[Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
From: d. collins My biggest fear is that MakeMusic might consider implementing them, at the expense of fixing long-broken features. my hope is that this fear is a non-issue, because MM is already dealing with issues such as EPS in PC and fixing the tuplet tool (again, but properly). of course such hopes require an ignorance of history... i'm proposing that the Text tool be overhauled in a _complete_ manner, so that they won't even have to touch it for years, and this is why i am really not interested in a partial solution, or in prioritizing specific issues in my proposal. if they attacked problems or insufficiencies with the kind of completeness i am proposing (with the help of comments received here on the list), we wouldn't have to fight amongst ourselves so often about what is a priority for fixing - and let's face it, that is the crux of most of the discussions here, not of new implementations for the programme, but of fixes that are needed (and usually long-overdue) to malfunctioning or insufficient behaviour of the programme. i have simply decided to no longer accept half-ass fixes from MM, and am therefore lobbying aggressively for what i see to be major priorities, and encourage others to do the same for their own concerns. otherwise, it's new background themes and pretty new buttons and colours for F2006, automated jingle-writing for F2007, and email or fax your score capability for F2008, and each upgrade at $100 USD a pop times n users... if something is broken, can it really be considered a feature? regards, jef -- shirling neueweise \/ new music notation specialists mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
On Feb 26, 2005, at 12:49 AM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: I've made changes to the toolbar mockup at http://maltedmedia.com/photos/toolbar.gif to reduce Playback and Duplicate buttons to icons, add Click and item number next to Attached to, add a justification droplist, and add a snap-to-grid checkbox. (For text boxes I would change the vertical/horizontal boxes to show their coordinates of text boxes.) In your tool bar mockup, where are the create and delete buttons for text expressions? These are such useful buttons in the present interface that I would hate to lose them. Also for the Page attachment, are we able to select page ranges, and discontiguous ranges at that? Once again, there is some excellent functionality in the present system. Or have I completely misunderstood again, and you are suggesting this toolbar IN ADDITION to the present dialogue box? Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
At 09:09 AM 2/26/05 -0500, you wrote: In your tool bar mockup, where are the create and delete buttons for text expressions? These are such useful buttons in the present interface that I would hate to lose them. Just forgotten as I tried to focus on how to 'commonize' the other elements. Also for the Page attachment, are we able to select page ranges, and discontiguous ranges at that? No reason why not. (I'm mostly going for concept, trying to see what might work.) Or have I completely misunderstood again, and you are suggesting this toolbar IN ADDITION to the present dialogue box? I would say 'in addition'. Doesn't most complex software that uses active toolbars also include dialogs, menus, keystrokes, and (as in the case of sequencers) text definitions to do the same thing in different ways? A toolbar could come with the complete set of existing attributes assigned to the common tasks -- i.e., the 'default document' setup would be replicated in the toolbar to start with. Much information in Finale is both hidden and specialized to the point of (my) frustration, particularly when doing the diversity of scores I get. It's not all about a toolbar. I think of the questions asked here and look for solutions as if I were a Finale designer. Time signatures are among the questions, which is why I suggest including them as one of the text objects as such an obvious (to me!) solution. For example, a question that comes up regularly (for which I made a Maestro-based font set) is the stretched time signature. My solution turns the time signature into ordinary text with the ability to assign it temporal attributes -- so it can be stretched anywhere, even placed anywhere, and made out of anything. It wouldn't damage the 'default' attributes assigned to 4/4 or 6/8, for example, but it would open up fractional (as opposed to decimal) time signatures, stacked signatures (one above the other for explanatory purposes, even in different sizes), parenthetical signatures, inverted signatures (and clefs, too, for those Baroque canonical pieces), note-based demoninators, alternative numerical denominators (4/3), textual signatures, symbols (such as the circle for triple and the broken circle [as opposed to the c] for duple), or symbolic references. Does it trump the time signature dialog box? Not at all, if you like it. But the resulting time signature becomes a text object with attributes, appears on the toolbar, and can be changed from 4/4 to something like 4/4 [nb: 12/12] in a few keystrokes. Or vice versa. If you've used 3/4 and the editor later says they want O for a historical look, drop the list, edit the text using whatever font has the symbol, and you're done -- no hiding signatures and spacing for them, building expressions and applying them, etc. When using Finale, I always ask myself, Why is this hard? What would I do to make it easy? Dennis ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
From: Christopher Smith My main worry with that sort of thing (and even with jef's basic idea to merge the tools) is that to get a type of expression that is different in function requires more mouse clicks. not necessarily, with the duplicate button, you actually reduce the number of mouse clicks, because the parameters (font and size, note and measure positioning, etc.) are copied. but the duplicated Text should appear directly below the Text it is a copy of, and the edit field should immediately be made available. As it stands now, the type and position of the mouse click determines the type of text expression (note- or measure-attached) while in the Text tool double-clicking and dragging automatically puts constraints on the size of the text box, which are things we need to set in both those cases. contextual assignment already exists for expressions, and to incorporate page-assignment shouldn't be difficult, for example, finale already recognizes different applications of the percentage tool depending on where you click. there will be user-definable default settings for the Text, including not only font and size, but also leading and all other text attributes (why this is not already the case escapes me...) and for the three manners of attaching