At 08:44 PM 8/29/2006, Éric Dussault wrote:
>prefer it a little bigger in Parts. Or smaller. I mean, these limits
>regarding flexibility in Finale are new to us, and I don't like not
>being able to do EXACTLY what I want to.
I don't think it's fair to think of these as new
limits. If you liked your old way of working with
lots of separate parts files, then you can keep
doing exactly that in Fin07, with no additional
restrictions. I also don't think it's fair to
expect linked parts to let you do EXACTLY what
you want -- no matter how well thought out a
feature may be, some user will always want
something different. (FWIW, I think Finale's
implementation of this is *much* more flexible than Sibelius's.)
>Isn't it strange that almost (All?) all unlinkable items containing
>fonts (typeface, style and size) are not modifiable by design.
I think it's unfortunate, but it's not strange. I
think MM set out to offer many more choices in
their implementation of linked parts in terms of
linked vs. unlinked and overriding default
behaviors and so forth. The problem was that once
they started, it became pretty clear that just
about everything ought to be unlinkable, for
maximum flexibility. The problem is designing a
UI that makes sense in terms of letting the user
make the changes and then signalling that
something is unlinked. Where they didn't have
time to come up with an appropriate UI, they
basically just forced that item to always be linked.
I agree that it's highly desirable for fonts (in
expressions, measure numbers, etc.) to be
unlinkable. I think MM just ran out of time in
which to implement the feature itself and the user interface.
Aaron.
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
