Re: Request for feedback on 'lobbying' paper

[Urs Liska]

Am Samstag, den 20.04.2013, 13:05 +0200 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Colin Hall <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > Here is a piece of opinion from me, so you know my position. Users of
> > WYSIWYG engraving software accept the shortcomings because it is quick
> > and effective. Users of text-based approaches accept the additional
> > effort required because they are perfectionists.
> 
> Actually, I tend to use text-based approaches not really because I care
> about the perfection of the result, but because it allows me to properly
> separate input, tool and output.  Things like the accuracy of my mouse
> positioning don't figure into the result.  
That's a good point. I share this opinion.
I think the quality of output is less a selling point compared to the
'big players' than the organizational potential inherent in the text
format.

> Which make the result
> actually worse than when working WYSIWYG.  But the responsibility for
> that lies with the process, it is reproducible, and it will respond to
> future improvements of the process.
> 
> Old scores of mine keep getting better without me having to invest any
> work into any of them.  
Is that really that much different from other approaches? I don't know,
but if you open Finale scores in newer versions they should also benefit
from improvements, isn't it?

Urs

> That's hard to beat if they are "good enough" to
> start with.  And if you are lazy like me, you won't invest much work of
> your own beyond "good enough" into any individual score.
>