On 9/26/02 8:22 PM or thereabouts, David W. Fenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> intoned:
> Because making it an option does not address the underlying usability > issue. You claim you like the feature because it allows navigation to > unique measure numbers without specifying the region. I think that's > a good thing, too. But it is completely orthagonal to the original > issue, the *display* of the measure number. Surely the most common use of multiple measure number regions, by far, is having a region that starts in measure 2 when measure 1 is a pickup? This is the only instance in which I regularly need multiple measure number regions. Apart from the pickup measure (1:1) vs the first full measure (2:1), there is no further ambiguity in the piece w/r/t measure numbers, and so I emphatically do *not* want to see a "2:" displayed in the current measure box, in front of every measure in the piece. It's cluttered and redundant and more difficult to read at a glance and confusing to newbies. I have no objection to adding a "Always display measure number region" checkbox, but I most strenuously object to "fixing" the current behavior by exorcising it from the program. - Darcy ------ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Boston, MA _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
