Scott explains well how the new staff lists give us advantages, but
not how a piece with many staff lists would create more work for a
publisher. I cannot see why this should be so.
I am happy with the new behaviour for my own work, since I have
always entered dynamics and the like as separate note-attached
expressions. I have never needed more than 3 staff lists.
I am particularly happy to be able to add items with staff lists
using metatools: this wasn't possible before.
Having said that for myself, I don't see why those of us who are used
to working with many more staff lists should be penalised. And the
staff lists are still all there in the document: you'll find them in
the repeat tool, but you can no longer use them for expressions.
We are allowed to create as many expression categories as we like (as
a test, I created more than 40). Most users probably won't create
any more than the ones that are already there, but the possibility is
there for anybody who might need it. Why not keep the same
possibility for staff lists?
Michael
On 31 juil. 08, at 18:39, Tyler Turner wrote:
--- On Wed, 7/30/08, dhbailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I don't understand how the number of staff lists a
person
uses would in any way be an inconvenience to a publisher.
How would it create more work for a publisher?
Scott summarized the issues here: http://forum.makemusic.com/
default.aspx?f=6&m=230216&p=2
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
