On 23 May 2005 at 20:33, Noel Stoutenburg wrote: > David W. Fenton wrote: > > >So far so good (with the exceptions of the half dozen or so shape > >definitions that are not deletable for some reason). > > First, check the playback parameters of each individual text > expression; my hunch is that the half dozen shapes are specified as > playback parameters.
I'd already cleared out the executable shapes and any number of other places where the shape pool is used. Here, again, it's a UI problem -- I can only get to the pool of shapes from individual tools, but no way of knowing which kind of object is using that shape in its definition (executable shape, shape expression, articulation, etc.). This is not the part that bothered me -- I expected it, as I've long experience with the poor UI here. > >When I get everything just so, I save out the individual libraries. > >Shape and Text Expressions worked fine, but the Articulations library > > is not retaining my edits. > > Are you trying to save the revised articulations library to an > existing name, or a brand new one? I'd try saving to a brand new > name, and trying to load from that. . . . I did both. It didn't matter. I even defined the articulations from scratch in a new blank file, and when I saved it, the flipped definition of the next-to-the-last articulation and the performance details were lost, along with the character for the last articulation. I just gave up on it, eventually, as it's quite clear that there's something badly wrong with the saving of libraries. > . . . Also, it occurs to me, that there > might be a link between the shape expressions, and the articulations > library, which is why you may not be able to delete some items with > the shape designer. Well, that's not the part the bothers me. It's the fact that my saved articulation definitions are not being written properly into the saved library. > >I really hate Finale. Just about everything about it is substandard > >in some way or the other. > > The worst thing about Finale, to me, is the poor documentation. There > are lots of things that now that I've been able to dig and experiment, > seem to be really quite elegantly executed, but because there is no > documentation as to what does what, and how it accomlishes the task, > it is difficult to get fixed firmly exactly what is happening. It reminds me of a database application that's been worked on by dozens of people over many years, but without every communicating with each other, documenting their work, or having a plan for exactly how to implement changes. Of course, the first part is exactly what it is. It's the last three clauses that worry me, but that's certainly what it looks like from my perspective. -- 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
