On Fri, 6 Dec 2019, 02:14 <k...@aspodata.se> wrote: > David Menéndez Hurtado: > ... > > I think it is a good idea to gather some statistics on what drew people > to > > Lilypond, so I have made a quick and informal survey: > > > > > https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScAhjveMwqAD50YXLsWnclPILT2j20xaroeZ3QolAUFWRA_vA/viewform > > > > Hopefully, we can converge on a few things that make people start and > stick > > to highlight on the poster. I am sure I am missing things, that is why I > > called it informal, so please add suggestions. I will add them to the > > options. > > Not fond of thoose web forms/sites. > > I mentioned four possible headers: > > . quality in detail > > . excellent print quality > > . one source, multiple output variations > like Simon Albrecht pointed to, and which I was thinking about > > . flexibility, whatever you need, it can be done > > Do you have any input on thoose, or do you suggest some other poster > topic ? > > Regards, > /Karl Hammar >
A couple of things I love about Lilypond that was lacking in Finale 2012 are: • Automatic page layout, not having the last page have one measure then having to distribute measures evenly over the last few pages. • Vertical spacing takes account of music and objects. For example, in Finale 2012 the position of lyrics below the staff is fixed and needs to be adjusted system by system (such as when alto lines go low and bump into the lyrics). Lilypond takes care of this automatically. Both of these (especially the second) could be illustrated easily enough in a side-box with well-crafted examples. I imagine Dorico would handle these situations better, and for all I know Finale post-2012 does too, but if it doesn't, the poster viewer could be thinking “There's something I have to do to every single piece that I wouldn't have to with Lilypond”. Vaughan
