On 30 Jun 2009 at 22:33, Owain Sutton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 30 Jun 2009 at 19:03, Owain Sutton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 30 Jun 2009 at 7:24, Phil Daley wrote:
I'm flabbergasted at the opposition the mere reporting of a fact has
generating.
Because it isn't a
At 6/29/2009 09:00 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 29 Jun 2009 at 20:53, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jun 29, 2009, at 8:35 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 29 Jun 2009 at 13:33, Christopher Smith wrote:
I'm just saying that just because the study may be valid, it
doesn't mean it applies to
On 30 Jun 2009 at 7:24, Phil Daley wrote:
At 6/29/2009 09:00 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 29 Jun 2009 at 20:53, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jun 29, 2009, at 8:35 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 29 Jun 2009 at 13:33, Christopher Smith wrote:
I'm just saying that just
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 30 Jun 2009 at 7:24, Phil Daley wrote:
At 6/29/2009 09:00 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 29 Jun 2009 at 20:53, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jun 29, 2009, at 8:35 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 29 Jun 2009 at 13:33, Christopher Smith wrote:
I'm just
On 30 Jun 2009 at 19:03, Owain Sutton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 30 Jun 2009 at 7:24, Phil Daley wrote:
I'm flabbergasted at the opposition the mere reporting of a fact has
generating.
Because it isn't a fact.
Yes, it *is* a fact: The studies where, in FACT, done, and did,
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 30 Jun 2009 at 19:03, Owain Sutton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 30 Jun 2009 at 7:24, Phil Daley wrote:
I'm flabbergasted at the opposition the mere reporting of a fact has
generating.
Because it isn't a fact.
Yes, it *is* a fact: The studies where, in FACT,
On 29 Jun 2009 at 6:40, Owain Sutton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
I don't know the study designs, nor do I know the nature of the
testing or the user population.
I don't get where this kind of statistical illiteracy comes from...
Wanting to know the basic details of a study
On 29 Jun 2009 at 1:47, Christopher Smith wrote:
Now, it was not entirely scientific (I chose my tasks to represent
what I normally did a lot of, and I WAS more used to my usual
routine, even after practicing the others) but my conclusion was more
or less that you should do what you
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 28 Jun 2009 at 9:30, dhbailey wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
[snip] I don't know. While one could say that Apple had an
agenda, MS came
late to that ballgame.
Why would Apple and Microsoft have an incentive to misrepresent the
research? What good would it do them
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 28 Jun 2009 at 9:21, dhbailey wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 26 Jun 2009 at 21:00, Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
I have several friends that are graphic designers, and I'm in awe of
watching them work in Photoshop or Illustrator without having to use the
mouse at all.
On 29 Jun 2009 at 11:08, dhbailey wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 28 Jun 2009 at 9:30, dhbailey wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
[snip] I don't know. While one could say that Apple had an
agenda, MS came
late to that ballgame.
Why would Apple and Microsoft have an incentive to
On 29 Jun 2009 at 11:06, dhbailey wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 28 Jun 2009 at 9:21, dhbailey wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 26 Jun 2009 at 21:00, Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
I have several friends that are graphic designers, and I'm in awe of
watching them work in Photoshop or
Given that you can't tell us what was tested, how it was tested or when
this was done, I don't know what it is a result OF, and so no, I don't
accept it at face value as proof of anything at all.
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 29 Jun 2009 at 6:40, Owain Sutton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
I
At 10:50 AM -0400 6/29/09, David W. Fenton wrote:
The results of a statistical
study of people's behavior is no[t] PROSCRIPTIVE, but DESCRIPTIVE.
That's is, it doesn't say what people SHOULD do, but describes how
people behave.
All very true, but let's not forget the dirty little secret of
On Jun 29, 2009, at 11:08 AM, dhbailey wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 28 Jun 2009 at 9:30, dhbailey wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
[snip] I don't know. While one could say that Apple had an
agenda, MS came
late to that ballgame.
Why would Apple and Microsoft have an incentive to
On Jun 29, 2009, at 10:50 AM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 29 Jun 2009 at 1:47, Christopher Smith wrote:
Now, it was not entirely scientific (I chose my tasks to represent
what I normally did a lot of, and I WAS more used to my usual
routine, even after practicing the others) but my conclusion
On 29 Jun 2009 at 17:22, Owain Sutton wrote:
Given that you can't tell us what was tested, how it was tested or when
this was done, I don't know what it is a result OF, and so no, I don't
accept it at face value as proof of anything at all.
