On 7 Jul 2005 at 1:10, Darcy James Argue wrote: > On 06 Jul 2005, at 11:25 PM, Christopher Smith wrote: > > > But you HAD objected to the concept of having two different windows > > open on the same file - why? > > I personally much prefer the default Sibelius behavior, where you can > simply click a button to switch between Score View and Part View > without spawning a new window. I never resize Finale windows so I can > see two documents at once (or two views of the same document) -- if I > need to compare two parts, or two different sections of the score, I > print them out. > > It just strikes me as potentially confusing to have separate windows > for each part (plus the score) when they are not, in fact, separate > documents. The name in the title bar is different for each part > (obviously), but this really is like opening multiple instances of the > same document, and I don't think that's something most Mac users > routinely do.
No, it's not. If it were, the second window would be read-only. You're afraid of it, and I see no good reason to be. Don't you have tiling functionality available to you, so you can tile the open windows? On Windows, when I'm comparing, say, exposition and recap, I open the main document window, then launch a second document window, and then choose TILE HORIZONTALLY. This sizes the two open windows to fit the parent Finale window with two equally-sized rectangular windows, one below the other. The working window I prefer to be at the top, and the one I'm looking at at the bottom (though I sometimes edit in both windows). The title bar clearly distinguishes the two windows. The only problem with the implementation is that the order of the windows is not predictable. Every other Windows application I've ever used places the tiled windows by order of opening. That is, your first window is at the top, the second at the bottom. But Finale is not predictable in this regard, which is pretty annoying. > I still think Finale should support it -- after all, I can see how > people would find the separate windows useful. I just wanted to voice > my support for *also* including the option to switch from Score View > to Parts View within a single window. I fully agree with that, and my whole point was that if part view were implemented as a view equal with scroll and score view that you'd automatically get just that, and the ability to view different parts via the new document windows. > Have you downloaded the Sibelius demo and tried this out? The UI for > Dynamic Parts takes a little getting used to (at least for me). This > isn't to take away from the solution they chose, which is a good one. > It's just that the whole concept of Dynamic Parts is a tough UI nut to > crack, and as soon as you get into multiple windows, it's hard to make > it obvious what's going on. I haven't had the time yet. As to multiple windows, I think having it set up to only display score and one part is just about as useless an implementation as you could have, except for the demo, where it comes in really handy to show the linked editing. In all other circumstances, I just don't see how it is very useful, compared to the ability to compare two different parts side by side. The way I described above for Finale would allow you to open however many windows you liked in whatever view you liked, rather than restricting the way in which you can view your work, as it seems Sibelius does. I'll have to see what the demo does, when I get around to it. Of course, if I were not using Finale list to avoid the work I'm *supposed* to be doing, I could be avoiding work by downloading the demo. . . :) -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
