I sometimes have trouble understanding the explanations for the various options in Dorico. For example, I had to read the following several times before it made sense. The first step was to learn new definitions of “ideal” vs “minimum” gaps.
Personally, I prefer a more direct approach. The three adjustments with the following descriptions would have done it for me with no other explanations needed:
1 Gap between note (or rest) and right barline. ____spaces
2 Gap between notehead (or rest) and left barline, fixed clef, key or time signature. _____spaces
3 Gap between accidental (grace note, arpeggio sign etc.) and left barline, fixed clef, key or time signature. _____spaces
Yes. I think this stems from a desire to use highly precise and logically stringent language. I’m not native in English and have struggled in the past myself, e.g. with the language famously used in the vertical spacing section of Layout Options…
I just fed the whole passage into MS Copilot to explain further, and it did a fairly good job simplifying it, something AI is supposed to be good at…
@YourMusic.Pro Thanks for your comment. as a native English speaker, I can only imagine the problems you must have.
I agree that some of this seems to stem from a desire to be very precise, perhaps too much so for the situation. However in the following case, I could make nothing out of the description until I guessed that that what was being discussed was not a “tuplet”, but a “tuplet number (and bracket)”. At least I think that is what is meant:
I don’t think your understanding is correct, which means that either you or I are still contributing to your main point. LOL.
As I understand it, if a musical item has a tiny graphical tail or “something” that sticks out to the left, and if you use that tiny thing for placement purposes, then it looks too far too the right to most humans. Minimum in this case refers to how close to the bar Dorico is allowed to “cheat” from the ideal distance to try and make it look right.
I think the main issue is - how do you explain in a sentence or two centuries of engraving and hand copying practice; to work around terms of art that are familiar and necessary to an industry but not all of us?
I remember when Microsoft C++ 1.0 came with a bookshelf worth of heavy books - no exaggeration- more than a meter wide. it just went with the subject, IMO. And if they write a set of comprehensive books on this subject(s) like those were, I’m buying them. Though I’m not carrying the box upstairs by myself.
It says “first rhythmic item” rather than “musical item”. The only rhythmic items I am aware of are notes and rests, and the only “protrusions” in front of notes that I can think of are accidentals and ornaments such as grace notes and arpeggio signs. (Maybe fingering?)
As an engraver, all I am interested in is 1. the distance that Dorico will place note heads without “protrusions” (as well as rests) and 2. noteheads with “protrusions” from the left bar lines. So I need to input two values only. The rest of the information would seem irrelevant to me.
I frequently use both Dorico and “Cubendo,” and even as a native English speaker, I often feel Steinberg uses convoluted and confusing engineer-minded language throughout their apps. I’m used to a lot of it now, but when I go on a deep menu dive I often have to re-read several times myself…
I’m also a native English speaker. There have been a number of times when I’ve found it challenging to figure out what the documentation is trying to tell me.
I’m sure there is a LOT that goes into writing the documentation for Dorico that I’m not at all aware of. I appreciate the focus on precision, perhaps there are stylistic constraints involved regarding doc for other Steinberg software, as well.
All the same, I wish ‘TLDR’ explanations of the doc could be included. That could save me some trips to ChatGPT for interpretation.
Please don’t use chatGPT (or similar). Dorico is rapidly evolving and the AI cannot keep up with the changes. Also there is much bad advice around from people who don’t understand the program, which competes with the sensible advice you get (eg) on this Forum, so the chatGPT advice is frequently just plain wrong!
Good point, Janus. I often cut and paste text I want analyzed into ChatGPT, rather than relying upon its web searching abilities.
I’m often impressed by many factual, non-Dorico related answers ChatGPT provides, when doing technical SEO and web work, but it can definitely be crazy making.
it just went with the subject, IMO. And if they write a set of comprehensive books on this subject(s) like those were, I’m buying them. Though I’m not carrying the box upstairs by myself.