I have never at any point in this discussion claimed
On 29 Jun 2009 at 12:55, John Howell wrote:
At 10:50 AM -0400 6/29/09, David W. Fenton wrote:
The results of a statistical
study of people's behavior is no[t] PROSCRIPTIVE, but DESCRIPTIVE.
That's is, it doesn't say what people SHOULD do, but describes how
people behave.
All very true,
On 29 Jun 2009 at 13:33, Christopher Smith wrote:
I'm just saying that just because the study may be valid, it
doesn't mean it applies to ME.
Why would you find it important or necessary to say so?
Who has made any assertion to the contrary?
--
David W. Fenton
On Jun 29, 2009, at 8:35 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 29 Jun 2009 at 13:33, Christopher Smith wrote:
I'm just saying that just because the study may be valid, it
doesn't mean it applies to ME.
Why would you find it important or necessary to say so?
Well, you know, just because! Why are
On 29 Jun 2009 at 20:53, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jun 29, 2009, at 8:35 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 29 Jun 2009 at 13:33, Christopher Smith wrote:
I'm just saying that just because the study may be valid, it
doesn't mean it applies to ME.
Why would you find it important or
Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Owain Sutton m...@owainsutton.co.ukwrote:
Measuring 'numbers of clicks' isn't a good way of rating productivity,
however - I very rarely resort to the mouse to make such changes, in Word or
in OpenOffice. Multiple clicks either
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 26 Jun 2009 at 21:00, Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
I have several friends that are graphic designers, and I'm in awe of
watching them work in Photoshop or Illustrator without having to use the
mouse at all. When I asked about it, they told me their productivity would
Owain Sutton wrote:
I'm with you here. The absence of consistent access to 'properties' in
Finale context menus is one thing I'm regularly surprised by anew. They
seem, instead, to be 'things we guess you might want to do' menus.
Funny how people are dissing Sibelius for not providing a
Owain Sutton wrote:
I can see how the regular use of a persistent 'properties' window makes
sense for some users, who will be routinely modifying all sorts of details.
However, I think what is the unspoken query here is Why can't I change
the appearance of text as easily as in Word? In other
DANIEL CARNO wrote:
Interesting thread guys,
First of all, you can right-click directly on an object in Sibelius and
bring up the context menu.
The properties window is brought to the screen with a keyboard shortcut.
Since Sibelius allows for re-mapping the keyboard to implement most of its
David W. Fenton wrote:
[snip] I don't know. While one could say that Apple had an
agenda, MS came
late to that ballgame.
Why would Apple and Microsoft have an incentive to misrepresent the
research? What good would it do them to design their products to be
less useful than they could be?
Darcy James Argue wrote:
[snip] Regardless, even once I know the actual height of
the character (or
lines of text) I'm trying to center vertically, having to run these
calculations is an enormous pain in the ass. Finale's had vertically
centered text for as long as I've been using the
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 27 Jun 2009 at 19:32, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
On Sat, June 27, 2009 7:25 pm, David W. Fenton wrote:
All I know is what the researchers report, that overall, mousing is
faster than keyboard. I don't know exactly how they tested, but the
results have stood up over
On Jun 28, 2009, at 9:11 AM, dhbailey wrote:
DANIEL CARNO wrote:
Interesting thread guys,
First of all, you can right-click directly on an object in
Sibelius and
bring up the context menu.
The properties window is brought to the screen with a keyboard
shortcut.
Since Sibelius allows for
Friends,
I've stayed out of the affray over whether mice or command line entry is
faster. I do remember reading some of the research when it come out,
however, and one thing I remember from the research is that the test
subjects were drawn from across the spectrum of user abilities, from
On 28 Jun 2009 at 9:13, dhbailey wrote:
Funny how people are dissing Sibelius for not providing a
properties option in right-click menus, yet aren't at the
same time dissing Finale for the same lack. Hmm . . .
This is not about dissing one program or the other. The discussion
started with
On 28 Jun 2009 at 9:21, dhbailey wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 26 Jun 2009 at 21:00, Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
I have several friends that are graphic designers, and I'm in awe of
watching them work in Photoshop or Illustrator without having to use the
mouse at all. When I asked
On 28 Jun 2009 at 9:30, dhbailey wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
[snip] I don't know. While one could say that Apple had an
agenda, MS came
late to that ballgame.
Why would Apple and Microsoft have an incentive to misrepresent the
research? What good would it do them to design their
On 28 Jun 2009 at 9:37, dhbailey wrote:
Apple and Microsoft hire very smart people -- and very smart
people know how to manipulate statistics.
