Thank you!!! This would be great!
Here are a couple of View requests that would speed up editing for me at least. These don’t necessarily have to be default, but I certainly would select them if they were options.
If I select a note in a part layout, I would like to have that note selected and in view when I switch back to the score layout, not whatever I was last viewing. One situation that often arises is that I’ll see that I want to flip an enharmonic while editing a part layout. If I do that in the part, it obviously won’t be reflected in the score. If I could simply switch to the score layout and see the selected note on screen that would be helpful so I could make the edit, and not waste time scrolling around trying to find it. (Yes, I know it will actually flip even if it doesn’t appear to be selected or on screen in the score, but I’d still like to see the confirmation as I flip it the wrong way probably 20% of the time.)
I really dislike the fact that part layouts remember the last view percentage. Whatever zoom percentage I was using for part edits that I made hours ago is unlikely to have any bearing on what I want to do now. If I’m making a pass at casting off, or a final proofing, etc., I’d like to be able to set a zoom size and have it be consistent as I’m quickly moving through layouts. I think the only time it might be desirable to remember it would be for an editing procedure where I need to quickly go to the score layout for an edit and then back, and request #1 would help speed that up. Virtually any other time I’d like to set a percentage for whatever action I’m currently doing and have it be consistent across layouts.
Thanks for considering!
I suspect that the features for Dorico 4 have long since been decided - so this is more for consideration rather than the immediate future.
- I’d like to see closely-related areas brought together so that there is far less requirement on users to open / close modules. A couple of examples;
Preferences / Layout / Notation / Note Input / Engraving / Playback Options all available within one giant module. Use tabs to maintain separation - the intention here is not bust organisation but to provide the user with what else they are likely to need . As a bonus now they’ve all been pooled, enable searching across all areas.
The same goes for Music Fonts / Font Styles / Paragraph Styles / Character Styles - keep them separate by all means, but have them all presented within the one module.
Basically, enable users to look sideways for what is highly likely to be next on their radar, and not have them constantly going back to the start.
- In the same vein, but very specifically, it would be really helpful to be able to open the paragraph style editor directly from the text editor box.
Just to set you straight: you don’t have to close Layout/Engraving/Notation Options. By default they may end up opening on top of each other, but there’s no reason you can’t have them all open at once.
I think I agree with your idea of a global search for them, but when training (even advanced) users, I find that the conceptual separation of what’s global, flow-specific or layout-specific is easily overlooked. I worry that sticking them all in one dialog would make that worse.
And I often do - Preferences / Layout / Engraving Options are regularly open at the same time.
Blockquote I worry that sticking them all in one dialog would make that worse.
If you have ever used Band-in-a-box, that’s the situation. It is horrendous.
It is hard to manage any system that has such a large number of options, but I fall on the side of maintaining the layout/play/engrave/notation separation, but improving the option search to include results across the different options pages.
I fully agree - the BITB situation is horrific, not least because of the appalling layouts. But that’s not what I’m suggesting here.
Keep the separation exactly as it is and don’t change their individual layouts one bit - just collect them together in a way that is helpful to the user. I’ve suggested tabs (example below), but there may well be much better methods. In this particular case, we’re talking about 6 different windows, all of which have identical sizes, designs, layouts and input methodologies and all of which do the same thing - enable the user to set Options and Defaults. The only variation between the windows is a right-hand panel in Layout and Notation Options for Layouts and Flows.
I haven’t thought through all of the possible complications of this idea, but at first glance it looks phenomenal.
Please! I coming mad each time I must configure something, especially where should I search. That is a great idea (and necessary in my opinion).
And maybe another tab for a meta-level search (searching for potentially related options regardless where they fall in the tab structure.). A meta-level search would return a list of candidates. If you click on one of the candidates, that would take you right to that particular option in its proper tab. And you could return to the meta-level tab to visit other candidates if you don’t immediately find the one you need.
Some kind of rationalisation as David proposes would be welcome to me. There are so many different methods by which features of a score (and parts) are controlled in Dorico – the CTRL_SHFT panels, menu options, properties panel, preferences, etc, and I am not the only one who finds the choice of the right one perplexing. As the program grows in comprehensiveness this problem can only grow with it.
Yes. Not sure how you’d do that but definitely yes.
Well you’ve probably sold the marketing people on the idea. SE and Elements users will presumably see this sort of thing within the program from now on
Well there’s precedent. Orchestral Tools do it with their new player
I am fairly sure I have seen the request somewhere before, but I think the indication for “transposing” or “concert pitch” should be clickable.
I have trained many people in dorico and these are very obvious first guesses on where to click.
And personally, I find that kind of “soft marketing” very acceptable. It helps the user immediately understand the benefits of upgrading to a higher level of the product. I don’t find that offensive in the least. There are lots of other tactics that some vendors use that greatly lower my opinion of them, but this technique I think is 100% fair game, and I actually welcome it. If I am at a lower level of the product, I want to understand what else is available through a reasonably-priced upgrade.
I get what you’re saying.
In OT’s case it’s not soft marketing because it hangs the whole plugin for several seconds when you accidentally click on that tab.
hangs the whole plugin for several seconds
That sort of thing is evil and malicious. I have very little tolerance for that. Honest, respectable companies should not do that kind of thing. There are a couple of companies I have spent a lot of money with over the years that I am moving away from for reasons like this.