Re: A thought on Windows Experience (was: useability, promoting, etc)
On 04/12/13 19:02, Phil Holmes wrote: For me, I'd say that we should not install Frescobaldi as a pre-requisite of running Lily on Windows. I'm a heavy Windows user, and would not want another program installed by default. I've not used it, but I do understand that many people feel it's excellent - so an option would be to promote it more heavily for Windows users? Yes, but arguably the default configuration should be what is best for new users, and installing Frescobaldi does make a certain amount of sense here -- it's an excellent dedicated IDE for Lilypond that really makes it easier to understand the process of creating scores. The way many Windows installers work is that they present you as a user with a list of components to select to be installed, of which some will be selected (or not) by default. There's no reason not to have Frescobaldi bundled with the installer but deselectable if you don't want it. I am willing to look at improving the Windows experience, although this would need to wait until my degree finishes next Summer. However, there's one thing I don't know: what should happen when you double-click a .ly file in Explorer: open an editor or compile the file? Open the file, I'd say. It'd be pretty intrusive if simply double-clicking on a text file in Explorer was to cause the launch of a process that might take a very long time, consume a large amount of system resources, and generate a large new file to write to disk. It's also at odds with the way in which source files for other markups and languages are treated when opened via the file browser. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
A thought on Windows Experience (was: useability, promoting, etc)
Warning. I this message, Why don't we does not mean do it, you slave. It means just asking do you think it's a worthwhile idea? The thread about usability and promoting has forked too much and my thoughts are somewhat related to both. I am crossposting to hear users feedback also, sorry for that. I keep seeing newcomers double-clicking the LilyPond icon on the desktop despite of our warnings about not to do that. LaTeX is also just a typesetting engine and people do not try to work with it by first clicking on a desktop icon, do they? I don't really know what's the Windows LaTeX experience like, but I can assume the user base of LaTeX is far greater than LilyPond's, and newcomers have always an experienced user in the nearby ready to help. That's the critical mass effect that Finale and Sibelius already have and we don't. Despite of having a README just in front of your eyes, IMO we should expect people will always try to open lilypond to work in a typical program window. Why don't we just give them what they want? That is: a program you open. All programs are opened and it doesn't matter how hard we try, most people want to open the program. We could make the lilypond icon to launch a shell applet to open ly projects and a button to compile. Of course, a console output window and a PDF pre-viewer are necessary. I see the drag-drop ritual in the tutorial too few standard, too weird and too much lilypond-specific. That scares newcomers. But wait: this has been done. Valentin Villenave dit it once. A bundle that installed a PDF viewer and a small button panel with all the most basic operatons. I don't remember if it included a message output. But wait again: Frescobaldi already does this. It is super-easy to install on windows and it has got all the necessary items: an editor, a pre-viewer and a message output panel. Of course it has many, many more features, but even so it is lightweight (unlike the now almost defunct jEdit/lilypondtool). Why don't we do a cut-down Frescobaldi-like shell for the absolute beginner? The File-Open... menu entry must include a sub-menu with a lot of ready_to_compile fancy or real-world examples. Yes, we already promote easier environments, but in my opinion the bare minimum we offer is too weak as to be useful for all except mid-high level nerdies. I always think all you do to lower the entry threshold is never enough and ours is currently a bit too high. It's not the language, it's the experience. And never forget Windows users are potentially way more numerous than command line users. -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: A thought on Windows Experience (was: useability, promoting, etc)
On 04/12/13 17:24, Francisco Vila wrote: Warning. I this message, Why don't we does not mean do it, you slave. It means just asking do you think it's a worthwhile idea? The thread about usability and promoting has forked too much and my thoughts are somewhat related to both. I am crossposting to hear users feedback also, sorry for that. I keep seeing newcomers double-clicking the LilyPond icon on the desktop despite of our warnings about not to do that. LaTeX is also just a typesetting engine and people do not try to work with it by first clicking on a desktop icon, do they? I don't really know what's the Windows LaTeX experience like, but I can assume the user base of LaTeX is far greater than LilyPond's, and newcomers have always an experienced user in the nearby ready to help. That's the critical mass effect that Finale and Sibelius already have and we don't. Despite of having a README just in front of your eyes, IMO we should expect people will always try to open lilypond to work in a typical program window. Why don't we just give them what they want? That is: a program you open. All programs are opened and it doesn't matter how hard we try, most people want to open the program. We could make the lilypond icon to launch a shell applet to open ly projects and a button to compile. Of course, a console output window and a PDF pre-viewer are necessary. I see the drag-drop ritual in the