it. contextual behaviour: - dblclick on note = note-attached; dblclick on measure = measure-attached; dblclick on page = page-attached. - option-dblclick on note/measure/page = brings up the Text List and automatically creates a new text (based on the default) with positioning assignment already selected according to the place the user clicked (note, measure, page); the user can immediately begin to type the new Text in the edit box. (dblclicking the handle of a Text already assigned in the score behaves same as current behaviour, edit box is immediately called up) - option-dblclick-drag = new Text with resizable frame (for note-, measure- and page-attached Texts! YAY!) which can be edited on page (as previously with text tool); once defined, dblclick the handle to edit on page, option-dblclick to edit in Text List. - option-shift-dblclick-drag = assigns existing Text with resizable frame, Text List is called up, user selects, hits enter, and is returned to the resizable Text box with the selected Text inserted. jef -- shirling neueweise \/ new music notation specialists mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
On Feb 26, 2005, at 11:46 AM, shirling neueweise wrote: there will be user-definable default settings for the Text, including not only font and size, but also leading and all other text attributes (why this is not already the case escapes me...) and for the three manners of attaching it. contextual behaviour: - dblclick on note = note-attached; dblclick on measure = measure-attached; dblclick on page = page-attached. - option-dblclick on note/measure/page = brings up the Text List and automatically creates a new text (based on the default) with positioning assignment already selected according to the place the user clicked (note, measure, page); the user can immediately begin to type the new Text in the edit box. (dblclicking the handle of a Text already assigned in the score behaves same as current behaviour, edit box is immediately called up) - option-dblclick-drag = new Text with resizable frame (for note-, measure- and page-attached Texts! YAY!) which can be edited on page (as previously with text tool); once defined, dblclick the handle to edit on page, option-dblclick to edit in Text List. - option-shift-dblclick-drag = assigns existing Text with resizable frame, Text List is called up, user selects, hits enter, and is returned to the resizable Text box with the selected Text inserted. jef That looks very good. I like the idea of being able to control parameters like that WITHOUT extra keystrokes, just changing where one clicks. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
From: Johannes Gebauer There is no reason why I would want my title text blocks appear in the expression list, it would only convolut it more. how about a set in-line (they appear in the Text List but are unassignable) default bookmarks which can be added to or modified by user? the defaults could be: dynamics; tempo and rehearsals; stylistic (espressivo etc.); symbols (fermata, Ped/*); numbers; etc. -- shirling neueweise \/ new music notation specialists mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
From: David W. Fenton What I *would* support is if the text expression dialog's text box at the top were instead replaced with the standard Finale text editor. Then you could put anything in the text expression that you could put into the text editor, and the user interface would be exactly the same in both places. at present you can edit the font attributes in (seemingly) the same manner - by calling up the character settings box - but other aspects of typographical control (eg. justification) are not controllable in the same manner. -- shirling neueweise \/ new music notation specialists mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
From: Dennis Bathory-Kitsz Multi-line expressions are a problem to create (unless that's been changed past 2K3). possible since 2004. There's no easy way to make any given object a stretchiness or smartness. proper typographical control - kerning - would allow for stretchiness, but not in any smart way. -- shirling neueweise \/ new music notation specialists mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
From: Noel Stoutenburg A running header, or a dedication in a text block have nothing to do with the way the music sounds, and I would submit that the line, is _not_ at all interchangeable with Allegro ma non troppo. dedications could be entered in a new file info entry box. -- shirling neueweise \/ new music notation specialists mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
From: Johannes Gebauer It still escapes me why this kind of thing cannot live happily in two different tools. Before the expression tool was improved I could see that there was some overlap between measure text blocks and measure text expressions, however, all these problems are now indeed covered in the expression tool in my opinion, and I see no need to merge the two tools. That is not to say that both tools could be vastly improved. the similarities in functioning are far greater than the differences, and as long as there are two separate tools the possibility that one will be serviced in a given version and not the other, as happened in F2004, exists. it's only a small detail, but is nonetheless indicative of the non-sense of separation of the tools: calling up the same line spacing dialogue box in the text tool is done with cmd-sh-L but in the expression tool with cmd-L (mac). ...it is unlikely that MM will actually make such a major interface change and at the same time merge tools (to which a lot of people have either objected or don't really follow the need for it), and secondly I sort of feel that merging the two tools is going to make things worse. In fact, I fear that by the end we will have a merged tool with the same design problems we have already, and none of the shortcomings of the text block tool fixed. most of the needed funtionality is there, but separated/overlapping two tools, it just needs consolidation. it's not the underlying structure of the programme that would be altered, but the interface, so i don't see how things could necessarily get worse. it is not the same situation as with the tuplet tool in F2005, where completely new functionality was incorporated. -- shirling neueweise \/ new music notation specialists mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
From: David W. Fenton ...each different kind has different properties that have different effects on the music. Text blocks have a whole set of properties that are page-based (and have no effect on performance), while text expressions are measure- or note-attached. text blocks are page- or measure-based, expressions are note- or measure-based. -- shirling neueweise \/ new music notation specialists mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
