On 14 Jul 2005 at 6:12, dhbailey wrote: > Christopher Smith wrote: > > > Great work! Thanks for this; it is indeed point by point and > > extremely detailed. > > > > Of course, given the source, some points will bear confirmation, but > > it was good to see someone who knows the present version of the > > program as well as the older version give a reaction to the > > criticisms that have been levied against Sibelius in the past. > > Daniel Spreadbury is now product manager and is resident on the > Sibelius list at yahoogroups. He is just one of the examples of how > Sibelius takes its users seriously. He is a member of that group > officially, he doesn't hide it, and he is constantly providing either > the answers to problems, the relevant pages to read in the manual, or > specific e-mail addresses for the people at headquarters who would > know best how to resolve a particular problem.
Someone, perhaps Ken, forwarded my messages about Sibelius to Daniel and he took a great deal of time responding point by point. We had extensive discussions of discoverability in user interfaces and the performance issues that caused me to have problems, as well as the poor demo documentation. He's a prince, I'd say -- exactly the kind of person I'd *want* working for a small boutique software shop that's producing products that I depend on. Back in the Randy Stokes days, we had somebody like that, but who also was one of the programmers and could give technical explanations for problems. Boy, but I do miss Randy. Having him around really increased my confidence in Finale. And it seems that back in the days when he worked for Coda was the period of the greatest improvement for Finale. Since his departure, not much has happened to Finale except the bundling of more and more bells and whistles, with the reworking of only a couple major engraving problems. > Compare that with MakeMusic's official disregard for this list and how > we have to look out for each other. > > Daniel reports back to the development team suggestions that users on > the list come up with. > > Compare that with our known responsibility to follow proper procedures > or MakeMusic won't give any of our suggestions a second glance. > > Any answers Daniel gives don't need to be taken with any grains of > salt -- witness those areas where he freely admits that Sibelius could > use improvement. This is the part that impresses me -- he's honest in recognizing what is superior in his competition and what could be improved in his own product. > But should anybody be doubtful of his motives or the accuracy of his > answers, there is always the Sib4 demo where they can be checked out > easily enough (except for printing speeds). > > Now if only MakeMusic could begin to take our list seriously and not > have employees who happen to be members be unofficial members and > allow them simply to refer our suggestions back to the development > team. There's no need I can see for why we have to come up with some > terrific ideas or requests for features or suggestions for changes in > program behavior, and always have to remind the person posting them > "be sure to send that to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or > [EMAIL PROTECTED] or they won't even begin to consider it!" > > Sibelius may be No. 2, but just like Avis, they certainly try harder! > And just like Hertz (who was number 1), MakeMusic may find the market > pulled out from under its feet while basking in the glow of being No. > 1. Coda used to try harder. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc All non-quoted content (c) David W. Fenton, all rights reserved _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
