Tyler Turner wrote:
--- On Fri, 8/1/08, dhbailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I appreciate that link -- however I still see no reason
that
a publisher has been crippled by the different numbers of
staff lists submission may have.
Scott addressed this. In essence, having the more solid convention for when and
where staff lists are used makes it more likely that publishers will be able to
predict where staff lists are in place and makes it more likely they will be
able to apply global or individual changes that do what they want without
subtle gotchas.
Having 50 different expression categories for dynamics so that they could each
have a different staff list would slow those publishers down. Having any staff
list at all for dynamics would make them unpredictable when positioning or
deleting, and would thus also slow them down.
But why is this issue being raised now, when these same
major publishers have been using Finale for many years? Why
wasn't the staff-list limit lowered to 4 many years ago?
That's the part that baffles me -- did these publishers
simply wake up and say "Oh, my goodness, you know we've been
crippled by all these staff lists for all these years and
didn't even know it?"
And 50 different expression categories may slow the
publishers down -- how about 75? Won't those do just what
the former number of staff lists have done?
It just seems like an issue which has suddenly exploded with
no prior warning so that anybody could do anything about it
or rethink their workflow, knowing in advance that a limit
was going to come.
Just another "we don't have to tell you what we're doing
until we've done it and you just have to live with it"
arrogance from another software company. How hard would it
have been for MM to have indicated a year ago (or 2 or 10 or
whenever the complaints about numerous staff lists started
pouring in from publishers) that there would be a severe
restriction on the number of staff lists, and actually tell
us why (I still have seen no compelling reason why suddenly
publishers are crippled by more than 4 staff lists, when
they've lived with them for all these years) and when the
limit would be imposed so that people could have been
altering their workflow at their own pace, rather than being
hit over the head with it when the annual "we need the
money" upgrade was announced?
For people working independently, it's a non-issue because
they can just keep using an earlier version, but for people
who are forced onto Fin2009, it'll cripple the users instead
of the publishers. Who benefits?
--
David H. Bailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