kurt, johannes (and others), From: Kurt Gnos I would NOT mingle the two tools since they have an entirely other functionality. However, I'd like some of the things you mention, but in the Text Tool where I might use them. actually they don't, both tools at present control different instances of very similar items: what difference is there between a multi-word text block and a multi-word text expression (in the current state of the tools)? there is no answer to this, each user makes this distinction for themselves, perhaps according to the notational style, but one thing is certain, for me at least, they are not two different tools, although they may be called upon to do different tasks in different situations: one tool allows us to assign to the note or measure, the other to the measure (in a different manner) and the page, this overlapping is redundant. alignment of two expressions assigned with different tools is a problem, as is assuring consistent appearance and behaviour of them following changes to the layout. with the recent improvements to the expression tool, the distinction is even less significant than it was before. -- shirling neueweise \/ new music notation specialists mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
At 10:48 AM 2/25/05 -0500, shirling neueweise wrote: From: Dennis Bathory-Kitsz At 11:58 AM 2/24/05 +0100, Johannes Gebauer wrote: It still escapes me why this kind of thing cannot live happily in two different tools. jef suggested two. ? one. Sorry. Meant two in one. That closer? :) D ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
I think you are counting fly legs now. Tell me, what is it you are missing in a measure attached context, which cannot be done in the expression tool? (I can actually think of one situation, but that, on the other hand, is so special it is much better done in the text tool.) Johannes shirling neueweise wrote: From: David W. Fenton ...each different kind has different properties that have different effects on the music. Text blocks have a whole set of properties that are page-based (and have no effect on performance), while text expressions are measure- or note-attached. text blocks are page- or measure-based, expressions are note- or measure-based. -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
Fine by me for the expression tool, but I still don't want my text blocks in there. Johannes shirling neueweise wrote: From: Johannes Gebauer There is no reason why I would want my title text blocks appear in the expression list, it would only convolut it more. how about a set in-line (they appear in the Text List but are unassignable) default bookmarks which can be added to or modified by user? the defaults could be: dynamics; tempo and rehearsals; stylistic (espressivo etc.); symbols (fermata, Ped/*); numbers; etc. -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
It's not that I want to have the last word, but I use the two tools for entirely different things. When you say alignment of two expressions assigned with different tools is a problem, I simply don't get why you have to use two tools in the first place. If it is an expression, why do you not use the expression tool? I actually want the functionality of measure text blocks improved, since at the moment there is only very limited use for them. I want to be able to assign a _measure_ attached text block to a position on the _page_. Pretty much the only thing I use measure attached text blocks for is that I change all my page text blocks to measure attached ones before I extract parts, only to change them back into page text blocks once the parts are extracted. The other two situations where i use measure attached text blocks are so special I won't even go about explaining them. So for me there is no overlap of the two tools. And after this whole discussion I have actually decided that I am totally against merging them. Johannes shirling neueweise wrote: actually they don't, both tools at present control different instances of very similar items: what difference is there between a multi-word text block and a multi-word text expression (in the current state of the tools)? there is no answer to this, each user makes this distinction for themselves, perhaps according to the notational style, but one thing is certain, for me at least, they are not two different tools, although they may be called upon to do different tasks in different situations: one tool allows us to assign to the note or measure, the other to the measure (in a different manner) and the page, this overlapping is redundant. alignment of two expressions assigned with different tools is a problem, as is assuring consistent appearance and behaviour of them following changes to the layout. with the recent improvements to the expression tool, the distinction is even less significant than it was before. -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
On Feb 25, 2005, at 10:47 AM, shirling neueweise wrote: kurt, johannes (and others), From: Kurt Gnos I would NOT mingle the two tools since they have an entirely other functionality. However, I'd like some of the things you mention, but in the Text Tool where I might use them. actually they don't, both tools at present control different instances of very similar items: what difference is there between a multi-word text block and a multi-word text expression (in the current state of the tools)? The difference for me is I don't necessarily want to see every text block in the dialogue box list, especially if they show up in the displayed font size. Why would I want to see my titles, copyright, composer, stage instructions, dialogue cues, etc., every time I want to add a mute marking? I don't usually need to duplicate those, though I agree the possibility should be there in the Text tool. The way things are divided now, as restrictive as it is, is actually an organisational advantage. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
