On 6 Jul 2005 at 19:38, Darcy James Argue wrote: > On 06 Jul 2005, at 7:16 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > > On 6 Jul 2005 at 14:30, Darcy James Argue wrote: > > >> Well, I don't know how XP works so I can't comment on that end of > >> it. But on the Mac, there is no such thing as a "child" window. > > > > Sure there is. Any document window spawned by Finale is a child of > > the parent Finale window. > > That's not how it works on Mac. There *is* no "parent" Finale window, > so there's no "spawning".. . .
You may not have a box drawn around a rectangle onscreen, but there is unquestionably a window onscreen that represents the parent Finale process. Document windows are children of that process. The difference between Windows and Mac is in how this lineage is displayed. On Windows, child windows exist only inside the parent window. On the Mac, since the parent window does not actual have a restricted border, the windows appear independent, and can be moved anywhere onscreen. But they are *still* child windows of Finale. > . . . When no Finale documents are open, there is > no Finale window either -- the application is still running, and you > can switch to Finale, but there's no window. . . . Isn't the Finale menu bar visible? That's a window, just not a bordered window containing the child windows. > . . . When multiple Finale > documents are open, they are all part of the same hierarchy. There is > no way that one parts window can "belong" to a score window. There is no visual representation of that relationship, but it is still present. What happens if you have 3 document windows open in Finale and you exit Finale? Don't the child windows close? > This lack of window hierarchy concerns me -- for instance, if you had > two different scores open simultaneously, it might be difficult to > tell which part window belonged to which score. Especially if you > had, for example, two different revisions of the same score open at > the same time. I'm stunned that FinMac lacks the ability to compare two different parts of the same file in separate document windows. I've often thought that some day I might switch to Mac, but that shows I couldn't possibly do so! > > Opening multiple document windows solves the problem, though. And > > that's what I'm reading you as having said you don't like. > > On reflection, I'm fine with doing it either way (as Sieblius does) -- > so long as there is a way to switch between parts *without* spawning a > bunch of new windows. For my own work, I would find that UI much more > clear than having to deal with a mess of windows. Well, I did *not* say that all the parts should automatically open their own document windows! I'm not even sure the default parts view should display the score at all, to be honest. What utility is there in that, except to demo the linkage between score and parts? Once you see the list of available part views it should work just like a web browser -- you have a choice of opening the other part view in the same document window you're currently using, or to launch it in a new window. > > How are multiple windows on a single document implemented on the > > Mac? > > You open a second copy of the document via the "Open" menu, and the > Finder labels the windows "Brilliant Concerto.mus:1" ; "Brilliant > Concerto.mus:2"; etc. Ah. Well, then you *do* have multiple document windows. It's surely not a second copy of the document that is open, since that would cause contention for the file on disk. If you edit in window 1 and then go to window 2 and save, aren't the changes in window 1 saved? If so, then you've already got multiple windows viewing a single document. > > Whatever method is used for that would make perfect sense for part > > view. > > As long as you can do it both ways, I'm happy. Well, I don't know why you assumed that I was proposing opening *all* the parts simultaneously any time you switched to part view! > >> There is no "New Window" menu item on the Mac. > > > > You can't view two parts of a Finale document simultaneously? > > > > *BOGGLE* > > No, you can, you just open a second copy of the same document. That's > something that always makes me uncomfortable, though -- I try to avoid > that if possible. (I have enough trouble with the File Overwrite bug > as it is!) Sounds like it's implemented with a result just like that in Windows, except the Windows UI makes it less dangrous feeling -- you launch a new window from the WINDOW menu by choosing NEW WINDOW. The title bar is exactly the same as for your separate document windows. I doubt you have any reason to feel nervous about it. If you really were opening the document a second time, one of them would surely have to be read-only, and my bet is that this is not the case. > > Tons of my editing work requires this! It's how I do my > > musicological editing, where I make editorial suggestions to make, > > say, an exposition and a recap have similar > > dynamics/articulations/bowings. > > Whenever I have to do anything like this, I use a printout, marked up > as necessary. I hate proofing and editing on-screen. My printer is broken. :( And I can't decide whether to fix it or replace it, since the repair is going to cost $200+. I wouldn't do it on paper, anyway, except at the proofreading stage. I have a tendency to miss paper edits when transferring them to the computer, something does not happen to me when comparing two views onscreen. > >> In Sibelius -- at least on Mac -- you can't compare two parts > >> side-by-side. You can only have the score window plus one dynamic > >> part open at any one time. > > > > That would seem to me to be a very severe limitation. > > I was wrong -- there's a "open parts in new windows" option in the > preferences. > > David, since you have a lot to say about this feature, I highly > recommend you download the Sibelius 4 demo and try it for yourself -- > see how it's implemented, see what you like and don't like. That > would help us make better suggestions about how Finale could implement > the feature. I found trying out the Sibelius 3 demo to be kind of like trying to write with my right hand tied behind my back (I'm right-handed) and with 4 fingers of my left hand bandaged up, while my glasses were fogged up with dirt that couldn't be cleaned off. In short, it was not an enjoyable experience. But you're right, I should download the demo. Not sure what I'll learn, though, as I am mostly stymied by the UI and lack of control of so many aspects of layout. -- 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
