This is definitely nitpicky, but the positioning of the augmentation dot after a quarter rest has always looked slightly “off” to me. I guess the distance is measured from the widest point of the quarter rest glyph and not from the place where it is positioned. As a result the dot appears visually to be further away from a quarter rest than it does from a quarter note, as in bar 1 below.
There is of course an X adjustment setting in Engrave, which I’ve used in bar 2, but it would be nice to be able to get that positioning as a default if possible in order to avoid a bunch of manual edits. Thanks for considering!
Even bar 2 looks a little far away to me. I think the difficulty for the software (Finale included) arises because of the issue of aligning the dots when dotted notes are stacked over dotted quarter rests, which is just another way of saying what you said about the glyphs. On the other hand, LilyPond seems to do better at this.
I just wanted to add that I have a pet theory that this is one reason that the dotted quarter rest fell into disuse early in the 19th century. It creates problems for engravers. Originally there was no issue because all the augmentation dots were placed where the tied note equivalent would have been, often a great distance from the note. Then as engravers began to move the dot closer to the note, the problem under discussion arose with the dotted quarter rest in particular.
I notice that some publishers place the dot extremely close to the noteheads and rests, perhaps as a solution to this problem.