Repeat Markers - Questions and Comments

Dorico
1

Hi,
I’ve got some remarks, questions and feature requests to make according to the new Repeat Markers feature of Dorico 2.2:

  1. Well done!
  2. It is great, that Dorico automatically creates a gap before a Coda. in 95% of my pieces, I have a double barline before the Coda gap. I want to suggest an option, that Dorico is creating an double barline by default, when I create a Coda. Would save me even more time.
  3. As was stated in another thread, the Coda and especially the Segno signs, are a bit small for my taste. When I change the percentage of the size of the signs, the Coda sign and “Coda” are aligned to the bottom. For me it would be the normal look, when the word “Coda” is aligned to the center of the sign. This is, what it looks at the moment:

  1. I appreciate very much, that you added a possibility to place the signs and markers in three different ways: above, below and both (above and below). As you stated in the Version history, the last option is typical for e.g. a German “Posaunenchor” notation. When I have a lot of flows, I somtimes want the Markers only to appear over the system, when there are one or two staves and I want to appears the markers above and below the system, when there are three or more staves. Therefore I want to ask for an option in the properties panel in Engrave mode, where one can choose individually for every sign or marker, if it’s placed above or below the system or both. That would be great!
    Coda.PNG
2

Just to (finally) follow up on this post and say that we will consider adding an option for an automatic double barline before a coda, and likewise options both to determine the default size of segnos and codas separately from one another, and to provide a means of shifting the coda symbol vertically so that you can align the word Coda with the horizontal stroke of the symbol. Adding properties on a per-item basis for whether they should appear above, below or both above and below the system is a trickier proposition and I can’t commit to that at the moment, though it’s possible that future developments in the handling of system-attached items may eventually make this easier to achieve.