This forum is not a focus group. It seems to me the majority of people here are long-term users who are content with the mode of operation that has existed for over a decade. So I have no interest in a one-sided discussion that will inevitably be a list of reasons why "it can't be done." If Finale wanted to convent a focus group, I would be happy to share my thoughts that are based on 50 years as a musician and 40 years involvement in complex software design, including innovative user interfaces.
I stand by my statement that (almost) everything about the notation process can and should be made at least an order of magnitude more intuitive and productive. A big exception to that is the managed parts feature. I think they did a very nice job with that concept. There is room for refinements, but not a magnitude improvement. On 11/20/2013 3:04 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote: > On Nov 20, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Craig Parmerlee <cr...@parmerlee.com> wrote: > >> On 11/20/2013 11:15 AM, Eric Dannewitz wrote: >>> I think both finale and Sibelius are pretty much the top of what you can do >>> with notation. I don't really know what people expect other than little >>> refinements to the programs in each version. >> Everything about the process of notation can be made a full order of >> magnitude more intuitive and productive. > But you fail to list anything........ > _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
