Although I am with you, the problem with the grace note spacing was not that the design was broken either. It was simply bad design, but design nonetheless. It took me a while to understand how grace note spacing worked, but in the end I had to admit that really it was working as designed, and the design itself sort-of made sense, too. It was still useless and impractical.

I don't really believe it is much better now (as it still doesn't solve the really major problem I have with grace note spacing) but again, it is working as designed, and the design all makes sense. It's just that it still is impractical and only about 10% more useful than before. Which makes it 10% useful I guess.

Johannes

dhbailey wrote:
In my opinion it doesn't matter if the design is broken or the implementation is broken, broken is broken. If something doesn't work as it should, so that the end users are not able to use it properly, the end result is the same -- the feature doesn't work.

On the other hand, it doesn't matter what we end-users call it (feature that doesn't work properly or a bug), if the software company won't acknowledge that it's broken they don't feel they have a moral obligation to fix it.

Denial that there is a problem is always easier than solving the problem.


-- http://www.musikmanufaktur.com http://www.camerata-berolinensis.de

_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Reply via email to