Post Edited (Jari Williamsson) : 11/4/2013 6:52:15 PM (GMT-6)

I expected to see an option for moving rest vertically under RESTS/Move and was disappointed that it wasn't there.

The plugin that comes with Finale for this chore is not modeless and can be a pain when working on dozens of cues. It would be nice if it were in JW Change (if not just to make the Rest/move feature seem more complete). Also, layer/voice selection options would make using JW Change faster (I know, I can select "show only active layer" when I want to run a command on any one layer but a few checkboxes within the plugin would be quicker, allow me to immediately see how my changes look next to the unprocessed layers and allow me to run the process on 2 or 3 layers at a time.)

Ken

Post Edited (Michel R. E.) : 1/19/2012 4:47:01 PM (GMT-6)

1. The plugin seems to only work on the first measure of music select.
2. I'm not sure what I did to my rests in m.65 [Reh. F] but the Rest/Displacement function does not function as expected in these measures. The amount of displacement the whole rest moves (note: we're in 3/4 time here) seems different than the number of note stpes I requested. The file is attached (March of the Corn - Finale 2010 file opened in Finale 2012). Maybe you can figure out what's going on. I also seemed to have broken the function with a temporary file I created with Finale 2012a.
3. Will there be an option for "Unfloat rests"? Will there be a function to clear manual vertical positioning? Even though this exits in the "Move Rests..." plugin, including it in yours will maake you plugin seem more complete and prevent us from having to go into that other plugin (which is not modeless).
4. "On Bottom Staff Line" places whole rests on the second line. I can see you're trying to keep the position of rests relative so that "On Bottom Staff Line" is actually having rests position themselves around the bottom line (as if it were the default 3rd staff line) - meaning that most will sit on it but the whole rests will actually hang from the line above it. This explains why "Centered on Staff"  still puts the whole notes on the 4th line. The wording was a bit misleading to me given that this is a plugin that allows you to move rest exactly where you want to and since, when I'm moving rests for a 2-part staff or for cues, I often do hang a whole rest from the the line that the other rests are sitting on. E.g., whole rest hangs from top line while others sit on it. Given the vertical clearance needed for everything other than whole and half rests this provides better readbility for the other part (and a whole rest seldom appears in the same measure and layer as other rests). I think "Above Bottom/Top Staff Line" is more accurate for all types of rests and the results won't surprise anyone. You could then change the "Far Below/Above Staff" option to simply "Above/Below Staff".

Are the 7 bottom choices under Rests/Position Style simply a hardwired verison of Rests/Displacement?

Will Clefs be added to the lineup of editable musical elements in this plugin? Specifically, changing the horizontal offset of mid-measure clefs.

Ken

1. If the Rest/Displacement function does not affect the display of floating rests but does affect them if they are unfloated (either manual or through the plugin, I would clearly state that in the explaination of the option. Something like this:
   Sets the vertical displacement offset of of the rests (in note steps). Note: The verical displacement will not "display" on floating rests until their floating attribute is remove via the Speedy Edit Frame or JW Plugin Change/Rests/Position Style/Movable.
   Is it then adviseable to apply the "Movable" Position Stlye before doing any displacement so that the results are apparent?
2. When I see the term, "Floating (Clear)", as a position style it tells me that hitting Apply will "clear" the "floating" attribute of the rests. Since this is not the case and "clear" refers to clearing (putting "0" in) the displacement attribute of the rests, I would suggest using the term, "Floating (Clear Displacement)".
3. If Movable unfloats rests I would state that it does by using the term "Movable (Unfloat rests). However, I'm noticing that if I put a whole rest in a measure in both layers 1 & 2, it takes hitting "Apply" twice to unfloat the rest with this option. The first click doesn't appear to do anything and the second clicking of "Apply" places the rests under on the bottom staff line. Both the fact that it takes 2 clicks to unfloat the rests and that both rests move to the bottom line surprise and confuse me.

• "Above Staff"[v0.11] can be changed "Far Above Staff"
• "Above Top Staff Line"[v0.11] can change to "Above Staff". This looks too high to be referencing the top staff line.
• "On Top Staff Line" [v0.10] (was displacement=10, I liked that option but you seem to have removed it) can change to "Above Top Staff Line". Yes, placing something "above staff" is also placing it above the top staff line but the title draws attention to the "top staff line" so I think users will better be able to predict what where the rest will be moved - just above the top staff line. This becomes more important with the lower options and different duration rests - see below.
• What we're now missing is "On Bottom Staff Line"[v0.10] I think it was displacement=2 and I also liked this option). I would suggest renaming it to "Above Bottom Staff Line" so that it doesn't confuse people - as it did me - when a whole rest displays as hanging from the 2nd line (and not visually on the bottom staff line). (PS I just notice how weird Finale's 32nd rests look next to 16th and 8th rests. Are they really supposed to add "hooks" on the line above before adding them below the 16th rest "hook"?)
• "Below Bottom Staff Line" is perfect. That's exactly were all types of rest appear - just below the bottom line.
• "Below Staff" is perfect. Since the bottom staff line isn't mentioned I assume the rest will be plaved somewhat lower.