tutorial too few standard, too weird and too much lilypond-specific. That scares newcomers. But wait: this has been done. Valentin Villenave dit it once. A bundle that installed a PDF viewer and a small button panel with all the most basic operatons. I don't remember if it included a message output. But wait again: Frescobaldi already does this. It is super-easy to install on windows and it has got all the necessary items: an editor, a pre-viewer and a message output panel. Of course it has many, many more features, but even so it is lightweight (unlike the now almost defunct jEdit/lilypondtool). Why don't we do a cut-down Frescobaldi-like shell for the absolute beginner? The File-Open... menu entry must include a sub-menu with a lot of ready_to_compile fancy or real-world examples. Yes, we already promote easier environments, but in my opinion the bare minimum we offer is too weak as to be useful for all except mid-high level nerdies. I always think all you do to lower the entry threshold is never enough and ours is currently a bit too high. It's not the language, it's the experience. And never forget Windows users are potentially way more numerous than command line users. Like this : http://lilypond.org/macos-x.html Are you just asking for a 'Lilypad' but for Windows? James ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: A thought on Windows Experience (was: useability, promoting, etc)
- Original Message - From: Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com To: LilyPond-User list lilypond-user@gnu.org; LilyPond-Devel list lilypond-de...@gnu.org Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 5:24 PM Subject: A thought on Windows Experience (was: useability, promoting, etc) Warning. I this message, Why don't we does not mean do it, you slave. It means just asking do you think it's a worthwhile idea? The thread about usability and promoting has forked too much and my thoughts are somewhat related to both. I am crossposting to hear users feedback also, sorry for that. I keep seeing newcomers double-clicking the LilyPond icon on the desktop despite of our warnings about not to do that. LaTeX is also just a typesetting engine and people do not try to work with it by first clicking on a desktop icon, do they? I don't really know what's the Windows LaTeX experience like, but I can assume the user base of LaTeX is far greater than LilyPond's, and newcomers have always an experienced user in the nearby ready to help. That's the critical mass effect that Finale and Sibelius already have and we don't. Despite of having a README just in front of your eyes, IMO we should expect people will always try to open lilypond to work in a typical program window. Why don't we just give them what they want? That is: a program you open. All programs are opened and it doesn't matter how hard we try, most people want to open the program. We could make the lilypond icon to launch a shell applet to open ly projects and a button to compile. Of course, a console output window and a PDF pre-viewer are necessary. I see the drag-drop ritual in the tutorial too few standard, too weird and too much lilypond-specific. That scares newcomers. But wait: this has been done. Valentin Villenave dit it once. A bundle that installed a PDF viewer and a small button panel with all the most basic operatons. I don't remember if it included a message output. But wait again: Frescobaldi already does this. It is super-easy to install on windows and it has got all the necessary items: an editor, a pre-viewer and a message output panel. Of course it has many, many more features, but even so it is lightweight (unlike the now almost defunct jEdit/lilypondtool). Why don't we do a cut-down Frescobaldi-like shell for the absolute beginner? The File-Open... menu entry must include a sub-menu with a lot of ready_to_compile fancy or real-world examples. Yes, we already promote easier environments, but in my opinion the bare minimum we offer is too weak as to be useful for all except mid-high level nerdies. I always think all you do to lower the entry threshold is never enough and ours is currently a bit too high. It's not the language, it's the experience. And never forget Windows users are potentially way more numerous than command line users. For me, I'd say that we should not install Frescobaldi as a pre-requisite of running Lily on Windows. I'm a heavy Windows user, and would not want another program installed by default. I've not used it, but I do understand that many people feel it's excellent - so an option would be to promote it more heavily for Windows users? I am willing to look at improving the Windows experience, although this would need to wait until my degree finishes next Summer. However, there's one thing I don't know: what should happen when you double-click a .ly file in Explorer: open an editor or compile the file? And if the former, how should the file be compiled? -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: A thought on Windows Experience (was: useability, promoting, etc)
I am willing to look at improving the Windows experience, although this would need to wait until my degree finishes next Summer. However, there's one thing I don't know: what should happen when you double-click a .ly file in Explorer: open an editor or compile the file? And if the former, how should the file be compiled? -- Phil Holmes I think double-clicking should open an editor while there should be a right-click command to compile (maybe evon label it Create PDF). Urs ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: A thought on Windows Experience (was: useability, promoting, etc)