Put up or shut up. Either you can provide some citation somewhere
where some expert shows how Apple and MS's research is flawed, or you
have nothing
On 28 Jun 2009 at 9:56, Christopher Smith wrote:
For example, in
previous versions, metatools for dynamics were not preassigned.
Starting from (I think) version 2002, 4 for forte and 7 for piano,
with all the others stepped in between, is so simple and logical, yet
I didn't think of
At 3:30 PM -0400 6/26/09, Darcy James Argue wrote:
And when I am trying to do something I don't know how to do in an
application I'm not 100% familiar with, I tend to look in the
*menus* -- I don't think I'm that unusual in that regard.
And the Properties Window is indeed accessible through
At 4:31 PM -0400 6/26/09, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 26 Jun 2009 at 22:19, Torges Gerhard wrote:
Am 26.06.2009 um 22:12 schrieb David W. Fenton:
If there's a properties sheet that's not accessible on Windows via
right click, then it's a nonstandard implementation of a properties
sheet,
On 28 Jun 2009 at 14:06, John Howell wrote:
At 4:31 PM -0400 6/26/09, David W. Fenton wrote:
Regardless, it should be
accessible via the standard UI convention, and on Windows, that is
right clicking the object to get a shortcut menu that offers a
PROPERTIES choice. There's nothing esoteric
At 8:43 PM -0400 6/26/09, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 26 Jun 2009 at 20:23, John Howell wrote:
and most Mac users don't even have
multi-button mice (although I do happen to have one).
Oh, come on! That dogma went out the window years ago!
I'm afraid I don't know anything about dogma, but
At 6/28/2009 12:56 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Until you can demonstrate that the research is flawed and produces
unreliable results, I'm going to believe those who've actually taken
the time to design mechanisms for testing the proposition, rather
than going with the gut feelings of individual
On 28 Jun 2009 at 14:49, Phil Daley wrote:
At 6/28/2009 12:56 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Until you can demonstrate that the research is flawed and produces
unreliable results, I'm going to believe those who've actually taken
the time to design mechanisms for testing the proposition,
On 28.06.2009 John Howell wrote:
Control + click. Especially useful on trackpad laptops. Just for the record,
I really hated the trackpad when I got my first laptop, but now I'm very
comfortable with it. One gets used to anything with practice.
I have had laptops for more around 12 or 13
On 28.06.2009 Phil Daley wrote:
For one thing, both Apple and Microsoft SELL mouses.
To defend David on this one: they also sell keyboards, no?
If anything they both sell operating systems which relies heavily on the
mouse.
I don't know, I personally don't think such research really tells
On 28 Jun 2009, at 1:56 PM, John Howell wrote:
At 3:30 PM -0400 6/26/09, Darcy James Argue wrote:
And when I am trying to do something I don't know how to do in an
application I'm not 100% familiar with, I tend to look in the
*menus* -- I don't think I'm that unusual in that regard.
And
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 28.06.2009 Phil Daley wrote:
For one thing, both Apple and Microsoft SELL mouses.
To defend David on this one: they also sell keyboards, no?
If anything they both sell operating systems which relies heavily on the
mouse.
I don't know, I personally don't think
Darcy James Argue wrote:
... show me *any* other application, of any kind, that deals with
fonts and does not have a dedicated Font menu or Font panel.
Sibelius's way of working may seem logical in retrospect, but it's
totally unlike anything else out there. It's not just different from
On 28 Jun 2009 at 23:30, Owain Sutton wrote:
I think a return put-up-or-show-up is necessary: if the research wasn't
done by observing up-to-date computer-literate users on recent operating
systems, then it's fundamentally flawed for the present discussion.
Look, this research has been done
David W. Fenton wrote:
I don't know the study designs, nor do I know the nature of the
testing or the user population.
I don't get where this kind of statistical illiteracy comes from...
Wanting to know the basic details of a study before accepting an
assertion of results is
On Jun 28, 2009, at 12:56 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Until you can demonstrate that the research is flawed and produces
unreliable results, I'm going to believe those who've actually taken
the time to design mechanisms for testing the proposition, rather
than going with the gut feelings of
I expect the users who were tested were not that familiar with the keyboard
shortcuts.
It's obviously faster to make a few keystrokes that navigating a set of
menus with a mouse.
