I have a particular view on the interface, I'm wondering how much empathy there
is out there for the same ideas. I'll just say what I think, feel free to
disagree.
Professional applications don't need multiple choices of icons types, or
different desktop choices. One simple, well designed set o
Simon Troup wrote:
I have a particular view on the interface, I'm wondering how much empathy there
is out there for the same ideas. I'll just say what I think, feel free to
disagree.
Professional applications don't need multiple choices of icons types, or
different desktop choices. One simple, w
> paletteses
Ah yes, another wonderful search/replace fiasco :)
--
Simon Troup
Digital Music Art
-
Finale IRC channel
server: irc.chatspike.net
port: 6667
channel: #Finale
-
___
Finale mailing list
Final
Simon Troup wrote:
paletteses
Ah yes, another wonderful search/replace fiasco :)
And, apparently, Gollum's dialogue coach. :)
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
At 3:33 + 2/03/2005, Simon Troup wrote:
Professional applications don't need multiple choices of icons
types, or different desktop choices. One simple, well designed set
of icons would suffice. The whole rosewood desktop and vellum paper
idea borrowed from sibelius is totally unnecessary and
On 2 Mar 2005, at 14:24, Michael Cook wrote:
How right you are. Here Finale gives me the possibility of customizing
something I don't need to customize (I still use the "traditional"
icons because they're the only ones that remind me which layer I'm in
by showing the whole Simple palette in the
Simon Troup / 05.3.2 / 10:33 PM wrote:
>I don't know how many of you have used Indesign - I've been using it a
>lot recently and every time I go back to Finale the whole interface feels
>... well ... 1980's!
I don't usually do 'me to' but this one is very true.
One thing Finale really bothers me
I generally agree with what Simon said.
I wish Finale would take the palette icons from the "Globe" set (is
that Mac only?), which are by far the best-designed palette icons
currently available, and make the following changes:
1) Make them all grayscale -- with an option to override that with th
On 2 Mar 2005 at 13:42, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
> One thing Finale really bothers me is how window is open. It gets
> behind tool bar. Page new is not centered, etc, etc. Why do I have
> to resize window every time I open, is the one frustrates me most.
>
> At least you should be able to control
Most programs nowadays let you download skins and stuff as an option if you
don't like the default visual items. Yet some of them can be easily made by
anyone who knows how (they're usually png images). Maybe people at Finale
can make things like icons, wallpapers or even cursors optionally
customi
On 2 Mar 2005 at 14:37, Rafael L. Junchaya wrote:
> Most programs nowadays . . .
"Most"? *boggle*
I have three programs on my computer that have skins (Mozilla,
Firefox (which is really one program in a certain sense, but their
skins are not cross-compatible because of completely different UI
> Maybe people at Finale can make things like icons, wallpapers or even
> cursors optionally customizable thru internet downloads.
This is the sort of thing I'd want to avoid. This isn't a lightweight instant
messaging application, or an MP3 player - it's supposed to be the finest music
engravin
Maybe I am on my own here, but quite honestly I couldn't care less about
the look of the Finale palettes. I still use the Traditional set, simply
because it is the smallest. I hope MM is going to repair all the other
bugs before they start yet again to change the look of palettes and
spend all
On 2 Mar 2005 at 21:24, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
> Maybe I am on my own here, but quite honestly I couldn't care less
> about the look of the Finale palettes. I still use the Traditional
> set, simply because it is the smallest. I hope MM is going to repair
> all the other bugs before they start ye
> Maybe I am on my own here, but quite honestly I couldn't care less
> about the look of the Finale palettes. I still use the Traditional
> set, simply because it is the smallest. I hope MM is going to repair
> all the other bugs before they start yet again to change the look of
> palettes and spen
On 2 Mar 2005 at 16:03, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
> David W. Fenton / 05.3.2 / 02:33 PM wrote:
>
> >I don't understand people who don't work with child windows
> >maximized. Why would you want all that blank space in the parent
> >window?
> >
> >Of course, the Mac works completely differently from th
David W. Fenton / 05.3.2 / 02:33 PM wrote:
>I don't understand people who don't work with child windows
>maximized. Why would you want all that blank space in the parent
>window?
>
>Of course, the Mac works completely differently from the MDI on
>Windows, so maybe you're a Mac user and complain
David W. Fenton / 05.3.2 / 04:31 PM wrote:
>That's one of the advantages of the Windows approach (and one of its
>drawbacks, too) -- you can run your parent application at 1/2 the
>screen and then run your document windows fully maximized within the
>parent window.
OK, I admit. I envy Windows
On Mar 2, 2005, at 4:58 PM, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
Yes, under MacOS, the window position is supposed to be written to pref
file every time an app closes. Why Finale doesn't do that, is beyond
me :-(
I had a hard time with the new coloured buttons in OSX when I first
started. I couldn't figure out
Hi Chris,
Presumably the Zoom button in AppleWorks doesn't zoom to an 8.5x11 page
if you have a different page size selected for the active document? If
not, that's a bug.
With Safari, the zoom button takes you to the minimum width specified
by the web page, and the minimum height needed to di
Darcy James Argue wrote:
Quite apart
from the fact that Finale ignores OS X conventions here, it's an
incredible pain in the ass when you open up a set of 18 parts and have
to maximize 17 of them.
So are you saying that the "Maximize" check box in "Program Options/New"
isn't functional? Or doesn
> > Darcy James Argue:
> >
> > Quite apart from the fact that Finale ignores OS X conventions
> > here, it's an incredible pain in the ass when you open up a set of
> > 18 parts and have to maximize 17 of them.
> Jari Williamsson:
>
> So are you saying that the "Maximize" check box in "Program
> O
On 03 Mar 2005, at 7:28 AM, Jari Williamsson wrote:
Darcy James Argue wrote:
Quite apart
from the fact that Finale ignores OS X conventions here, it's an
incredible pain in the ass when you open up a set of 18 parts and
have to maximize 17 of them.
So are you saying that the "Maximize" check box
On Mar 2, 2005, at 9:01 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Hi Chris,
Presumably the Zoom button in AppleWorks doesn't zoom to an 8.5x11
page if you have a different page size selected for the active
document? If not, that's a bug.
With Safari, the zoom button takes you to the minimum width specified
Hi Chris,
There's a good example of my confusion. The window goes to the minimum
width, good. However, the height is about half of my screen, with a
scroll bar appearing on the right, even though I am able to manually
resize the window so that the entire contents appear WITHOUT a scroll
bar. Th
On Mar 3, 2005, at 8:38 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Hi Chris,
There's a good example of my confusion. The window goes to the
minimum width, good. However, the height is about half of my screen,
with a scroll bar appearing on the right, even though I am able to
manually resize the window so that
At 03:33 AM 3/2/05 +, Simon Troup wrote:
>Professional applications don't need multiple choices of
>icons types, or different desktop choices. One simple,
>well designed set of icons would suffice. The whole rosewood
>desktop and vellum paper idea borrowed from sibelius is totally
>unnecess
> I have no idea if most users heavily personalize their workspace while
> depending on the operating system's common actions.
Much of what you say makes sense to me as what you are attempting to do is
maximise workspace.
I'm not sure about Adobe applications on Windows but to me the Mac version
28 matches
Mail list logo