• "Relative to Current Position"
• "Relative to middle C of the Clef/Transposition"

Static Displacement can be renamed "Non-Relative Displacement" (maybe there's a better word for non-relative). In your description you say that it measures from the staff's top line. However, it looks to be measuring from the center (3rd) line. I.e., When I set the displacement to 0 the rests congregate on/above the 3rd staff line. Is this correct?

Ken

Everytime I see "Move" in the Rests part of this pligin I think it means vertically - even after spending the last hour working with the displacement function. This may be because the Move Rest Plugin that comes with Finale does move things vertically. Can there be a clear distinction? Maybe you would consider the following. Instead of -

Resize
Clear Position
Visibility
Move
Position Style
Beaming
Presence
Displacement
Static Displacement

How about -

Resize
Visibility
Presence
Horizontal Displacement {replaces "Move"}
Clear Horizontal Displacement {replaces "Clear Position"}
Vertical Position Style
Relative Vertical Displacement
Non-Relative Vertical Displacement
Beaming

This allows me to see what a function is meant to do with having to click on it to see its options first. It also place simpler functions next to each other (e.g., horizontal moving/clearing,  vertical moving/clearing, visibility/presence. I understand that you're trying to have all the other element lists be the same (Note Entries, Noteheads, etc.) but maybe you would consider reordering those as well.

Ken

Please permit me to take another shot at convincing you to clarify the "Move" title under the "Rests" heading.

I do understand your desire to keep things consistent with the other headings. However, without stating which direction the "Move" function is meant to handle, that title under "Rests" is not the clearest or most intuitive title to use with Finale because of the follow reasons:

1. The "Move Rests..." plugin that comes with Finale moves rests vertially not horizontal. When I see Rests/Move in your plugin I automatically think that's for vertical moving - like the other plugin.
2. I believe Finale generally does a better job at automatically moving rests horizontally out of the way (automatic spacing) - and I would think most users would still first use the Beat Chart to move rests horizontally, especially when working on a score where the rhythms are supposed to line up. Anyone who works on piano music and multipart staves knows how Finale is not as good at moving rests vertically out of the way (since the layer placement options are not dynamic). So, at least for me, moving rests vertically is a more common chore. Therefore, when I see "Rests/Move" I think, "Great! I can move my rest up out of the way with this!" {Click} "Oh, no. I can't."
3.  Since "moving" and "displacing" are synonyms, the titles must express to the user any basic difference you have programmed into these functions without the user having to click on them first. I would think you'd want to avoid puzzling the user with the titles simply because differentiating adverbs are missing from those verbs.

Ken

Post Edited (Jari Williamsson) : 2/4/2012 3:40:58 PM (GMT-6)

How about this?

Change "Displace" to "Transpose" - It may be weird to think of rests as transposed but since the Displace function is so closely tied to the tonality of a passage I think a user would more easily draw the association between the rests position and the key/clef of this function. It would also make it more consistent with the term used to vertically "move" notes.

Change "Displacement" to "Reposition" since the use of this funtion is to re-position rests that have already be "placed" manually or using a Placement Style.

Ken

PS Since you bring up the mess of the Articulation Definition DBX, I consider your "Rests/Placement Style" equivalent to "the Articulation's Designer's "Position" (ie.., Above Note, etc.) and your "Rests/Placement" equal to the setting "Default Vertical Position" of the Articulation Designer. (The Articulation's Designer's "Positioning" [i.e., Avoid staff lines, etc.] checkboxes I consider to be "Position Options")

Is there a logic to the order the main elements are listed (i.e., Notes, Noteheads, Rests, Stems, etc.). Most popular elements to be edited first maybe?
With 11 elements already list and hopefully more to come (Ties, Clefs, Chords, Textboxes, Lyrics ) it would be helpful simply to do aphabetical order - like the document options DBX. (Although the dropdowns in the Doc/Opt DBX is still a mess - Doc/Opt/Fonts/Noteheads, in particular).

Ken
BTW Why aren't Ties included in this plugin?

