David W. Fenton wrote:
I had no real difficulties with note entry. It was the application of
articulations/expressions that I found difficult, because of the
palette-based approach, which I dislike intensely as a user
interface. It's the kind of thing that is easy to figure out, but not
easy to use in the long run.
It seems I chose the wrong example to illustrate the problem but you have
illustrated it perfectly. I like Sibelius' approach to articulations because
I know it. For me, the key to the "palette-based" approach is to use the ten
key pad rather than the mouse. It's fast and, I think, very straight
forward.
You may not agree. That's not a strength or weakness of either program, just
a difference between you and I and our knowledge of each. The problem is
when a Finale user tries to make Sibelius act like Finale and it is clumsy
or doesn't work. That's not Sibelius' fault.
"Easy to learn" and "easy to use" are often mutually contradictory
goals in user interface design, and for music entry,
Agreed.
Sibelius was biased so much towards "easy to learn" that it made
using it once you'd learn painful and slow...
I understand all of that, but the problem is the claim that the
Sibelius UI is intuitive. It isn't -- it's got just as many "secrets"
as Finale.
They're both slow to learn in the depth needed for quality work. Sibelius
will produce passable work sooner than Finale, but really good work takes an
intimate knowledge of the program. Sibelius and Finale have a differently
shaped learning curve but it's probably about the length.
And my main objection was that I could never figure out, once the
music was entered, how to (in Finale terms):
1. change the page percentage OR
2. change the system percentage
The music was TOO BIG. I wanted it smaller. I couldn't figure out a
way to do that. And the result was something I'd never show anyone
else, because it looked like a kindergarten exercise.
Were you trying that in version 1. As I recall, it was harder in that
version. Since version 2, the document layout menu has allowed you to adjust
the size of the music by inches, mm, or picas. While there is no direct
percentage, the effect is the same. This is a classic case of it doesn't
work like Finale but it produces the same result with the same effort.
At first I really wanted Sibelius to do page layout like Finale. I thought I
had more control with Finale. I even contacted Sibelius and told them I
thought they should consider using Finale's page layout methods. It took me
some time understand how Sibelius' page layout worked but now I like it
better. It's far less tedious than Finale's but you've got to know how the
program works. As with all software (even very "active" software like
Sibelius) you can't let the software think for you; which, I think, is your
point about easy to learn is not the same as easy to use.
I don't necessarily think Sibelius is better, just better for me most of the
time. Finale working methods don't work well with Sibelius. Sibelius methods
don't work with Finale.
Here's where I will probably say the wrong thing on a Finale list. The
competition has been great for both programs. However, I think Finale has
benefited more than Sibelius. I think the long discussion of dynamic parts
here is an indicator of that. I remember pre-Sibelius Finale. It's MUCH
better now.
Richard Smith
www.rgsmithmusic.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
