Feature request: Translucent popovers

The popover concept is great. Sometimes, however, it covers the notes. Would it be possible to add an option to make them slightly transparent, say opacity 80% for example, so we can see what’s behind? For example, typing lyrics on a piano score it’s easy for the lyrics popover to hide the notes. In my case, I’m using lyrics for analysis, and my short term memory doesn’t remember the notes hiding back there.

This is an interesting idea, which I’ll discuss with Ant, who’s responsible for Dorico’s visual design.

That would be awsome. Because even with the shift-alt-clic trick, it’s good to know what’s behind the signposts!

Another idea is could the popover be moved by the user? You could use the as-yet unused command shift-alt-standononeleg-scratchhead-arrowkey. Baseball managers use this all the time when signaling to their pitchers.

This is a great idea!

I can just see my wife’s bewildered look as she watches me gesticulate wildly at my desk.

“What are you doing?”

I’d like this too
(er, not the baseball thing!)

Another idea would be to switch to be located under the lyrics to be entered instead of above, if the popover collides with the staff.

Then it would be called a “popunder” and poor Lillie would have to make massive changes in the manuals. :frowning:

Find and replace would make quick work of this.

Jokes aside, a somewhat translucent popover(under) is an intriguing idea and one that I like. I also wish there was a caret-like orange line connecting the popover to the exact rhythmic position where it will apply. Sometimes it’s very difficult to tell where the lyrics popover stops when you have runs of 16ths, for instance. You’re not entirely sure which note you’re on if you accidentally lose track.

I would welcome all three features: translucent popovers, a sightline connecting the popover to the exact spot it’s editing, and the possibility of popunders (although I prefer croissants to popovers).

Without wanting to dig in too deeply to what is clearly intended to be a humorous aside, but rather to use this as a useful example of the considerations we have to put into documentation for anyone interested: it could well be that not all instances of “popover” would require a change to “popunder” and so the process would have to be a bit more involved and considered; is it better to introduce a new term that needs translated equivalents or instead add a note that says something like “the popover may appear underneath the staff in certain circumstances”? If the latter, how often should that note appear? Then, any change to the English text would require attention from each of our translators, who would also need to consider the context of the word and not just the word on its own.

You could define popover like layering. It’s not vertically “over”, but in the third dimension.

I thought “popunder” was supposed to be not entirely serious, as it is still an overlay over the score (and that’s how I understand “popover”)

That’s how I understood it.

I suppose that is why it is called popover and not popabove!

What about calling it a pop-up, which describes a small window that appears in the foreground? Whether it is positioned above or under a given element is irrelevant.

I didn’t mean to imply that it was no work. Each instance of “find and replace” requires manual review in every program where I’ve ever used the function. I simply meant that the term can be quickly searched and swapped (where wanted) at the click of a button (or rather two: skip or replace), and that it wouldn’t require manually scanning all the pages to find the term and then type it in by hand. Compared to all of the other work that you do in crafting the manuals, I’d imagine this task would be comparably quick and easy. Key word: comparably. That said, as ubiquitous as the term is, it would surely require review hundreds of times, not two or three, so, as I said, “comparably”.

I think I can safely say that everyone on this forum (and beyond) benefits immensely from your work and is grateful for it!

All I can say is: yes & yes & yes (all three ideas are very welcome) and the semantic discussion of the pop-over-under-inbetween is not on the same level of importance. And anyhow I always understood “popover” as something that pops up somewhere.