On 25 Feb 2005 at 10:48, shirling neueweise wrote: the similarities in functioning are far greater than the differences, I disagree with this. The fact that both use blocks of texts is a trivial similarity. Everything *else* about the two is completely different, and *should* remain different. Mixing all text blocks and text expressions into a single dialog makes no sense to me at all for placing either expressions or text blocks into a score (I hardly ever re-use text blocks -- they entered once and that's that, whereas most text expressions get repeatedly re- used throughout a score). But for *editing* all text as a group (e.g., to set fonts for a group of expressions/text blocks), having them all in one dialog *does* sound attractive. So, the ideal world for me would be to have the all text blocks dialog added, which would allow selection of multiple text blocks and the application of properties to the selected group, but then to leave the text expression dialog as it is, with the exception of: and as long as there are two separate tools the possibility that one will be serviced in a given version and not the other, as happened in F2004, exists. it's only a small detail, but is nonetheless indicative of the non-sense of separation of the tools: calling up the same line spacing dialogue box in the text tool is done with cmd-sh-L but in the expression tool with cmd-L (mac). That's just a mistake. In a properly designed program, text editing wherever it's needed would use exactly the same UI in all contexts (with features inappropriate for a particular context either absent or disabled). I have no quibble with that idea. But that is subsidiary to the organization of UI for *using* the text blocks, which I don't see any reason major re-organization. Elimination of the distinction between expressions and articulations *is* something that would make sense to me, as long as the different capabilities that presently reside in different tools are all available in the new combined tool. Of course, it does raise a problem for me: in my repertory, f for forte is most often used as a dynamic marking (play loud from this point until the next dynamic mark) but also in the same piece can be used as a dynamic mark (this particular note should be accented), where the second type is more like a sforzando. This happens in early Beethoven and in other Viennese music of the period through about the 1820s. If I had a dynamic f and an articulation f both in the same dialog, there'd have to be some visual method of distinguishing them, or it would be a real pain to use. But I'm definitely against an combination of the text block tool with other tools if the separate tools for using were to be eliminated. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
On 25 Feb 2005 at 10:49, shirling neueweise wrote: From: David W. Fenton ...each different kind has different properties that have different effects on the music. Text blocks have a whole set of properties that are page-based (and have no effect on performance), while text expressions are measure- or note-attached. text blocks are page- or measure-based, expressions are note- or measure-based. Given the new capabilities of text expressions (multi-line, control of automatic placement), why would any one use a measure-attached text block, rather than a measure-attached expression? Measure-attached text blocks *do* overlap in behavior with text expressions, but in recent versions of Finale, text expressions have been enhanced to the point that I no longer see any use for measure- attached text blocks. Page-based text blocks have no analog in text expressions, and no non- trivial overlap in their characteristics (only the text editing interface should be shared between the two). -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
On Feb 25, 2005, at 12:40 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: Given the new capabilities of text expressions (multi-line, control of automatic placement), why would any one use a measure-attached text block, rather than a measure-attached expression? Justification. Can't do it in the new text expressions. Measure-attached text blocks *do* overlap in behavior with text expressions, but in recent versions of Finale, text expressions have been enhanced to the point that I no longer see any use for measure- attached text blocks. Almost true, but not quite. In addition to the justification issue, one rarely re-uses text blocks, whereas we often reuse text expressions, as some have pointed out. Having blocks of dialogue cues show up in the text expression list would be a huge pain, so it is logical (now) to enter them as measure-attached text blocks, for one example. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
From: Johannes Gebauer When you say alignment of two expressions assigned with different tools is a problem, I simply don't get why you have to use two tools in the first place. If it is an expression, why do you not use the expression tool? currently because i can't full-justify multi-line texts (expression tool). a simple example: i have in some scores aligned the bottom of the composer's name with the bottom of the tempo indication in m.1, which as you can imagine is a real PITA when you decide to even slightly alter the page layout. I actually want the functionality of measure text blocks improved, since at the moment there is only very limited use for them. I want to be able to assign a _measure_ attached text block to a position on the _page_. i agree totally, and from the start have suggested that the three possibilities - note-, measure- or page-attached - should be possible for EVERY Text element. Pretty much the only thing I use measure attached text blocks for is that I change all my page text blocks to measure attached ones before I extract parts, only to change them back into page text blocks once the parts are extracted. i don't really see the logic in this... but hey, what if you could attach them to measure 1 (for example), but define their positioning relative to the page!? The other two situations where i use measure attached text blocks are so special I won't even go about explaining them. please do explain them, an incomplete discussion leads to faulty conclusions. -- shirling neueweise \/ new music notation specialists mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
From: David W. Fenton So, the ideal world for me would be to have the all text blocks dialog added, which would allow selection of multiple text blocks and the application of properties to the selected group, but then to leave the text expression dialog as it is, with the exception of: such editing should also then be possible for a sequence of text expressions, so that instead of changing ALL instances of 12pt palatino to 12pt times (via change font command) the user can select a discrete list of Texts in the Text List to which this change is applied. sorry i've forgotten who mentioned it (noel?), but someone did wish for the possibility to edit a group of text blocks. If I had a dynamic f and an articulation f both in the same dialog, there'd have to be some visual method of distinguishing them, or it would be a real pain to use. there is a comment field containing info unique to the Text now, so you could write art. beside one, and dyn. beside the other, or above for the espressivo appearing above the staff, and below for the one between the piano staves (attached to the RH). the placement is a problem, since it appears to the right of the Text in the Text List, longer expressions cover the info, a (visual) design flaw, but the possibility is already there (F2005, maybe it was already in 2004?). But I'm definitely against an combination of the text block tool with other tools if the separate tools for using were to be eliminated. i'm not proposing that any of the current functionality be removed. -- shirling neueweise \/ new music notation specialists mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