Post Edited (Jari Williamsson) : 2/11/2012 4:31:55 AM (GMT-6)

1. A user opening the Change plugin is looking to do something specific. If they want to move rests up/down they could think of a number of titles to look for including "Placement, Vertical Placement, Position, Vertical Position, Move Vertically, Move Up/Down, Transpose, etc." Of course we've already been through this.  However, if they see "Horizontal Position" under this element or other elements I believe it is nature for a user to then look for "Vertical Position" if he wants to move something...well...vertically. As a user, it would never occur to me that the name would be something else simply because it uses a different unit of measurement!  In fact, I wouldn't even remember that vertical rest movement only uses one unit of measurement until after I stumbled on the right title - but by then I've already looked for the logical counterpart to Horizontal Position (Vertical Position), not found it and poked my way through "Placement Style" and "Placement" reading the description of each just to see if I'm using the right thing. Units of measurement is something a user deals with/thinks about when they're about to input the numbers, not when they're trying to trying to find the right command. Your naming convention presupposes an understanding that I don't think users will have.
2. Vertical Position tells the user with more specificity what the function does, especially since Placement Style is already in use and a user can easily get confused with Placement vs Placement Style (Yes, users should investigate all commands they see and RTFM but my point is that the more intuitive title from the user's perspective is usually the best.). What is more important to the user's ability to find what they need when they open the plugin? - a title that distinguishes the actual function of one command from another or a title that simply distinguishs what unit of measurement a command's unclarified function may or may not use?
3. Why wait until MM adds vertical EVPU adjustment of rests to use the most natural title? When/if MM does that will you then change the title of the command - which will further confuse people who have gotten used to the old name. If MM ever does add that functionality perhaps you could allow users to change the unit of measurement from within the command's options (ratios or dropdown box) rather than having two separate places (e.g., Rests/Placement for spaces, Rests/Vertical Position for EVPUs) and rather than confusing people by renaming Placement. In fact, you may not even need to add anything. Currently, parts of your plugin allow users to switch units of measurement on the fly by typing the letter after the number they input (e.g., With Noteheads/Vertical Position typing 2e will move the notehead up 2 EVPUs, 2i will move it up 2 inches, 2s will move it up 2 spaces, etc.). Why not setup Rests with "Vertical Position" now so that if MM adds that functionality there wouldn't need to be an interface change that the user has to deal with? The fact that a user would go into Rest/Vertical Position now and would only be able to move them by spaces won't bother a user (at least the name wouldn't) - we've been adjusting the vertical position of rests using spaces for a long time and only expect movement by spaces.

Ken

1. I have a measure with an upstem 1/8  note and a downstem 1/8 note.
2. The 1st note has a staccato under it and the 2nd has an accent over it.
3. I run Articulations/Horizontal Position with "50" input in the box. Everything moves to the right as expected.
4. I run Articulations/Vertical Position with "50" input in the box. The staccato moves down and the accent moves up. I suppose this makes sense as the number increases the distance the articulation is away from the notehead (of course a large negative number would do the same in the opposite direction). However, you may want to clarify the movement in this command's description. Someone could easily think that inputting "50" should move everything in one direction - up 50EVPUs - and -50 would move everything down.
5. I run Articulations/Clear Position. The articulations don't go back to their "original" positions - the positions they were in before I moved them with the other commands. It appears that this command is equivalent to setting the vertical and horizontal positions to "0" which is, apparently, different from their defaults. This is not intuitive and it looks like a bug. To get them back to their default position I have to select the articulations and hit the BACKSPACE key. I would expect the "Clear Position" command to be equivalent to hitting the BACKSPACE key (i.e., removing manual or plugin enacted positioning). "Clear Position" certainly doesn't "Reset manual positioning of the articulation" as its description says - it actual "sets" it to 0. (The "re" implies a return to a previous setting.)

Ken

I don't know how easy it is to add fonts to the font lists in the plugin (e.g., noteheads/fonts, articulations/fonts, etc.) but here are a few that I've found useful over the years.

MetTimes, MetHelvetica (not show but by the same vendor), Metronome, DVMarticulations, Kidnotes

CrescendoFLF, GraceNotesFLF

Ken
PS Why are MaestroWide, EngraverFontExtr, Maestro Percussion in the lists?

I'm getting some surprising behaviour with Rests/Beaming where Beam to Previous breaks some beams and Break Beam After Entry actually extends some beams. Is there some functionality that hasn't been hooked up yet that I should know about or would you like me to send specifics now?

Ken
My Doc Opts are Extend Beam Over Rests and Extend Secondary Beam Over Rests are both checked.

When Display half-stem for beamed rests is check in Doc Opts. the only way to hide a select group of these half stems is to assign a blank custom stem to them (at least that's the only way I can think of right now). Do you think it would be worth it to add a function for this under Stems or Rests (e.g., "Visibility [half-stems]"). Currently, the "Stems Visibility" command doesn't work on half-stem rests.