At 6/26/2009 09:33 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 27 Jun 2009 at 2:20, Owain Sutton wrote:
David W. Fenton
exactly-keyboard shortcuts have a steeper learning curve-pianists are pretty
good with them, though :p
2009/6/27 Phil Daley p_da...@tds.net
I expect the users who were tested were not that familiar with the keyboard
shortcuts.
It's obviously faster to make a few keystrokes that navigating a
At 2:25 AM +0200 6/26/09, shirling neueweise wrote:
It's not even on Sibelius' schedule to implement.
sibelius policy is to let you know this isn't needed by many users,
we won't implement it. but with a smile, direct from the CEOs.
I've heard about that, but I believe it is ancient
At 7:50 AM +1000 6/26/09, Matthew Hindson (gmail) wrote:
Can Sibelius now have bar numbers centred, automatically underneath
each bar of the lowest staff in the piece? Couldn't before.
In a word, yes, in Sibelius 5 at least. Bar numbers were a mess in
Sibelius 4, only because the
It's funny you should mention that - I only ever use the left shift key,
even when the other key to be pressed is under that hand. Rather like
double-stopping a violin :)
Adam Golding wrote:
exactly-keyboard shortcuts have a steeper learning curve-pianists are pretty
good with them, though
On 26 Jun 2009 at 22:16, Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jun 26, 2009, at 9:16 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 26 Jun 2009 at 21:00, Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
I have several friends that are graphic designers, and I'm in awe of
watching them work in Photoshop or Illustrator without having to
On 27 Jun 2009 at 7:54, Phil Daley wrote:
I expect the users who were tested were not that familiar with the keyboard
shortcuts.
What an incredibly stupid response.
It's obviously faster to make a few keystrokes that navigating a set of
menus with a mouse.
You really think that Apple and
On Sat, June 27, 2009 7:25 pm, David W. Fenton wrote:
All I know is what the researchers report, that overall, mousing is
faster than keyboard. I don't know exactly how they tested, but the
results have stood up over many years of assault from those who
didn't believe them.
Was it general
On 27 Jun 2009 at 19:32, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:
On Sat, June 27, 2009 7:25 pm, David W. Fenton wrote:
All I know is what the researchers report, that overall, mousing is
faster than keyboard. I don't know exactly how they tested, but the
results have stood up over many years of
--- On Sat, 6/27/09, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz bath...@maltedmedia.com wrote:
Was it general public or touch-typists? I'm gonna guess
general public, which
would make a huge difference. If you have to look, I'd
guess mouse is faster.
Having to look is what slows me down when I work with a
I'm actually working in Sib 5 tonight. Here are some incredibly
frustrating things that I couldn't get Sib to do:
- insert a blank page in the middle of a document
- add a Text Style that aligns to the vertical center of a page (I
use these for page number arrows)
- repeat
On 26 Jun 2009, at 4:39 AM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
- add a Text Style that aligns to the vertical center of a page (I
use these for page number arrows)
Er, page TURN arrows.
Cheers,
- Darcy
-
djar...@earthlink.net
Brooklyn, NY
___
Hello Darcy,
Am 26.06.2009 um 10:39 schrieb Darcy James Argue:
I'm actually working in Sib 5 tonight. Here are some incredibly
frustrating things that I couldn't get Sib to do:
- insert a blank page in the middle of a document
Easy.
Insert a page turn (cmd-Enter), select its
2009/6/26 Darcy James Argue djar...@earthlink.net
I'm actually working in Sib 5 tonight. Here are some incredibly frustrating
things that I couldn't get Sib to do:
- insert a blank page in the middle of a document
Layout Break Special Page Break... (or Ctrl+Shift+Enter shortcut)
Hi Andrew
On 26 Jun 2009, at 6:47 AM, Andrew Moschou wrote:
You can do the next best thing and say put the text at 130 mm (or
whatever)
from the top margin.
But this is not the next best thing. If I want a 96 pt. page turn
arrow vertically and horizontally centered on a 9 tall page, what
Hi guys,
Sibelius's Daniel Spreadbury monitors the Finale list so he emailed me
with additional info. I've reproduced it below with my replies.
HI Daniel,
Thanks for your reply -- much appreciated.
On 26 Jun 2009, at 2:25 PM, Daniel Spreadbury wrote:
Hi Darcy,
I happened to see
Hi David,
The Properties window does not open by default when you launch Sib.
It's not mentioned in any of the basic tutorials. It was a while
before I even realized it existed. It takes up a lot of screen real
estate so I tend to leave it closed when I work. It's context-
sensitive, so
On 26 Jun 2009 at 15:30, Darcy James Argue wrote:
The Properties window does not open by default when you launch Sib.
