The new palette panel is not an improvement. It wastes time.

• Mar 13, 2020 - 04:26

The palette panel that was added since I last updated (was on Musescore 3.X, now I'm on 3.4.2) is very frustrating. You have to click in the panel to get it to scroll. This is a nuisance because before you could just hover over it with the mouse and the scroll wheel would work. It also is annoying since the panel has a lot of stuff you can click that might accidentally edit the score, which wastes time. In addition, when scrolling the box moves smoothly across the screen and takes a while to settle. This makes you overshoot where you want to scroll to and have to wait for the palettes to stop moving. Again, this wastes time for no reason, when the previous non-interpolating scroll worked amazing.

Also, I've noticed that the scrolling box (which includes all of the content, on- or off-screen) will change in size if you have palettes open and scroll. This causes the entire scroll box to jitter on screen, which is annoying. There's no reason for the size of the scrolling box to change, unless it was an attempt to optimize the program.

All of these things stop you from being able to compose quickly using the program. The palette panel is also one of the most often used panels in the entire application, so it shouldn't be so frustrating and buggy.


Perhaps try using a different dpi or resolution setting. I find scrolling on my system works OK. Make sure the palette is docked properly. My entire advanced palette fits on the screen.

Something that disturbs me is that you feel that composing is something that can to be done quickly and easily. I'm not sure that there is anything quick and easy about good composing. Of course you don't want the software to hamper you. There's always pen and paper.

I can't reproduce the issue with the scroll wheel - it works just fine for me with no click needed. What OS? Maybe you have some OS settings controlling how mouse focus works? That would be a problem if it occurred in general, but this is the first report I can recall hearing of that, seems to work fine for others.

FWIW, one great thing about the new implementation is that scrolling with be necessary far less often because of how easy it is to customize the palettes, You can create one that has only what you actually use common,y on it, and/or remove the less commonly-used ones from the others, knowing they are still there behind the "more" button.

The scroll bars are something I rarely use, but I can confirm they are "jittery".

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

I am on windows 7. That's weird that you don't need to click on it. I think before I updated I was able to scroll without clicking as well. I think the only thing that changed was the Musescore version, not anything on my end.

Do you think you guys could remove the smooth scroll at least? It is just a waste of time, it serves no functional purpose.

In reply to by Braden G

Windows 7 is, of course, no longer supported even by Microsoft, so I strongly urge you to update if at all possible. Still, in general, MuseScore should work on Windows 7 as well as anything else that was not specifically designed to do so.

Not sure what you mean by "smooth scroll", that sounds like a good thing to me? But the glitchiness of the scroll bars seems like a bug. I would say I'm no fan of the "bounce" effect either. I think the scrolling model seems to be mimicing a "swipe" action more than a traditional "scroll". I'd be happy to see that change, but the implementation of this is buried in QML code I don't understand.

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

By “smooth” scroll I mean a scroll that doesn’t move the box instantaneously; you have to wait a second before the box stops moving. It’s just a minor hindrance but it adds up to a lot of unnecessary wasted time over the course of the hours you spend on the program. I don’t really see a reason for this to be implemented. Like I said it causes you to overshoot or undershoot the place you want to scroll to in the panel. Then you have to readjust which takes more time. It’s just a nuisance.

I have been using lots of software programs on at least three different OS for as long for 30+ years, and I realized that quite often (always?) more features means less efficiency, and that always too many features means the death of usability. Keep MuseScore as slim and easy as possible, please. Adding more and more on top of the pile qualifies as a Bad Thing Indeed™.

In reply to by Aldo

At first I thought it might have something to do with having so many thing open in the palette (which I never do) , but even with almost everything open I get no jitters.

OTOH, "slim" is a matter of interpretation. As is "Bad Thing". There are a number of things that I wish MuseScore did (or didn't do).

In reply to by bobjp

I see your point. I try to make mine more obvious.

You want to become a piano player. You spend some 15-20 years to develop your skills and --wow!-- you become an amazing player indeed. You literally jump and run on the black-and-white semitone-based keyboard with 2.2cm wide keys as no one else can do.

One day, a major manufacturer with the power to impose its standards puts on the market its pretty new piano type. It's based on wonderful quarter-tone based keyboards. From that day on, piano keyboards have 24 keys octaves; in order to make room for the new keys, white keys are 1.3cm wide and there is no concept of grouping black keys by 2s and 3s -- white and black keys are regularly spaced on a 15.6cm wide octave. The new configuration is much better then the old one, as it allows for so many new sounds and microtonal nuances.

