Just my opinion.
A big disappointment to me is the Sibelius-style Note Input (one of the reasons I stoped using Sibelius). Articulations, dotted notes go in at the same time the note is input. In my opinion, you cross the teeās and dot the eyeās, not the other way around. Maybe a preference can be added to Dorico where you can choose how the notes are enteredā¦Sibelius/Dorico or Finale style. I know that this may be insignificant to some, but to me itās important.
Iām completely in agreement. It goes against a good principle of having to keep as little in your head as possible.
On the other hand you say ādotted quarter noteā rather than āquarter note dottedā. Thatās the way I think of it. Iām putting in a dotted note in that order.
Hear! Hear! I am not a fan of this either. I would love to see an option to select the order of note entry.
Itās not how you say it, itās how you write it. You write the note, then dot it. Same with articulations and accidentals. This is how you write music on manuscript paper all over the world.
I used Finale for about 10 years, then switched to Sibelius in 1999. I never gave the dotted note thing a second thought after I switched, and it still doesnāt bother me in Dorico. But I see that Sibelius has an option to do pitch first, then rhythm; so at some point it seems natural to implement the same thing in Dorico.
But I do not write music on manuscript paper. Iāve been using computer entry for the last 15 years at least. Long before Sibelius even. I had a personal computer since 1978 when I had to build it myself. Iād be just as happy hitting the note and then the period or the other way round. Lifeās far too short to be annoyed by how a program wants you to adapt. I just get on with it.
If you play an instrument, you have to mentally decide what note to play and how to play it (duration, dynamics, articulations, etc) before you actually produce any sound.
Personally, I donāt have any problem using notation software that works the same way, but the reverse order (like āspeedy entryā in Finale) is just weird.
I agree. I never use speed entry in Finale.
How do you work quickly with our āspeedyā??
Iām assuming you mean āSpeedy Entryā. I use āSimple Entryā. Computer keyboard, custom shortcuts and Finale Script. This makes the process remarkabley fast. Much faster than Speedy Entry (for me anyway).
Ahā¦ horses for courses. 
I hate simple entry, but Iām really fast with speedy on laptop or with midi keyboard.
The simplest way is ādonāt use Finaleā - though sometimes that isnāt an option, even with MusicXML import.
It pays my bills at the momentā¦!
Every silver lining has a cloud. 
Yes, please an option for pitch before rhythm. Help all those Finale users switch to Dorico.
I know everyone prefers the method that they are accustomed to. For me, to have the cursor in the staff ready to input notes and playing freely, working out an idea, then inputing a note or series of notes is my preferred workflow. I want to do this without having to click outside the staff just to play without inputing notes. For composers, all this clicking in and out of the staff is frustrating work.
I also like the way Finale would switch to the sound assigned to the staff upon selecting it for note input. Not sure how Dorico handles this.
Letās not forget that there is also truth in suggesting that weāll all benefit more of users adapt to the system as it works now.
I have seen software developed, where requests to āwork more like this other programā only bloat the software with 1,000 options. More options donāt often make for easy software. In my experience it more often runs the risk of Frankenstein features that donāt play well together.
Iām not saying this shouldnāt happen. There is room to make it easy to switch programs. But perhaps Dorico could just have more intelligent handling of operations. Rather than more under-the-hood options, Iād rather have a system that doesnāt care whether I select tuplet before or after I select a duration to input, with or without being in insert mode, etc. If I have a highlighted note, even a highlighted restā¦ It converts it to tuplet.
Thing is, I want software to recognize the context of whatever Iām doing, then when I click a button it does the most appropriate thing within that context.
At very least, just donāt turn Dorico into Frankenstein. I have some note entry quirks, but Iām able to work smoothly right now. Thatās just me.
Although I hated finale and loved Sibeliusā¦ Until AVID got involved anyway.
-Sean
P.S. my only preachy point is that we should respect that not all options should happen and that they have to make smart decisions, which could involve not doing this exactly like Finale users want. Not trying to belittle the suggestion at all.
The primary function of any notation program is note input. Once the note is input, and before the next note is input, you should have the option to add articulations, dotted notes, expressions etcā¦before or after. The best applications would accomidate this. Itās always better to give users a choice than demand strict adherence to a primary function such as note input that differs from person to person.
I like to add one more point in favour of more flexibility:
Thereās a big difference between engraving already existing music (eg. a written score) wher you know all aspects of a note up-front, and writing/composing new music.
When writing new music you often donāt know all the things Dorico wants me to know before I input a note. You play around, you change things, you try different pitches before you might even know the duration.
I definitely agree with this! 