It's not mentioned in any of the basic tutorials. It was a while
before I even realized it existed.
It seems obvious to me since the introduction of Windows 95 that if
Hi David,
Objects in Sibelius can't be right-clicked to invoke Properties or a
contextual menu. You have to open the Properties window, then left-
click on the object, then open a bunch of disclosure triangles in the
Properties window to see if what you want to do is there.
Cheers,
-
Hello David,
Am 26.06.2009 um 22:12 schrieb David W. Fenton:
If there's a properties sheet that's not accessible on Windows via
right click, then it's a nonstandard implementation of a properties
sheet, and would confuse me, too.
It's a floating window, like a palette in a painting program.
Both, I am pretty sure (though I've not used Sibelius for Windows.)
Right-clicking in Sib (after left-clicking an object to select it)
does invoke a contextual menu, but Properties is not one of the
options.
For instance, if I left-click then right-click a bit of title text, my
I am one of the users who have Sibelius 5 for the client or two who
requires that and use Finale (since 3.7.2 and now 2010) for most things.
That withstanding, don't you all think it's pretty cool that Sibelius'
product development man, while monitoring the Finale list, is willing to
jump in
On 26 Jun 2009 at 22:19, Torges Gerhard wrote:
Am 26.06.2009 um 22:12 schrieb David W. Fenton:
If there's a properties sheet that's not accessible on Windows via
right click, then it's a nonstandard implementation of a properties
sheet, and would confuse me, too.
It's a floating
On 26 Jun 2009 at 16:27, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Right-clicking in Sib (after left-clicking an object to select it)
does invoke a contextual menu, but Properties is not one of the
options.
Two clicks is user-hostile and nonstandard behavior. Any click should
select the object.
It's
On 26.06.2009 David W. Fenton wrote:
It's these kind of little details that always made it hard for me to
even attempt to use Sibelius.
Well, I don't see that Finale is any better in regarding UI standards.
It has in fact been known for having a rather non-standard UI.
Johannes
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] Re: WHAT Sibelius can't do
On 26 Jun 2009 at 16:27, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Right-clicking in Sib (after left-clicking an object to select it)
does invoke a contextual menu, but Properties is not one of the
options.
Two clicks is user-hostile
On 26 Jun 2009 at 16:53, DANIEL CARNO wrote:
First of all, you can right-click directly on an object in Sibelius and
bring up the context menu.
Standard Windows UI is that the context menu include PROPERTIES at
the bottom of it. Are the Sibelius menus configurable?
--
David W. Fenton
Hi Dan,
On 26 Jun 2009, at 4:53 PM, DANIEL CARNO wrote:
Interesting thread guys,
First of all, you can right-click directly on an object in Sibelius
and
bring up the context menu.
No you can't. At least not in Sibelius 5 for Mac. When I right-click
on a piece of title text before
On Jun 26, 2009, at 2:41 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Hi guys,
Sibelius's Daniel Spreadbury monitors the Finale list so he emailed
me with additional info.
HOLY CRAP! (sorry for the strong language. Actually, not really.)
Man, this is the kind of support we want from our notation
I'm with you here. The absence of consistent access to 'properties' in
Finale context menus is one thing I'm regularly surprised by anew. They
seem, instead, to be 'things we guess you might want to do' menus.
Johannes Gebauer wrote:
On 26.06.2009 David W. Fenton wrote:
It's these kind of
Of
Darcy James Argue
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 5:47 PM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] Re: WHAT Sibelius can't do
Hi Dan,
On 26 Jun 2009, at 4:53 PM, DANIEL CARNO wrote:
Interesting thread guys,
First of all, you can right-click directly on an object in Sibelius
and
bring up
-boun...@shsu.edu [mailto:finale-boun...@shsu.edu] On Behalf Of
David W. Fenton
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 5:45 PM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: RE: [Finale] Re: WHAT Sibelius can't do
On 26 Jun 2009 at 16:53, DANIEL CARNO wrote:
First of all, you can right-click directly on an object in Sibelius
Christopher Smith wrote:
On Jun 26, 2009, at 2:41 PM, Darcy James Argue wrote:
Hi guys,
Sibelius's Daniel Spreadbury monitors the Finale list so he emailed me
with additional info.
HOLY CRAP! (sorry for the strong language. Actually, not really.)