Great! but-- as an old-style keyboard trained artist, can you soon master the new instrument as you did the old one? Nope! You have to pass some years practicing in order to adapt yourself to the new, more powerful design. During the whole span of those many years, you are not an "amazing artist" any more -- you are just a common student that has to redesign his patterns, so to adapt them to an unknown standard.

Using a software is not that different. Every change curbs productivity AT LEAST for a while.

Attachment Size
keyboard_evolution.png 73.77 KB

In reply to by Aldo

I can follow this idea until this statement:
"Every change curbs productivity AT LEAST for a while."

SOME changes MIGHT curb productivity. SOME changes MIGHT boost productivity. SOME changes MIGHT have no effect for many users.

In reply to by bobjp

My problem with the analogy:
24 keys (quarter tone octave) each 1.3cm wide entails an octave span of 31.2cm, not 15.6cm.

However, such distractions needlessly depreciate Aldo's essential meaning.

That is to say, missing the point of an analogy is like... umm... errr.... nevermind.

In reply to by Jm6stringer

Jm, Great. Now I have to think about the analogy. Thanks a lot.
This new and improved keyboard means that there is no way to know what octave you are in partly because the octave will always be from white key to black key, or black key to white key. Replacing the obsolete and obviously inferior white to white, or black to black. But wait, with the new system there's even more tonal possibilities than Aldo thinks. With the keys being so skinny the player can easily hit two (or more) keys with one finger (mostly by accident). Thereby adding spontaneity, freshness, and originality to every performance. This will make writing keyboard music much simpler because you only have to write half the notes you would normally. Thereby placating those who think writing in notation software is too time consuming. This is also great for atonal music fans.
A win all the way around.
And now I have a headache.

In reply to by Jm6stringer

The idea is of course sound, and no one has deprecated it in the slightest. It's just that it's not really relevant here since never in the history of MuseScore has anyone ever done or suggested anything remotely like this. Nor would anyone ever do anything of the sort, because everyone agrees with the basic idea: changes comes at a cost, so you need to weigh the cost against the benefit.

In reply to by Jm6stringer

For me, the analogy IS the flaw. The piano keyboard is not likely to undergo any change anytime soon. It seems to me that open source software, by it's very nature, is subject to many more changes more often than commercial software. In part because it can be readily changed. Few things are set in stone.
If the "core point" is about the down side of too many changes too fast, then the keyboard analogy misses that point. It is better suited to the down side of change for the sake of change. Changes in MuseScore make it better, as far as I can tell. Some changes make some people change how they do things. And some changes can cause problems. Such is life in software. I have commercial software with know flaws that will never be fixed. MuseScore is a living thing in flux. Not a bad thing in my book.

In reply to by bobjp

The use of analogies are fraught with risk.
The original idea was: "The new palette panel is not an improvement." People can agree or disagree.

Aldo made a statement about the risk of software feature bloat, then answered a subsequent reponse by using an analogy to support his opinion.
Often an analogy is used as an intentional overstatement -- so as to "drill a point home".
(See what I did there? ...another analogy.)

From there the focus of discussion shifted to flaws in the analogy.
As I said in an earlier post: missing the gist of an analogy is like... umm... errr.... nevermind. ;-)

Basically, the original idea gets lost.

In reply to by Aldo

There are of course quite a few flaws in the analogy to redesigning the piano keyboard - there is not at this point hundreds of years of momentum behind one design, none of the changes made or seriously proposed thus far are nearly so radical, etc.

But rather than focus on the flaws, I'll just add that yes, notwithstanding any benefit provided by some change, many changes come at some cost in terms of the adjustment required for people accustomed to the old ways. That doesn't itself argue against change, though. It simply provides a good guiding principle: you make the change if you are convinced the benefit is worth the cost. Overall, I'd say we've done a stellar job of this, but big picture stuff like that is really the subject of another thread.

I do see the palette jitter on my Mac OS. My theory is a severe case of mouse lag. The problem is much worse with my wireless mouse than with a wired mouse. The touch pad is somewhere in between. Not at huge problem for me since I don't compose or transcribe a lightning speed.

Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.