for the problem of management of a large number of Texts (page blocks, expressions, dynamics etc.), the bookmarks i mentioned could be helpful (click on dynamics and you are taken immediately to the marker dynamics in the list - key commands could be implemented), but perhaps something more along the lines of tabs, like in the current expression designer dialogue box, might be useful. with such tabs, each user could manage their Text Lists according to their own personal understanding of the function of the Text items. for me, the distinction between text and expressions is dubious and varies according the era and style of the composition i am scoring, and in some cases, according to the composer, or even the individual score. for extensive (multi-line) Texts, only the first line would appear in the Text List (as with current functioning), but clicking on it would show it in detail to the right of the List (appearance would be similar to the dialogue box that appears when clicking on Edit now). taking the above comments into consideration, can anyone give me an example of how their work would be _hindered_ or otherwise adversely affected if the (current) text tool and expression tool were combined into one tool (with an efficient interface of course)? ...preferably the response would reflect experience with, or at least an understanding of, the improvements to the expression tool in 2004/2005... jef -- shirling neueweise \/ new music notation specialists mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
On 25 Feb 2005 at 14:08, shirling neueweise wrote: From: David W. Fenton So, the ideal world for me would be to have the all text blocks dialog added, which would allow selection of multiple text blocks and the application of properties to the selected group, but then to leave the text expression dialog as it is, with the exception of: such editing should also then be possible for a sequence of text expressions, so that instead of changing ALL instances of 12pt palatino to 12pt times (via change font command) the user can select a discrete list of Texts in the Text List to which this change is applied. . . . When I said allow selection of multiple text blocks I meant by mouse, which takes care of what you asked for. Standard listbox behavior on Windows is SHIFT-CLICK highlights contiguous lists, CTRL- CLICK highlights an individual item, non-contiguous or not. So that would take care of what you've asked for (which was my intent in wording it in that fashion). . . . sorry i've forgotten who mentioned it (noel?), but someone did wish for the possibility to edit a group of text blocks. That's precisely what I described, and, I believe, the only possible benefit from having a dialog that shows all instances of all text in a file. If I had a dynamic f and an articulation f both in the same dialog, there'd have to be some visual method of distinguishing them, or it would be a real pain to use. there is a comment field containing info unique to the Text now, so you could write art. beside one, and dyn. beside the other, or above for the espressivo appearing above the staff, and below for the one between the piano staves (attached to the RH). the placement is a problem, since it appears to the right of the Text in the Text List, longer expressions cover the info, a (visual) design flaw, but the possibility is already there (F2005, maybe it was already in 2004?). To me, it would be much better for items marked to behave like expressions to be one color and items acting as articulations to be another color (as I now have expressions and articulations displaying in the score). That's a lot more visual than text, and also requires no work on my part. If it's a property of the item (i.e., expression-like performance effect vs. articulation-like performance effect), I shouldn't need to manually add text to be able to distinguish them. But I'm definitely against an combination of the text block tool with other tools if the separate tools for using were to be eliminated. i'm not proposing that any of the current functionality be removed. That wasn't clear to me from any of the discussion, which all seemed to revolve around the idea of completely collapsing multiple functions into a single one. I understand why note and score expressions are no longer separate tools, but I still get tripped up by it all the time, and have to redo things. That is, I'm not entirely happy with the elimination of the score expressions tool. But I suspect I'm in a very small minority on that score. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
On 25 Feb 2005 at 14:18, Christopher Smith wrote: On Feb 25, 2005, at 12:40 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: Given the new capabilities of text expressions (multi-line, control of automatic placement), why would any one use a measure-attached text block, rather than a measure-attached expression? Justification. Can't do it in the new text expressions. Then the solution is to ask for adding justification to text expressions, rather than the Draconian solution of folding the two functionalities into one. Measure-attached text blocks *do* overlap in behavior with text expressions, but in recent versions of Finale, text expressions have been enhanced to the point that I no longer see any use for measure- attached text blocks. Almost true, but not quite. In addition to the justification issue, one rarely re-uses text blocks, whereas we often reuse text expressions, as some have pointed out. Having blocks of dialogue cues show up in the text expression list would be a huge pain, so it is logical (now) to enter them as measure-attached text blocks, for one example. That's a strong argument *against* combining the tools, seems to me. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
