A thought on Windows Experience (was: useability, promoting, etc)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
111 messages Options
1234 ... 6
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

A thought on Windows Experience (was: useability, promoting, etc)

Francisco Vila
Warning. I this message, "Why don't we" does not mean "do it, you
slave". It means just asking "do you think it's a worthwhile idea?"

The thread about usability and promoting has forked too much and my
thoughts are somewhat related to both. I am crossposting to hear users
feedback also, sorry for that.

I keep seeing newcomers double-clicking the LilyPond icon on the
desktop despite of our warnings about not to do that. LaTeX is also
just a typesetting engine and people do not try to work with it by
first clicking on a desktop icon, do they? I don't really know what's
the Windows LaTeX experience like, but I can assume the user base of
LaTeX is far greater than LilyPond's, and newcomers have always an
experienced user in the nearby ready to help. That's the "critical
mass" effect that Finale and Sibelius already have and we don't.

Despite of having a README just in front of your eyes, IMO we should
expect people will always try to "open lilypond" to work in a typical
program window. Why don't we just give them what they want? That is: a
program you open. All programs are "opened" and it doesn't matter how
hard we try, most people want to open the program. We could make the
lilypond icon to launch a shell applet to open ly projects and a
button to compile. Of course, a console output window and a PDF
pre-viewer are necessary. I see the drag-drop ritual in the tutorial
too few standard, too weird and too much lilypond-specific. That
scares newcomers.

But wait: this has been done. Valentin Villenave dit it once. A bundle
that installed a PDF viewer and a small button panel with all the most
basic operatons. I don't remember if it included a message output.

But wait again: Frescobaldi already does this. It is super-easy to
install on windows and it has got all the necessary items: an editor,
a pre-viewer and a message output panel. Of course it has many, many
more features, but even so it is lightweight (unlike the now almost
defunct jEdit/lilypondtool). Why don't we do a cut-down
Frescobaldi-like shell for the absolute beginner? The File->Open...
menu entry must include a sub-menu with a lot of ready_to_compile
fancy or real-world examples.

Yes, we already promote easier environments, but in my opinion the
bare minimum we offer is too weak as to be useful for all except
mid-high level nerdies.

I always think all you do to lower the entry threshold is never enough
and ours is currently a bit too high. It's not the language, it's the
experience. And never forget Windows users are potentially way more
numerous than command line users.
--
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on Windows Experience (was: useability, promoting, etc)

pkx166h
On 04/12/13 17:24, Francisco Vila wrote:

> Warning. I this message, "Why don't we" does not mean "do it, you
> slave". It means just asking "do you think it's a worthwhile idea?"
>
> The thread about usability and promoting has forked too much and my
> thoughts are somewhat related to both. I am crossposting to hear users
> feedback also, sorry for that.
>
> I keep seeing newcomers double-clicking the LilyPond icon on the
> desktop despite of our warnings about not to do that. LaTeX is also
> just a typesetting engine and people do not try to work with it by
> first clicking on a desktop icon, do they? I don't really know what's
> the Windows LaTeX experience like, but I can assume the user base of
> LaTeX is far greater than LilyPond's, and newcomers have always an
> experienced user in the nearby ready to help. That's the "critical
> mass" effect that Finale and Sibelius already have and we don't.
>
> Despite of having a README just in front of your eyes, IMO we should
> expect people will always try to "open lilypond" to work in a typical
> program window. Why don't we just give them what they want? That is: a
> program you open. All programs are "opened" and it doesn't matter how
> hard we try, most people want to open the program. We could make the
> lilypond icon to launch a shell applet to open ly projects and a
> button to compile. Of course, a console output window and a PDF
> pre-viewer are necessary. I see the drag-drop ritual in the tutorial
> too few standard, too weird and too much lilypond-specific. That
> scares newcomers.
>
> But wait: this has been done. Valentin Villenave dit it once. A bundle
> that installed a PDF viewer and a small button panel with all the most
> basic operatons. I don't remember if it included a message output.
>
> But wait again: Frescobaldi already does this. It is super-easy to
> install on windows and it has got all the necessary items: an editor,
> a pre-viewer and a message output panel. Of course it has many, many
> more features, but even so it is lightweight (unlike the now almost
> defunct jEdit/lilypondtool). Why don't we do a cut-down
> Frescobaldi-like shell for the absolute beginner? The File->Open...
> menu entry must include a sub-menu with a lot of ready_to_compile
> fancy or real-world examples.
>
> Yes, we already promote easier environments, but in my opinion the
> bare minimum we offer is too weak as to be useful for all except
> mid-high level nerdies.
>
> I always think all you do to lower the entry threshold is never enough
> and ours is currently a bit too high. It's not the language, it's the
> experience. And never forget Windows users are potentially way more
> numerous than command line users.
Like this : http://lilypond.org/macos-x.html