pkx166h wrote On 04/12/13 17:24, Francisco Vila wrote: Warning. I this message, Why don't we does not mean do it, you slave. It means just asking do you think it's a worthwhile idea? The thread about usability and promoting has forked too much and my thoughts are somewhat related to both. I am crossposting to hear users feedback also, sorry for that. I keep seeing newcomers double-clicking the LilyPond icon on the desktop despite of our warnings about not to do that. LaTeX is also just a typesetting engine and people do not try to work with it by first clicking on a desktop icon, do they? I don't really know what's the Windows LaTeX experience like, but I can assume the user base of LaTeX is far greater than LilyPond's, and newcomers have always an experienced user in the nearby ready to help. That's the critical mass effect that Finale and Sibelius already have and we don't. Despite of having a README just in front of your eyes, IMO we should expect people will always try to open lilypond to work in a typical program window. Why don't we just give them what they want? That is: a program you open. All programs are opened and it doesn't matter how hard we try, most people want to open the program. We could make the lilypond icon to launch a shell applet to open ly projects and a button to compile. Of course, a console output window and a PDF pre-viewer are necessary. I see the drag-drop ritual in the tutorial too few standard, too weird and too much lilypond-specific. That scares newcomers. But wait: this has been done. Valentin Villenave dit it once. A bundle that installed a PDF viewer and a small button panel with all the most basic operatons. I don't remember if it included a message output. But wait again: Frescobaldi already does this. It is super-easy to install on windows and it has got all the necessary items: an editor, a pre-viewer and a message output panel. Of course it has many, many more features, but even so it is lightweight (unlike the now almost defunct jEdit/lilypondtool). Why don't we do a cut-down Frescobaldi-like shell for the absolute beginner? The File-Open... menu entry must include a sub-menu with a lot of ready_to_compile fancy or real-world examples. Yes, we already promote easier environments, but in my opinion the bare minimum we offer is too weak as to be useful for all except mid-high level nerdies. I always think all you do to lower the entry threshold is never enough and ours is currently a bit too high. It's not the language, it's the experience. And never forget Windows users are potentially way more numerous than command line users. Like this : http://lilypond.org/macos-x.html Are you just asking for a 'Lilypad' but for Windows? James ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@ https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user I'm confused. There is a Lilypad for Windows. It comes standard w/ the LilyPond installation. ? - composer | sound designer LilyPond Tutorials (for beginners) -- http://bit.ly/bcl-lilypond -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/A-thought-on-Windows-Experience-was-useability-promoting-etc-tp155017p155028.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: A thought on Windows Experience (was: useability, promoting, etc)
From: Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 6:16 PM I am willing to look at improving the Windows experience, although this would need to wait until my degree finishes next Summer. However, there's one thing I don't know: what should happen when you double-click a .ly file in Explorer: open an editor or compile the file? And if the former, how should the file be compiled? -- Phil Holmes I think double-clicking should open an editor while there should be a right-click command to compile (maybe evon label it Create PDF). Urs +1 Phil ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: A thought on Windows Experience (was: useability, promoting, etc)
2013/12/4 SoundsFromSound soundsfromso...@gmail.com: I'm confused. There is a Lilypad for Windows. It comes standard w/ the LilyPond installation. ? Yes. But it opens IIRC when you right-click on a ly document, then choose Edit. This lilypad editor does have a menu entry to compile. So, it is a sort of shell/editor. I find this path tortuous. People double-click the lilypond icon, and don't see this shell as many of them could expect. Instead, ugly things happen. Therefore, lilypond is ugly. I think this summarizes the start and the end of a newcomer's experience. -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: A thought on Windows Experience (was: useability, promoting, etc)
2013/12/4 Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net: For me, I'd say that we should not install Frescobaldi as a pre-requisite of running Lily on Windows. I'm a heavy Windows user, and would not want another program installed by default. But you _already_ have another program installed by default: the lilypad editor. What I suggest is to replace this by a proper windows mini-shell with the essential buttons clearly visible. Open Document. Edit Document. Compile Document. All with Auto PDF view, a selectable external viewer in the Edit-Preferences menu. And (very important!) message output console. Not a paragraph in the docs explaining you have to find a log and read it. This is impossible to be popular. -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: A thought on Windows Experience (was: useability, promoting, etc)
On 05/12/13 05:02, Phil Holmes wrote: I am willing to look at improving the Windows experience, although this would need to wait until my degree finishes next Summer. However, there's one thing I don't know: what should happen when you double-click a .ly file in Explorer: open an editor or compile the file? And if the former, how should the file be compiled? Well, if it were a .c or .cpp file, I would expect it to open in an editor. On both my Linux and Windows machines, a double-click on an ly file opens it in Frescobaldi. Nick ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
