On 6 Jan 2006 at 9:19, Brad Beyenhof wrote: > On 1/6/06, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > "Transposition with expanded options. Canonic utilities with > > expanded options. Hmmm... and suddenly, there is the idea for > > a new item that covers both (discoverable from multiple paths) > > that is a linear motion modification activity. [Transposition, > > Doubling, Parallel Motion, Canonic Utilities] is essentially > > one palette of options dealing with the many ways of displacing > > pitches while maintaining their melodic contour." > > I think that's an excellent idea. However, the problem with doing a UI > overhaul is that certain people are already used to the "musically > illogical" placement of features..
Every time this kind of discussion comes up on this list and someone suggests an improved approach to a task in Finale, there's always someone who assumes that such an improvement includes *removing* the old method. Why is that? To me, it looks like a commitment to the status quo, or mere stubbornness, or just wanting to argue. The assumption that *adding* a new approach always entails completely removing the old method is completely unwarranted. The only cases where this would not apply is when someone is proposing overhauling a whole set of features, such as a complete dialog box. In this case, we're talking about how to accomplish a task that's currently implemented in a way that requires knowing that there's a checkbox in a particular dialog box that is not obviously related to the task at hand. Suggesting that another way to accomplish the same task should be provided does not in any way imply that the checkbox in the transposition dialog should be removed. I mean, keep in mind that we already have duplication of functionality. The canonic utilities plugins do transpositions, but we don't complain about overlap there. Nor did the addition of that plugin cause MM to remove functionality that it dubplicated. > . . . we noticed the problem when "Show > Active Layer Only" changed menus from from View to Options. This is a completely different type of issue. And it seems to me that there oughtn't be any reason not to have such a menu choice in both locations. > If features were totally rearranged, . . . . Who has proposed that? > . . . there would be no end of support > requests from people who just use a few features, and know where they > are, but don't know the rest of the program that well. Even if these > changes made all the sense in the world, they could and would be > terribly confusing to users of earlier versions. If MakeMusic ported Finale to Linux, would they still support Windows? I mean, some Windows users wouldn't find it easy switching to Linux, so they need to be accomodated somehow!!!!! How stupid does *that* sound? > I'm not saying that there should be no search for a way to make all > those menus and dialogs more independently discoverable, but that any > such venture should be undertaken with a great deal of thought and > consideration for its ramifications. Well, I'm sure Dennis was proposing that such a revision be done in the most stupid and confusing way possible. That's certainly *my* thinking on the subject. *NOT* -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