Are you just asking for a 'Lilypad' but for Windows?

James

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on Windows Experience (was: useability, promoting, etc)

Phil Holmes
In reply to this post by Francisco Vila
----- Original Message -----
From: "Francisco Vila" <[hidden email]>
To: "LilyPond-User list" <[hidden email]>; "LilyPond-Devel list"
<[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 5:24 PM
Subject: A thought on Windows Experience (was: useability, promoting, etc)


> Warning. I this message, "Why don't we" does not mean "do it, you
> slave". It means just asking "do you think it's a worthwhile idea?"
>
> The thread about usability and promoting has forked too much and my
> thoughts are somewhat related to both. I am crossposting to hear users
> feedback also, sorry for that.
>
> I keep seeing newcomers double-clicking the LilyPond icon on the
> desktop despite of our warnings about not to do that. LaTeX is also
> just a typesetting engine and people do not try to work with it by
> first clicking on a desktop icon, do they? I don't really know what's
> the Windows LaTeX experience like, but I can assume the user base of
> LaTeX is far greater than LilyPond's, and newcomers have always an
> experienced user in the nearby ready to help. That's the "critical
> mass" effect that Finale and Sibelius already have and we don't.
>
> Despite of having a README just in front of your eyes, IMO we should
> expect people will always try to "open lilypond" to work in a typical
> program window. Why don't we just give them what they want? That is: a
> program you open. All programs are "opened" and it doesn't matter how
> hard we try, most people want to open the program. We could make the
> lilypond icon to launch a shell applet to open ly projects and a
> button to compile. Of course, a console output window and a PDF
> pre-viewer are necessary. I see the drag-drop ritual in the tutorial
> too few standard, too weird and too much lilypond-specific. That
> scares newcomers.
>
> But wait: this has been done. Valentin Villenave dit it once. A bundle
> that installed a PDF viewer and a small button panel with all the most
> basic operatons. I don't remember if it included a message output.
>
> But wait again: Frescobaldi already does this. It is super-easy to
> install on windows and it has got all the necessary items: an editor,
> a pre-viewer and a message output panel. Of course it has many, many
> more features, but even so it is lightweight (unlike the now almost
> defunct jEdit/lilypondtool). Why don't we do a cut-down
> Frescobaldi-like shell for the absolute beginner? The File->Open...
> menu entry must include a sub-menu with a lot of ready_to_compile
> fancy or real-world examples.
>
> Yes, we already promote easier environments, but in my opinion the
> bare minimum we offer is too weak as to be useful for all except
> mid-high level nerdies.
>
> I always think all you do to lower the entry threshold is never enough
> and ours is currently a bit too high. It's not the language, it's the
> experience. And never forget Windows users are potentially way more
> numerous than command line users.


For me, I'd say that we should not install Frescobaldi as a pre-requisite of
running Lily on Windows.  I'm a heavy Windows user, and would not want
another program installed by default.  I've not used it, but I do understand
that many people feel it's excellent - so an option would be to promote it
more heavily for Windows users?

