UI confusion/annoyances and suggestions for improvement

I can add an abbreviation by activating the respective field in the attributes panel which then automatically shows the abbreviated text in the music. But if I don’t want abbreviated text in some part I have to activate the “abbreviate” checkbox which then removes the abbreviation, and then one can check the checkbox to abbreviate it again.

This is confusing and redundant, in my opinion. It would be more logical to have it this way: just have an empty text field for the abbreviation where the user can enter text (similar to the default text field) and then either have a simple checkbox (without prior activation switch) to abbreviate when checked and show default text when unchecked or a switch instead of a checkbox (not both!) to show abbreviated text when switched on or default text when off.

Also, it isn’t obvious whether the abbreviation field is global or just applies to a single part; this could be made more obvious, obviously. :wink: Apparently the “abbreviation” field is global, and entering text there changes it to abbreviated text in all parts. This creates more work for the user if they add abbreviated text because they notice that in one part there isn’t enough room for the long text, only to have to change it back to default in all other parts. So, it would be better if adding an abbreviation wouldn’t change anything and only enabling/checking “abbreviate” would actually abbreviate it (for that one part).

Another suggestion for the custom scale field (for note sizes): it would be very helpful if the number in the field could be highlighted if the field is activated, so that the user can just type in a number and doesn’t have to hit backspace or manually highlight the number in order to remove it first. The same would apply to any other field where a value is preset and which allows custom entry, I suppose.

Thanks for your consideration.

I agree with you that we should make it easier to use the Properties panel with the keyboard, and we have some plans in this direction for the future. I also agree that it needs to be clearer which properties apply in which contexts, and this is something we also plan to address.

Thanks for your acknowledgement, Daniel. But your silence regarding the abbreviation functionality unsettles me. Perhaps (after reading my text again) it wasn’t clear enough that I was talking about the tempo markings? Editing the properties of tempo markings you can add abbreviations. That’s what I meant and what should be improved (along with the things you acknowledged already).