On 25 Feb 2005 at 14:22, shirling neueweise wrote: taking the above comments into consideration, can anyone give me an example of how their work would be _hindered_ or otherwise adversely affected if the (current) text tool and expression tool were combined into one tool (with an efficient interface of course)? ...preferably the response would reflect experience with, or at least an understanding of, the improvements to the expression tool in 2004/2005... The key to your point is the phrase with an efficient interface of course. Most of the problems I see that people are pointing out about the differences between text handling in text blocks and in text expressions seem to me to be incomplete implementations of UI and capability in the text editing capabilities of expressions. Combining the two functions into a single tool requires you to describe a property that the end user then has to set to indicate which list the item belongs in. Now, if you're talking about functionality added on top of the existing two user interfaces, I've not got a problem, as you would automatically get the appropriate properties set if you created your text from one tool or the other. But if you had only a single tool for both types, then you'd have to set the type on every item, and that would be a major annoyance to me, as I hardly use any text blocks, ever. Other than the title page and the page headers and footers, it is the very rare score that I have even one additional text block (either page- or measure- attached). So, what you're asking for would get in my way in a big way, while not adding any functionality that I'd ever use. To me, the only justification for combining tools is if there is already overlap between them. In the case of note and measure expressions, the pool of expressions was identical between them and the different tools served only to distinguish how they were placed in the score. That was a case of massive overlap that was removed by combining the tools. Of course, as I said in an earlier message, I still find it rather annoying to *not* have the two tools, though I suspect I'm in a minority on that, precisely because I hardly ever use measure expressions (tempo markings are practically the only time). In regard to text expressions and text blocks, there is (in my experience) absolutely no overlap of a single piece of text between the two functions, so there's really no advantage of combining the tools. But, again, I'll repeat: I *do* see utility in having a new tool that allows management of your pool of text fragments, for the purpose of allowing you to apply formatting and layout to groups of them. Again, I'm not sure there'd be overlap here, as I hardly ever use the same fonts/layouts for expressions as I use for text blocks, but as I said, my use of text blocks is extremely narrow. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: I can't help you with the first, but to select and move more than one text block at a time, shift-click their handles, or drag around the handles to select several at once. You can then drag or nudge them at will, and restore default positioning by hitting the back arrow above the Enter key (Clear for Mac). Thanks. I've already found that useful. If you don't mind creating the text block in the expression tool instead of the Text Tool, you can reuse them as much as you like (including entering them with a Metatool), but measure or note attached only, not page attached, as I assume you need. Yes, the expression tool is fine in most contexts, but it's for page attached text that I would like easier copying, retaining layout. For example, having the same two-line, centre-justified title on the title page and above the first page of notation, as a centred header, but in a different font size, requires that I copy the text into a block that is left justified and positioned relative to the left margin, and then set both justification and frame attributes a second time. An alternative, which might be less work in some situations, would be display the same block on both pages, change the magnification of the title page with the resize tool and change its margins to position the text. -- Ken Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web site: http://www.mooremusic.org.uk/ I reject emails 100k automatically: warn me beforehand if you want to send one ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
shirling neueweise wrote: From: Johannes Gebauer When you say alignment of two expressions assigned with different tools is a problem, I simply don't get why you have to use two tools in the first place. If it is an expression, why do you not use the expression tool? currently because i can't full-justify multi-line texts (expression tool). a simple example: i have in some scores aligned the bottom of the composer's name with the bottom of the tempo indication in m.1, which as you can imagine is a real PITA when you decide to even slightly alter the page layout. OK, I wouldn't ever do that (and none of the publishers who I take as my ideals do that either) but that doesn't mean noone else does. you can actually do this by using an expression for the composer, but I realize that this has other disadvantages. It is a very special need though, and one which imo doesn't justify the merge of the tools. In fact, it could easily be done if the text block tool was improved with more placement options for measure attached text blocks. I actually want the functionality of measure text blocks improved, since at the moment there is only very limited use for them. I want to be able to assign a _measure_ attached text block to a position on the _page_. i agree totally, and from the start have suggested that the three possibilities - note-, measure- or page-attached - should be possible for EVERY Text element. Well, that's a need I simply cannot see. Pretty much the only thing I use measure attached text blocks for is that I change all my page text blocks to measure attached ones before I extract parts, only to change them back into page text blocks once the parts are extracted. i don't really see the logic in this... The logic is that if I don't do this, text blocks on pages higher than the page count of the part will disappear, and most of the text blocks will be in the wrong place on the wrong page. There is two ways around this, either attach all text blocks to the first page, or attach them to the first measure of a relevant movement (with a copy in every part). but hey, what if you could attach them to measure 1 (for example), but define their positioning relative to the page!? Exactly. But I would still do that in the text block tool, and not in the expression tool. The other two situations where i use measure attached text blocks are so special I won't even go about explaining them. please do explain them, an incomplete discussion leads to faulty conclusions. Well, one situation is when you need fully justified text for a multi-line expression. This can be done with a measure attached text block, but has the disadvantage of being attached to one part only. I have had the need once, and didn't need to attach to more than one part, so I used a text block. Johannes -- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
