At 8:56 PM -0400 9/28/02, David W. Fenton wrote: > >But why should I have to do *anything* to get things attached to >nonvisible notes to be invisible? Isn't it more logical that the >default should be that invisible notes and objects attached to them >are, by default, invisible?
No, not to me and my colleagues, as the main reason we insert hidden items at all is to attach things to them that WILL show up. >The usability of a computer program is greatly affected by the choice >of defaults. Many users will never change the defaults, so it's best >to have logical defaults in the first place. In this case, the >default behavior seems to have been chosen for two reasons: > >1. to make it easy for people who use chord symbols (they need do >nothing extra). > >2. for backward compatibility with a feature that always worked >illogically in the past. It wasn't illogical for me, nor for most of the people I work with. Sorry, no dice here. >At some point the programmers made the decision that backward >compatibility was better than fixing it in a fundamental way, and >moved the *correct* default behavior to a user preference. Nah, you're blowing smoke now. Staff styles always worked the way they do now. What they COULD do, though, is provide another blank notation staff style that ALSO hides the attached items, so that people could choose between both types without having to edit the style. But you could do that yourself... I would also like a usable chord library that is consistent to the style I like. But I don't think Coda is going to provide that, either, so I'll just have to do it myself, too. _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