I am willing to look at improving the Windows experience, although this
would need to wait until my degree finishes next Summer.  However, there's
one thing I don't know: what should happen when you double-click a .ly file
in Explorer: open an editor or compile the file?  And if the former, how
should the file be compiled?

--
Phil Holmes


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on Windows Experience (was: useability, promoting, etc)

Urs Liska



>I am willing to look at improving the Windows experience, although this
>
>would need to wait until my degree finishes next Summer.  However,
>there's
>one thing I don't know: what should happen when you double-click a .ly
>file
>in Explorer: open an editor or compile the file?  And if the former,
>how
>should the file be compiled?
>
>--
>Phil Holmes

I think double-clicking should open an editor while there should be a right-click command to compile (maybe evon label it "Create PDF").

Urs


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on Windows Experience (was: useability, promoting, etc)

SoundsFromSound
In reply to this post by pkx166h
pkx166h wrote
On 04/12/13 17:24, Francisco Vila wrote:
> Warning. I this message, "Why don't we" does not mean "do it, you
> slave". It means just asking "do you think it's a worthwhile idea?"
>
> The thread about usability and promoting has forked too much and my
> thoughts are somewhat related to both. I am crossposting to hear users
> feedback also, sorry for that.
>
> I keep seeing newcomers double-clicking the LilyPond icon on the
> desktop despite of our warnings about not to do that. LaTeX is also
> just a typesetting engine and people do not try to work with it by
> first clicking on a desktop icon, do they? I don't really know what's
> the Windows LaTeX experience like, but I can assume the user base of
> LaTeX is far greater than LilyPond's, and newcomers have always an
> experienced user in the nearby ready to help. That's the "critical
> mass" effect that Finale and Sibelius already have and we don't.
>
> Despite of having a README just in front of your eyes, IMO we should
> expect people will always try to "open lilypond" to work in a typical
> program window. Why don't we just give them what they want? That is: a
> program you open. All programs are "opened" and it doesn't matter how
> hard we try, most people want to open the program. We could make the
> lilypond icon to launch a shell applet to open ly projects and a
> button to compile. Of course, a console output window and a PDF
> pre-viewer are necessary. I see the drag-drop ritual in the tutorial
> too few standard, too weird and too much lilypond-specific. That
> scares newcomers.
>
> But wait: this has been done. Valentin Villenave dit it once. A bundle
> that installed a PDF viewer and a small button panel with all the most
> basic operatons. I don't remember if it included a message output.
>
> But wait again: Frescobaldi already does this. It is super-easy to
> install on windows and it has got all the necessary items: an editor,
> a pre-viewer and a message output panel. Of course it has many, many
> more features, but even so it is lightweight (unlike the now almost
> defunct jEdit/lilypondtool). Why don't we do a cut-down
> Frescobaldi-like shell for the absolute beginner? The File->Open...
> menu entry must include a sub-menu with a lot of ready_to_compile
> fancy or real-world examples.
>
> Yes, we already promote easier environments, but in my opinion the
> bare minimum we offer is too weak as to be useful for all except
> mid-high level nerdies.
>
> I always think all you do to lower the entry threshold is never enough
> and ours is currently a bit too high. It's not the language, it's the
> experience. And never forget Windows users are potentially way more
> numerous than command line users.
Like this : http://lilypond.org/macos-x.html

Are you just asking for a 'Lilypad' but for Windows?

James

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
I'm confused. There is a Lilypad for Windows. It comes standard w/ the LilyPond installation. ?
composer | sound designer | asmr artist
LilyPond video tutorials: http://bit.ly/LearnLilyPond
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on Windows Experience (was: useability, promoting, etc)

Phil Burfitt
In reply to this post by Urs Liska
From: "Urs Liska" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 6:16 PM

>
>>I am willing to look at improving the Windows experience, although this
>>would need to wait until my degree finishes next Summer.  However,
>>there's one thing I don't know: what should happen when you
>>double-click a .ly file in Explorer: open an editor or compile the file?
>>And if the former, how should the file be compiled?
>>
>>--
>>Phil Holmes
>
> I think double-clicking should open an editor while there should be a
> right-click command to compile (maybe evon label it "Create PDF").
>
> Urs
>

+1


Phil



_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on Windows Experience (was: useability, promoting, etc)

Francisco Vila
In reply to this post by SoundsFromSound
2013/12/4 SoundsFromSound <[hidden email]>:

> I'm confused. There is a Lilypad for Windows. It comes standard w/ the
> LilyPond installation. ?