At 05:04 PM 2/25/05 +0100, Johannes Gebauer wrote: I actually want the functionality of measure text blocks improved, since at the moment there is only very limited use for them. I want to be able to assign a _measure_ attached text block to a position on the _page_. I know you pretty much dismissed what I was suggesting, but if you look at the image I created, you'll see that your requested functionality is there. In fact, by changing the droplist entry, you could change it from measure to page, or page to measure, and create a relative (to parent) or absolute (to page) position. (Or duplicate it and change the parameters of the new item.) (You also were worried about merging items creating long lists. No need to do that with the label-based approach, either.) Here's that image again: http://maltedmedia.com/photos/toolbar.gif Dennis PS: Anyone think this approach is worth discussing more? Even if Finale doesn't implement anything like it? ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
On Feb 25, 2005, at 8:43 PM, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: At 05:04 PM 2/25/05 +0100, Johannes Gebauer wrote: I actually want the functionality of measure text blocks improved, since at the moment there is only very limited use for them. I want to be able to assign a _measure_ attached text block to a position on the _page_. I know you pretty much dismissed what I was suggesting, but if you look at the image I created, you'll see that your requested functionality is there. In fact, by changing the droplist entry, you could change it from measure to page, or page to measure, and create a relative (to parent) or absolute (to page) position. (Or duplicate it and change the parameters of the new item.) (You also were worried about merging items creating long lists. No need to do that with the label-based approach, either.) Here's that image again: http://maltedmedia.com/photos/toolbar.gif Dennis PS: Anyone think this approach is worth discussing more? Even if Finale doesn't implement anything like it? My main worry with that sort of thing (and even with jef's basic idea to merge the tools) is that to get a type of expression that is different in function requires more mouse clicks. As it stands now, the type and position of the mouse click determines the type of text expression (note- or measure-attached) while in the Text tool double-clicking and dragging automatically puts constraints on the size of the text box, which are things we need to set in both those cases. I have a similar kind of issue with TG Tools Smart Part extraction. Although it is amazingly powerful, flexible, intelligent and I know it pretty well now, sometimes it is quicker and less fussy to use Finale's built-in explosion tool. Although I appreciate the need for power and flexibility, I wouldn't want it at the expense of easy (meaning fewer keystrokes) implementation of the things I do much more often. Can you see a way to do that? Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write: I am not against this, but I fail to see how I would benefit? There is no reason why I would want my title text blocks appear in the expression list, it would only convolut it more. OK, I know that you have ideas on how to get more organization into these lists. I have been thinking about this several times now, and I still don't see why I would want text blocks and expressions be merged into one tool. In what way would I then get faster results? In what way does this increase our flexibility? I would like to be able to reuse text blocks on more than one page in different places (IIRC WinFin3.5 would do this). In WinFin 2004, the best I can do is copy their contents. Also, in this version it is not possible (or maybe I have just not discovered how) to select multiple text block handles and move them all together, as it is with expressions and some other objects. -- Ken Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web site: http://www.mooremusic.org.uk/ I reject emails 100k automatically: warn me beforehand if you want to send one ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
On Feb 24, 2005, at 1:49 PM, Ken Moore wrote: I would like to be able to reuse text blocks on more than one page in different places (IIRC WinFin3.5 would do this). In WinFin 2004, the best I can do is copy their contents. Also, in this version it is not possible (or maybe I have just not discovered how) to select multiple text block handles and move them all together, as it is with expressions and some other objects. I can't help you with the first, but to select and move more than one text block at a time, shift-click their handles, or drag around the handles to select several at once. You can then drag or nudge them at will, and restore default positioning by hitting the back arrow above the Enter key (Clear for Mac). If you don't mind creating the text block in the expression tool instead of the Text Tool, you can reuse them as much as you like (including entering them with a Metatool), but measure or note attached only, not page attached, as I assume you need. Christopher ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
daniel, dennis, certainly you are free to submit a request of your own. i don't expect everyone to agree entirely with me, but if we waited for us all to agree, nothing would ever get submitted to the developers, let alone fixed. i'm also not of the opinion that any recent upgrade has been sufficient, though i willingly admit that some were important. despite two updates, one of which was supposed to have fixed wonky behaviour in the tuplet tool, the otherwise impressive improvements to that tool will probably still be functioning in a half-ass, faulty manner when 2006 comes out... and the programme will probably still be sluggish... and there will probably still not be EPS in PC... and... and... and... and most of us will fork out the dough anyways... and we will probably have a slew of new background themes to choose from (oh YAY!)... heaving sigh dennis, it seems to me that people mention broken EPS quite often... regards, jef From: Daniel Wolf It's a nice list, but I think that getting compact and reliable PS, EPS, and PDF output would be sufficient for one year's upgrade. From: d. collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] I can only agree. I'm not in favor of requesting any new bells and whistles as long as such important features are broken (EPS export AND import, which no one mentions). -- shirling neueweise \/ new music notation specialists mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
From: Christopher Smith GENERAL * Once assigned, default positioning of the individual Text can be altered or overridden Did you have an idea about how the interface would work in this case? perhaps control-click the Text and select the type of attachment in the contextual menu? if changed from its initial assignment, finale waits for you (flashing construction orange mouse cursor?) to click on the item to which you want the Text to be attached to (note, measure or page). or drag-drop like dennis BK mentioned... the note is highlighted, the measure outlined, a ghost image of a page icon appears around the dragged item... Otherwise it looks very clean and presentable (with capitals and everything! We're so proud!) yeah whatever... 8^) -- shirling neueweise \/ new music notation specialists mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
[Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
From: Dennis Bathory-Kitsz Characters are characters, individually or combined. Folding together the text, expression, articulation, chord, lyric, clef, and time signature tools into a multifunction toolbar with a consistent interface seems ideal to me. yes but text is not articulation, just as a chord is not a clef. i see your point, but the only reason they can be considered to be of the same category, character, is because we define them both via fonts. they are grouped in tools according to *function*, and although a time signature uses numbers and tuplets use numbers, i don't see them at all as being related (at least not notationally [for most composers]... compositionally, however, we could discuss this point for decades and might actually agree in the end...8^). Like other applications do, a droplist on a toolbar would identify the current method of assignment (say, as an expression), its active (and available) parameters, and its positioning (with, say, a relative/absolute checkbox). I would love to see, on clicking an object, to what other object it was assigned (even though I prefer rubber bands, another discussion), its playback functions, etc. -- just as I would do when clicking on a vector object in a graphics program. A drag-drop icon could allow the present selected item to be dragged and attached to whatever it was dropped on. there are a couple of issues here. having more floating palettes on the screen is more of a problem (it seems to me) in notational graphics than it is with other graphics programmes. however, every year, the average size of users' monitors is increasing in size and quality; if the palette was designed efficiently - for side or bottom positioning on the monitor screen - this might be an interesting idea to pursue. i support the idea, but plan to concentrate my request to CODA on the functionality of the Text Tool. A duplicate button similar to the present one could live right there on the toobar. Then by changing the droplist for the duplicate I could, say, change a copied chord symbol into an expression, take some of lyrics and re-assign them as a title, make 4.6/3.3 or M/IV or HX or 4/4(=12/12) or Yay! into time signatures, give a clef change a bundle of Midi parameters, and so forth. there was reason for this sort of cross-tool use (assigning dynamics as articulations etc.) but with the improvements to the text tool (typographical control) this might be needed on extremely rare occasions. if the interface is improved, it might not be such a large series of tasks to do such things. perhaps simply by adding create new Text in a contextual menu might suffice. then immediately pasting the contents of the clipboard (copied from a title, or from the lyrics) fills in the text box. you still have to define the positioning... but then if there were user-defined default positioning of new Texts... i'll add that. A list could be opened from the toolbar with the existing expressions to drag-drop into place, or it could pop up by clicking a spot on the score as it does now. The opening contents of longer texts would be shown... an interesting idea, i began to think that to have more efficient use of large lists, perhaps some Texts could be defined to appear at the top of the list, as user-defined favourites (how would they be ordered though?), but then realised that this is exactly what the metatools are for, and they are much quicker than any pop-up list. on that note, i will add the ability to define metatools in the Text Designer. -- shirling neueweise \/ new music notation specialists mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] :.../ http://newmusicnotation.com ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Re: new and improved text tool
Responding to part of what I wrote Personally, I just don't see enough benefit to such a merger to justify this proposed combination. Jef rejoined there is overlapping (and inconsistent) functionality, and important weaknesses in both tools. combining the tool would certainly not hinder your work. I don't have much problem with combining tools; to some extent, this is already the circumstance in the Text tool and Lyric tool, as the Edit Lyrics and Edit text block use the same editor. True, the text expression editor uses a different lyric tool, but my sense is that the different functionality inherent in the expression and articulation tools, which have possible playback considerations which the lyrics tool and and the text tool do not need, together with the typically smaller size of expressions, when compared to lyrics and text blocks, makes programming these with a separate tool more expedient. It seems to me, though, that you seem to be proposing the merging of the underlying data structures, too. In the Finale file, expressions, and text blocks are in separate parts of the file. If, indeed, you mean to suggest combining the underlying data structures, this is where I do not see the benefit. As far as my comment, 3) the inability to address the text attributes sequentially, by stepping through the list; and and your request that I elaborate: Select the Text tool menu, and the edit text option. In the version of the edit text dialog box that opens, in the lower right hand corner, just above the help button (WinFin 2k5b) is the legend ID 1, just to the right of which is an up and a down arrow. By using these arrows, one can edit the any text block one chooses, though regardless of whether one wishes to edit block 5, or block 99, one has to always start from text block 1. I would like it if this could be changed so that one could go directly to a specific block, as one can go to a specific measure number in scroll view, or a specific page in page view. The ability to select a specific text block to edit, without starting up and going down the list starting with block 1, is what I meant by item 4 in my list. As to the types of changes I might with to make to text blocks 250 through 259, an example would be if I had thought a word was spelled a specific way, and discovered as I was doing block 260, that it was done another way, and needed to go back and change the spelling of the word in those blocks. As far as changing fonts, imagine that for good reason, I want to change the fonts in just those ten blocks, for example, because I intended to enter them as bold, and entered them as italic by mistake, and that there exist other blocks that are in italic, that I want them to stay in italic. ns ___ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
