I totally agree. On one hand I thank all the 10 years team for developping such a good
software including installation, on the other hand I am a bit lost with the syntax.
Look that I'm a programmer since about 25 years, and I found quite difficult to learn
lilypond syntax (I must be a very bad programmer ! and anyway not familiar with
lisp/prolog like syntaxes).
I looked carefully at the tutorial and guide, and found them very good. It covers half of
the important things to know, which is quite normal for a tutorial. But the other half was
very difficult to find :
For instance, It took me a long time reading to find how to make a score with first 1
instrument, and after 10 bars add a new instrument. Why sometimes I need "\score" and
sometimes it works without. Also I could not declare variables in the middle of a score or
between 2 staves, I had to put them all at the beginning before "\score" which is a
problem. I have problem also with sound level in midi output (chords are too lound and I
do not hear instruments)...
This mail is not to ask solutions for these problems, but if there is a good soul that
maintain the doc, these are suggestions.
Thanks
Mats Bengtsson wrote:
I'm afraid that the biggest obstacle to get started with
LilyPond is not the installation but learning to master the
input syntax and semantics. Unfortunately, there are still
many aspects of input syntax and semantics that reflect
the way the program works internally, which may be far
from intuitive if you think in terms of music typesetting
rather than computer science.
Certainly, installation issues are important and it's well-
known that most program packages have far more bugs
in the installation procedures than in the main programs,
but in the case of LilyPond, I think you miss the point, in
terms of major usability thresholds, if you focus too much
on installation issues. Note also that the Windows installers
didn't exist half a year ago, whereas the program has existed
for almost 10 years, so I expect major improvements in the
coming months.
/Mats
Linda Seltzer wrote:
User Experience engineering does not require a GUI or an abandonment
of the
programming and typesetting approach. It does not require the
abandonment
of providing detailed features. What it requires is that the language
and documentation are clear and that functionality doesn't require time-
consuming work arounds. For example, if one is running on a Windows
environment, one should not have to install another editor and worry
about
getting that to work, and the outputs should be easily usable and
readable
by other programs without having to install other kinds of programs and
accessories. It means that everything is made simple and clear for the
user. There are users, unlike myself, who have never done any
programming. Simplicity and clarity are as important as providing
desired
features. I am saying this as someone whose software has been
incorporated into the Sprint network operations system, the AT&T network,
the Silicon Graphics workstations, the Coast Guard communications system
and other products. I have seen development projects sink and swim,
and I
am merely discussing what will "swim" if it is to become highly
profitable
at some point. If I were saying this at a profit-oriented company no one
would disagree, let alone generate a flame war. I have seen
multi-million
projects go down the drain because the management didn't pay attention to
issues such as marketing or the user experience.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
--
Riccardo Cohen
Articque
Les Roches
37230 Fondettes
France
web = http://www.articque.com
tel: +33 02 47 49 90 49
fax: +33 02 47 49 91 49
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