Yes. But it opens IIRC when you right-click on a ly document, then choose Edit.
This lilypad editor does have a menu entry to compile. So, it is a
sort of shell/editor. I find this path tortuous. People double-click
the lilypond icon, and don't see this shell as many of them could
expect. Instead, ugly things happen. Therefore, lilypond is ugly. I
think this summarizes the start and the end of a newcomer's
experience.

--
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on Windows Experience

David Kastrup
In reply to this post by Francisco Vila
Francisco Vila <[hidden email]> writes:

> But wait: this has been done. Valentin Villenave dit it once. A bundle
> that installed a PDF viewer and a small button panel with all the most
> basic operatons. I don't remember if it included a message output.

I was of the impression that LilyPad _was_ what was delivered with the
Windows installer.

> But wait again: Frescobaldi already does this. It is super-easy to
> install on windows and it has got all the necessary items: an editor,
> a pre-viewer and a message output panel. Of course it has many, many
> more features, but even so it is lightweight (unlike the now almost
> defunct jEdit/lilypondtool). Why don't we do a cut-down
> Frescobaldi-like shell for the absolute beginner? The File->Open...
> menu entry must include a sub-menu with a lot of ready_to_compile
> fancy or real-world examples.

The last time this discussion came up, Frescobaldi did not work on
MacOSX.  And it comes with its own dependencies.  And installers.

> I always think all you do to lower the entry threshold is never enough
> and ours is currently a bit too high. It's not the language, it's the
> experience. And never forget Windows users are potentially way more
> numerous than command line users.

Catering for integration of Frescobaldi would be a real headache.  And
the documentation would need adapting as well.  That's not to say
anything about the value provided by such an approach, but it would
likely make a lot more sense and a lot less work if the primary
installed application was Frescobaldi and it offered to install LilyPond
for you using one of our installers, rather than trying to do it the
other way round.

It would also make juggling with several versions a lot nicer since then
Frescobaldi can manage paths, and knows where it put things.

--
David Kastrup

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on Windows Experience (was: useability, promoting, etc)

Francisco Vila
In reply to this post by Phil Holmes
2013/12/4 Phil Holmes <[hidden email]>:
> For me, I'd say that we should not install Frescobaldi as a pre-requisite of
> running Lily on Windows.  I'm a heavy Windows user, and would not want
> another program installed by default.

But you _already_ have another program installed by default: the
lilypad editor. What I suggest is to replace this by a proper windows
mini-shell with the essential buttons clearly visible. Open Document.
Edit Document. Compile Document. All with Auto PDF view, a selectable
external viewer in the Edit-Preferences menu. And (very important!)
message output console. Not a paragraph in the docs explaining you
have to find a log and read it. This is impossible to be popular.

--
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on Windows Experience

Francisco Vila
In reply to this post by David Kastrup
2013/12/4 David Kastrup <[hidden email]>:
> The last time this discussion came up, Frescobaldi did not work on
> MacOSX.  And it comes with its own dependencies.  And installers.

Fresco is now in Macports (whatever that means) and I think that means
it is now very easy to install there.
--
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on Windows Experience

David Kastrup
Francisco Vila <[hidden email]> writes:

> 2013/12/4 David Kastrup <[hidden email]>:
>> The last time this discussion came up, Frescobaldi did not work on
>> MacOSX.  And it comes with its own dependencies.  And installers.
>
> Fresco is now in Macports (whatever that means) and I think that means
> it is now very easy to install there.

