On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Tyler Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Having 50 different expression categories for dynamics so that they could > each have a different > staff list would slow those publishers down.
When, oh when will you stop waving this red flag in front of the bull? By what right does MM assume that its users are idiots or can't decide for themselves when to use a staff list? And let us be clear. My reaction is thus because the *only* justification for the 4-limit that I've heard from you or any other person connected with MM boils down to, "We limited the number of SLs because users are too stupid to use more than that number appropriately." Paraphrasing from a post I saw on the Finale Forum, what's next? Will you limit the number of beams to 4 because more than that is deemed inappropriate? Or will you limit transpositions to only those which MM and its "advisers" understand? Or will you limit the number and positioning of staff lines to those you think are appropriate? Where does it end? BTW: It is to laugh, Tyler's claim that there are posters on the Finale Forums that argue the 4-limit is a good thing. There are a (seemingly very) few who are willing to live with the limit. Not a single user that I've seen views it as an improvement. (By contrast, many users including me champion the new Expression tool in general. I'm speaking specifically of the 4-SL limit/requirement.) _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