Ken
I don't think I'd have much use for this but I'm just playing around with the plugin now and some else may find half-stems on some rest more readable in some cases but not in others - in which case this plugin with its filters may be very helpful.

1. Select all of the music with the selection tool.
2. open JWChange/Rests/Beaming and select "Break Beam After Entry" as the beaming mode. (I'm not even sure what this is supposed to do. I think it's meant to break the beam on an entry [note or rest] that appears after a rest [since we're in the Rests container]...? Can you clarify?).
3. Click Apply and see that the beam in m.3 has extended itself rather than being broken in any way. (Same thing happens with "Break Beam Before Entry" as the beaming mode.)

1. Select all of the music with the selection tool.
2. open JWChange/Rests/Beaming and select "Beam to Previous" as the beaming mode. (I think this is suppose to beam any 1/8 or shorter rests to any 1/8 or shorter note that preceeds it).
3. Click Apply and see that the beams in m.1 and m.3 have been broken!

Post Edited (Jari Williamsson) : 3/5/2012 1:45:25 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (michelp) : 3/21/2012 9:21:49 AM (GMT-5)

Ken

Post Edited (Jari Williamsson) : 6/21/2012 5:09:25 AM (GMT-5)

Like "Beat" (vs Upbeat or Downbeat), it may help us if you can be specific on each filter option's name (though I see you don't have a lot of space to work with in the dropdown). I think it's more intuitive to associate the main section "Beam Stub" with an abbreviated filter option's title than to associate the top selection of a long dropdown with later items in the dropdown (The heiarchy that draws the association isn't as strong if "All Entries" is just another item in the dropdown.). When I'm in the "Beam Stub" section, beam stubs are foremost on my mind. Perhaps a heading (e.g., "Entries") right above each filter's dropdown would help to clue in the user more clearer as to what all the items in the list refer to and avoid the mis-association. 

The plug-in is looking really great, Jari. Bravo!

Is it possible for the "Ornament" filter option to work with a font other than Maestro? I have a files with the default music font set to Maestro but utilize custom tr signs (as articulations) using EngraverFontExtras. JW Change doesn't process those notes (e.g., Note Entries/Resize) when I use the "Ornament" filter option.

Ken

Here's a test file. Selecting Note Entries/Resize - All - Ornament Articulation - Visible does not affect notes with tr symbols that use EngraverFontExtras as the type face.

Ken

Jari,

Could there be a filter option for upstem vs downstem notes? Specifically, I would be looking for a way to move the trill symbol (and perhaps other specific articulations) horizontally based on the stem direction of the note they're attached to. The problem is discussed at http://forum.makemusic.com/default.aspx?f=5&m=374678&p=1 . Othere's may want to use it with the marcato accents (or even tuplets).

Ken

Post Edited (madyson) : 10/18/2012 9:21:19 AM (GMT-5)

Dell XPS 600, GenuineIntel Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 3.00GHz [Intel64 Family 15 Model 4 Stepping 4] (2 processors)
8GB Ram
HT Omega Striker 7.1
MSI N430GT 2GB GPU
1TB x 4 internal HD's
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Edition, (06.01.7600.00)
Finale versions: 2011b.r2, 2012c.r13, 2014a.v3535

GPO4

Ken,

I was able to soften a ffff down to a pppp with no problem using successive applications of the plugin.

The first time a dialog popped up saying that additional expressions may need to be generated, but it didn't reappear on subsequent applies.  I cannot find that it had to create any more expressions, probably because all the dynamic levels were already there.

Dell XPS 600, GenuineIntel Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 3.00GHz [Intel64 Family 15 Model 4 Stepping 4] (2 processors)
8GB Ram
HT Omega Striker 7.1
MSI N430GT 2GB GPU
1TB x 4 internal HD's
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Edition, (06.01.7600.00)
Finale versions: 2011b.r2, 2012c.r13, 2014a.v3535

GPO4

Post Edited (Charles Lawrence) : 5/3/2014 1:07:25 PM (GMT-5)

Jari,

Is there a way for you to add to the Notehead/CustomShape command a filter that differentiates between

1. all the various note lengths (both dotted and not dotted) where the notehead is on a line and notes vs space,
2. all the various note lengths where the notehead is above the middle line of the staff vs below it,

I know this will add alot of filter options (which, of course, the user could hide) but I'm faced with a score with percussion parts and a harp part with many "l.v. ties" on the noteheads. I'm using Engraver Font to input them but its slow going with the special tools since each note requires a different notehead depending on it's current length (default notehead and whether it's dotted) and its placement on the staff (whether on a line or space and above the middle line or not). If I could create a sequence in JW Change to handle all the different scenarios it would save a huge amount of time.

Ken