"It is very easy to install there" is not the same as "it is very easy
to integrate into LilyPond's installer".

--
David Kastrup

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on Windows Experience

Urs Liska
In reply to this post by David Kastrup
Am 04.12.2013 19:44, schrieb David Kastrup:

> Catering for integration of Frescobaldi would be a real headache.  And
> the documentation would need adapting as well.  That's not to say
> anything about the value provided by such an approach, but it would
> likely make a lot more sense and a lot less work if the primary
> installed application was Frescobaldi and it offered to install LilyPond
> for you using one of our installers, rather than trying to do it the
> other way round.
>
> It would also make juggling with several versions a lot nicer since then
> Frescobaldi can manage paths, and knows where it put things.

I don't know if that's something which could get a sufficient majority
because it somehow would make Frescobaldi look like an official editor ;-)

Bit I'm quite sure it would be trivial to include such a functionality
in Fresobaldi.
It would be simple to add a menu item that looks for updates, fetches
and installs LilyPond, and finally adds it to the list of configured
LilyPond instances.
Such a function could easily be added to the installation process of
Frescobaldi.

Well, maybe a good idea to add that anyway.

Urs

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on Windows Experience

David Kastrup
Urs Liska <[hidden email]> writes:

> Am 04.12.2013 19:44, schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Catering for integration of Frescobaldi would be a real headache.  And
>> the documentation would need adapting as well.  That's not to say
>> anything about the value provided by such an approach, but it would
>> likely make a lot more sense and a lot less work if the primary
>> installed application was Frescobaldi and it offered to install LilyPond
>> for you using one of our installers, rather than trying to do it the
>> other way round.
>>
>> It would also make juggling with several versions a lot nicer since then
>> Frescobaldi can manage paths, and knows where it put things.
>
> I don't know if that's something which could get a sufficient majority
> because it somehow would make Frescobaldi look like an official editor
> ;-)

Not really.  We'd just recommend downloading and installing Frescobaldi
on certain platforms for getting a customary user experience rather than
a command line application.

> Bit I'm quite sure it would be trivial to include such a functionality
> in Fresobaldi.

For a very variable value of "trivial".  But I think it would make sense
to do this distribution of labor/development for platforms where it
would work.

> It would be simple to add a menu item that looks for updates, fetches
> and installs LilyPond, and finally adds it to the list of configured
> LilyPond instances.
> Such a function could easily be added to the installation process of
> Frescobaldi.
>
> Well, maybe a good idea to add that anyway.

It seems like a more common use case to use Frescobaldi for managing
multiple LilyPond's installed by LilyPond's installer than the other way
round, namely managing multiple Frescobaldi instances.

--
David Kastrup

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on Windows Experience

Noeck
In reply to this post by Urs Liska
This editor in Windows is deterrent. When I started, it took several
weeks after I gave LP a second try. The first thing I then did, was
changing the default-opening-program to the standard windows notepad
editor, because the fonts an the look of this LP editor window was so
ugly. An I am glad that I came back to LP in the end.

IMHO users should always be pointed to Frescobaldi and install it. Could
Lilypond be included in the Frescobaldi download?

For an average user, Lilypond behaves quite strange:
- Doubleclick does not open a window
- Drag and drop for compiling (what is "compiling" anyway?)
- Editor window is not looking nice
- black window opens shortly (users did already complain about the
viruses in LP because they interpreted the command line window as such)

What could be expected of a windows program:
- installing one program that can be executed right a way
- main window opens from desktop or system menu short cut
- what is needed happens in this window

In that sense Frescobaldi is the program and it just uses LP in the
back. Should we then promote Frescobaldi as music engraving program
instead of LP? It would be strange as the engraving is done by LP, but
from the user’s perspective Frescobaldi is the tool he works with.
These names and startup issues can be quite confusing for new users.

