacing between staves within a system, I was talking about spacing between whole systems, and the solution I described only solved that problem. I see no reason (other than increasing complexity of UI and onscreen representation of the margins) that my ideas couldn't be applied within between staves within a system as well.
I see now. I didn't realize that you were expanding the discussion to the next level of vertical spacing.
I haven't given much thought to that. I'm a control freak about my spacing, so it doesn't offend me if the process is inherently fiddly since I'm going to want to fiddle anyway.
mdl
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
