On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 01:22:46AM +0300, Mikhail Ramendik wrote: > Actually, there seems to be a general contention among many Linux > developers that non-WYSIWYG solutions produce better results (notably > Lilypond). I found the article fascinating. I never realised that music engravers went to so much trouble over such minute detail. I am particularly surprised as in over 40 years of playing music I have seen some quite dreadful examples of printed music. Some were handwritten and photocopied, but some of the typeset or otherwise mechanically produced (pre computer, almost certainly) were almost unreadable too, because of badly designed symbols and layout. It has made me reconsider learning Lilypond. My current favourite music printing utility is abcm2ps which does a very good job for what I need, and I have always thought looked as professional as typical purcahsed sheet music. I'll have to try a side-by side comparison to see what I'm missing :-) > I'm not > that interested in 100% WYSIWYG; I could do with visual notation editing > and tweaking the layout in a Lilypond file. My experience of WYSIWYG music input a few years ago is that I got mouse RSI and it was slower that typing abc. No doubt with practice I could learn to type Lilypond alost as quick. > Come to think of it... if there are coders interested in starting a > project on notation editing/typesetting, I could involve a really > professional psychologist, and work on design specs There's a newsgroup uk.music.notation which discusses issues like this. Might be worth at least posting a poll for interest in such a project, and you might get some useful discussion or input. -- Anahata anahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827