Cheers,
Joram

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on Windows Experience

Urs Liska
Am 04.12.2013 20:56, schrieb Noeck:
> IMHO users should always be pointed to Frescobaldi and install it. Could
> Lilypond be included in the Frescobaldi download?

As said I wouldn't want to promote that too much because I'm biased. But
if there was an agreement on this it would be quite simple to arrange.
Frescobaldi should _not_ include LilyPond in its download because
- many people already have LilyPond
- which version should be included?
- would blow up download size

Instead I suggest that after finishing the installation Frescobaldi's
installer looks for an existing LilyPond installation, and if it doesn't
find one it suggests to download, install and configure it. By default
this should take the latest stable version, but could also offer to look
for the latest development version.

Urs


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on Windows Experience (was: useability, promoting, etc)

Nick Payne-3
In reply to this post by Phil Holmes
On 05/12/13 05:02, Phil Holmes wrote:
> I am willing to look at improving the Windows experience, although
> this would need to wait until my degree finishes next Summer.  
> However, there's one thing I don't know: what should happen when you
> double-click a .ly file in Explorer: open an editor or compile the
> file?  And if the former, how should the file be compiled?

Well, if it were a .c or .cpp file, I would expect it to open in an
editor. On both my Linux and Windows machines, a double-click on an ly
file opens it in Frescobaldi.

Nick

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on Windows Experience

Urs Liska
In reply to this post by David Kastrup
Am 04.12.2013 20:24, schrieb David Kastrup:

> Urs Liska <[hidden email]> writes:
>
>> Am 04.12.2013 19:44, schrieb David Kastrup:
>>> Catering for integration of Frescobaldi would be a real headache.  And
>>> the documentation would need adapting as well.  That's not to say
>>> anything about the value provided by such an approach, but it would
>>> likely make a lot more sense and a lot less work if the primary
>>> installed application was Frescobaldi and it offered to install LilyPond
>>> for you using one of our installers, rather than trying to do it the
>>> other way round.
>>>
>>> It would also make juggling with several versions a lot nicer since then
>>> Frescobaldi can manage paths, and knows where it put things.
>> I don't know if that's something which could get a sufficient majority
>> because it somehow would make Frescobaldi look like an official editor
>> ;-)
> Not really.  We'd just recommend downloading and installing Frescobaldi
> on certain platforms for getting a customary user experience rather than
> a command line application.

OK. Then I suggest we will come back if we have managed to integrate
LilyPond installation in Frescobaldi (Actually Wilbert says it was in
Frescobaldi 1, although Linux only).
I think it's a good idea to do it in Frescobaldi anyway, then we/you can
still consider how to communicate it to the end-user.
>
>> Bit I'm quite sure it would be trivial to include such a functionality
>> in Fresobaldi.
> For a very variable value of "trivial".  But I think it would make sense
> to do this distribution of labor/development for platforms where it
> would work.

Of course.

>
>> It would be simple to add a menu item that looks for updates, fetches
>> and installs LilyPond, and finally adds it to the list of configured
>> LilyPond instances.
>> Such a function could easily be added to the installation process of
>> Frescobaldi.
>>
>> Well, maybe a good idea to add that anyway.
> It seems like a more common use case to use Frescobaldi for managing
> multiple LilyPond's installed by LilyPond's installer than the other way
> round, namely managing multiple Frescobaldi instances.

{
   \updateFrescobaldi #'stable-only
}

LOL

But actually I've implemented a menu in Frescobaldi that allows you to
switch versions based on Git branches available. The next steps will be
to update through Git, then allow switching to versions on branches of
other remotes (i.e. contributors).
Of course everything can be done with a few Git commands. But I'm sure
it will boost the collaborative spirit if there's a menu structure
telling me which branches other contributors are working on.

Urs

>


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on Windows Experience

janek.lilypond
In reply to this post by David Kastrup
Hi,

a couple of thoughts:

2013/12/4 Francisco Vila <[hidden email]>:
> I find this path tortuous. People double-click
> the lilypond icon, and don't see this shell as many of them could
> expect. Instead, ugly things happen. Therefore, lilypond is ugly. I
> think this summarizes the start and the end of a newcomer's
> experience.

