There’s something I don’t understand in the video.
He creates two different paragraph styles for the project title, one for score, one for parts…
But isn’t there already an option in the paragraph style to have one size for score and another for parts?
I haven’t viewed the tutorial but is it just size that is different in the two paragraph styles, or something else as well?
just size.
he makes the score size 180, then the parts size 80.
he simply duplicates the one paragraph style, then edits it to give a smaller font size. and then gives it a new name as well.
I haven’t watched the video but no, Project Title by default uses the Title Paragraph Style which is set to Absolute, so it does not scale with the raster size. There is no option to set it differently in the score and parts. So, by your description of the video, that would be the way to do it.
I just clicked on the little “slide” button in the Title font style, for “size in parts”, and it worked exactly as it suggests: the title in the score is one size, the title in the parts is now a different size.
both are marked as “absolute”, but one is by default 20, absolute.
the other I just changed to 10, absolute.
Yikes, either that’s a new option or my memory is going (probably the latter). I don’t recall that feature being there.
LOL
maybe the person doing the tutorial video also forgot it was there?
¯_(ツ)_/¯
That is a good point (from ‘the person who did the tutorial video’).
I was originally thinking/planning that if you had multiple layouts with different paper sizes or orientations (e.g. a condensed and uncondensed score) you might want to label the paragraph styles in a useful way, especially when you want to import them into other files. But then that would have made the session even longer so I just went with the scores/parts example. But yes I should have then mentioned/used the ‘size in parts’ option. 
I’m not sure I understand.
Is there some advantage to creating a new paragraph style for parts?
I’d assume that you have a score. And you have parts.
That’s two layouts, or at least, two different paper sizes, requiring two font sizes.
In what context would you need more than this? (genuinely curious, since I’ve honestly never come across any instance in my own work of needing more than those two)
For example, you might want the “Layout Name” style to show a border in parts but not in the score (for “Full Score in C”) etc.
Or you might need to differentiate between significantly different full score layouts, like John said: say you have an A3 full-full score, and an A5 teeny condensed study score, and for whatever reason don’t want the Title style to have a staff-relative size.
Dorico isn’t limited to one score and one part per instrument.
If using one paragraph style with score/part size differentiation works throughout a project: great! Nice and simple. But you might need more specialisation. And as Discover Dorico sessions are educational, it can be helpful to demonstrate steps that might be helpful in other contexts in order to get the idea across.
OK
I agree that those videos should be educational BUT…
they should give the simplest and most logical path to a result first.
my impression from watching the video was that this was the ONLY way of getting different sizes in score/parts.
no mention was made at all of the toggle for different font sizes in score/parts.
obviously, this isn’t true.
time would have been better spent with “basic requirement” stated first. then “more complicated requirements” as a follow-up.
sorry, this is my analytical mind looking at this video and hoping to get information in the most efficient manner possible.
Michel, this atypically critical on your part. Certainly you quickly realized there was an alternate, better way to distinguish score from part titles; but this did suggest for those who didn’t know or may have forgotten that one can create custom paragraph styles.
Perfection is certainly the goal, but I would rather see these videos come out regularly and not worry about the (very occasional) slip lest the perfect become the enemy of the good.
shrug
it seems a valid critique when someone skips over the simplest and most obvious answer for the greatest number of cases, and jumps right to the more involved and unusual solution to a problem that isn’t being presented.
If it’s an obvious answer then it doesn’t need to be addressed unless someone in the chat mentions it, like it usually happens.
As we’re doing hyper-critical today, can we please use as instead of like…
Well, if we’re really being critical, the two have been largely synonymous (in this context) these last 600 years or so.
But I’m willing to give a little latitude, considering people may be non-native speakers, or not have observed much fastidiousness before posting.
Whose fastidiousness would they have been observing?
It’s also the solution with the highest backwards-compatibility.
I agree it would’ve been nice to mention, but doing these things monthly is not a too little task, given that @John_at_Steinberg has also other work to do. I think it’s valuable of you to note, but I would be more forbearing.
Ok, I’ll bear it in mind for the next time I talk about this sort of thing.
It’s a live session, I don’t get everything right.