Man, this is the kind of support we want
. Fenton
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 5:45 PM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: RE: [Finale] Re: WHAT Sibelius can't do
On 26 Jun 2009 at 16:53, DANIEL CARNO wrote:
First of all, you can right-click directly on an object in Sibelius and
bring up the context menu.
Standard Windows UI is that the context menu
On 26 Jun 2009 at 23:50, Owain Sutton wrote:
I can see how the regular use of a persistent 'properties' window makes
sense for some users, who will be routinely modifying all sorts of details.
I haven't seen the exact implementation of this persistent properties
window, but it reminds me of
At 7:07 PM -0400 6/26/09, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 26 Jun 2009 at 23:50, Owain Sutton wrote:
I can see how the regular use of a persistent 'properties' window makes
sense for some users, who will be routinely modifying all sorts of details.
I just experimented, using a Sib5 score I
On 26 Jun 2009 at 20:23, John Howell wrote:
At 7:07 PM -0400 6/26/09, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 26 Jun 2009 at 23:50, Owain Sutton wrote:
I can see how the regular use of a persistent 'properties' window makes
sense for some users, who will be routinely modifying all sorts of
John Howell wrote:
At 7:07 PM -0400 6/26/09, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 26 Jun 2009 at 23:50, Owain Sutton wrote:
I can see how the regular use of a persistent 'properties' window makes
sense for some users, who will be routinely modifying all sorts of
details.
I just experimented,
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Owain Sutton m...@owainsutton.co.ukwrote:
Measuring 'numbers of clicks' isn't a good way of rating productivity,
however - I very rarely resort to the mouse to make such changes, in Word or
in OpenOffice. Multiple clicks either indicates an unawareness of
On Jun 26, 2009, at 5:43 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
The single button mouse has a command that is equivalent to the right
click. I seem to recall it's some form of slow click, but I could be
misremembering.
Control/Click on Mac, David.
Chuck Israels
230 North Garden Terrace
Bellingham, WA
On 26 Jun 2009 at 21:00, Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
I have several friends that are graphic designers, and I'm in awe of
watching them work in Photoshop or Illustrator without having to use the
mouse at all. When I asked about it, they told me their productivity would
shrink by 3/4 if they
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 26 Jun 2009 at 21:00, Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
I have several friends that are graphic designers, and I'm in awe of
watching them work in Photoshop or Illustrator without having to use the
mouse at all. When I asked about it, they told me their productivity would
-
2009/6/27 Darcy James Argue djar...@earthlink.net
Hi Andrew
On 26 Jun 2009, at 6:47 AM, Andrew Moschou wrote:
You can do the next best thing and say put the text at 130 mm (or
whatever)
from the top margin.
But this is not the next best thing. If I want a 96 pt. page turn arrow
On 27 Jun 2009 at 2:20, Owain Sutton wrote:
David W. Fenton wrote:
On 26 Jun 2009 at 21:00, Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
I have several friends that are graphic designers, and I'm in awe of
watching them work in Photoshop or Illustrator without having to use the
mouse at all. When I asked
On Jun 26, 2009, at 9:16 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 26 Jun 2009 at 21:00, Kim Patrick Clow wrote:
I have several friends that are graphic designers, and I'm in awe of
watching them work in Photoshop or Illustrator without having to
use the
mouse at all. When I asked about it, they told
Hi Andrew,
On 26 Jun 2009, at 9:22 PM, Andrew Moschou wrote:
If it's not the next best thing, then what do you propose is better
that it,
but not as good as vertically centred text?
I didn't mean this is not the next best thing literally. My point
was that the solution you propose is not
My main issue that Sibelius cannot do is a small thing, but something
I really want. That is, to be able to have a system start with (for
instance) the double bar that appears at the end of the previous
system. It will not do that and, according to the Sibelius people, I
shouldn't want it
Hey Kim,
I agree with you.
Terry Cano (Studio City)
___
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Can Sibelius now have bar numbers centred, automatically underneath each
bar of the lowest staff in the piece? Couldn't before.
Matthew
Kim Richmond wrote:
My main issue that Sibelius cannot do is a small thing, but something I
really want. That is, to be able to have a system start with
, June 25, 2009 5:50 PM
To: finale@shsu.edu
Subject: Re: [Finale] Re: WHAT Sibelius can't do
Can Sibelius now have bar numbers centred, automatically underneath
each
bar of the lowest staff in the piece? Couldn't before.
Matthew
Kim Richmond wrote:
My main issue that Sibelius cannot do
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