AMEN.
Francisco nailed it on the head.
Such things may seem small, but they make all the difference, and the
biggest companies (like Apple) know about this.  First impression,
elegance, simplicity, intuitiveness, etc. are very important.

Currently LilyPond's first impression (via LilyPad) is that it's a
second-rate program, looking as if it was written by a student in a
garage during the last holidays.  And it may seem that Lily is free
because it's not good enough to be worth any money.  Seriously, i
think that's the impression we're currently making.

While i'm sure that the people who created LilyPad had good
intentions, i really believe that LilyPad doesn't make sense (please
don't get offended by this).  For advanced users it's dramatically
underfeatured, while for newbies it's still not making things clear
enough.  And - at least the last time i checked - it lacks most text
editing tools, like syntax highlighting.  Only Windows notepad.exe has
less features i think.

David may be right that it'd be easier to integrate LilyPond into
Frescobaldi's installer than the other way round.  Or maybe there
won't be an easy way to have an installer that actually installs
everything - but maybe it would be enough if it downloaded other
program setup files and ran them?

Anyway, what about something like this: a "higher-level" installer
that installs LilyPond and lets user choose what editing program he
wants to use:

"LilyPond files can be edited using different programs.  Pleasse
choose what to install additionally:
* Denemo (has a GUI but it cannot open lilypond files created with
other programs)
* Frescobaldi (gives you more control, but doesn't have a GUI)
* I'm a computer wizard, and I'll use my own EMACS/vim/Notepad++"

This way we avoid the problem of favoring one editor over the other.

I believe that the most important thing is just to have a powerful
editor installed with LilyPond so that people get the most of LilyPond
right away.

best,
Janek

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on Windows Experience

David Kastrup
Janek Warchoł <[hidden email]> writes:

> Anyway, what about something like this: a "higher-level" installer
> that installs LilyPond and lets user choose what editing program he
> wants to use:
>
> "LilyPond files can be edited using different programs.  Pleasse
> choose what to install additionally:
> * Denemo (has a GUI but it cannot open lilypond files created with
> other programs)
> * Frescobaldi (gives you more control, but doesn't have a GUI)
> * I'm a computer wizard, and I'll use my own EMACS/vim/Notepad++"
>
> This way we avoid the problem of favoring one editor over the other.

Are you going to implement this for all GUB targets?  MacOSX, MacOS
PowerPC, Windows, FreeBSD, and so on?

Write a "higher-level" installer for all of these that will know how to
get at all the editors for all of these?

> I believe that the most important thing is just to have a powerful
> editor installed with LilyPond so that people get the most of LilyPond
> right away.

It would even better to have a friendly human tutor installed
automatically.  We just need to get her into the installer, same
problem.  For better or worse, I think that the interactive task of
managing LilyPond versions is better placed with the editors which are
supposed to interact with the user than the other way round.

--
David Kastrup

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A thought on Windows Experience

Phil Burfitt
In reply to this post by janek.lilypond
From: "Janek Warchol" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 11:55 PM

> Hi,
>
> a couple of thoughts:
>
> 2013/12/4 Francisco Vila <[hidden email]>:
>> I find this path tortuous. People double-click
>> the lilypond icon, and don't see this shell as many of them could
>> expect. Instead, ugly things happen. Therefore, lilypond is ugly. I
>> think this summarizes the start and the end of a newcomer's
>> experience.
>
> AMEN.
> Francisco nailed it on the head.
> Such things may seem small, but they make all the difference, and the
> biggest companies (like Apple) know about this.  First impression,
> elegance, simplicity, intuitiveness, etc. are very important.


AMEN+1

I also think lilypond's website is terrible. It looks like something out of
the eighties knocked up on a dos machine. By comparison, take a look at the
home pages of musescore, finale and sibelius.

Phil.



_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
1234 ... 6