Palettes menu huge after update 31/10-2019

• Oct 31, 2019 - 23:51

I have just updated, as suggested, to the most recent version.
The palette menu is now about 60% larger. I had modified mine, so that I can have more, but smaller palettes, of things I tend to use - now I can't see them all at once, when closed up.
Also, the spacing is far greater than is needed, and the 3 dots at the side are completely unnecessary - just right click the name to modify the palette. AND when you click on any particular palette, the "Trash" button appears immediately - why?
Is it possible to revert the palette to its old format? Or do I need to revert to the previous version?
I mostly use a laptop, so don't have a huge screen to accommodate excessive spacing!


I don't know of a way to change the size, but with the palettes so easy to customize now, the expectation is people will actually customize them more often and differently. In particular, it does indeed favor using fewer palettes, combining things. It took me a week or two to get used to it during the beta, but I find I now very much prefer working this way and wouldn't want to go back. So I definitely encourage you to experiment and give it time!


As far as I know, the spacing is wider to make it easier to click the correct palette. The trash is there to make it obvious how to delete palettes you don't want, and that's part of the idea that people may want fewer palettes. I suspect the dots are there in part because a significant number of users don't know about right-click (particularly on Mac).

In reply to by Marc Sabatella

There is no doubt that customizing the palettes is beneficial. But it was simple enough before, and I honestly don't see why the new layout is any easier. I rather think it likely that people will end up deleting items by accident. The "More" button seems unnecessary (it's really easy to add items to a palette from the Master Menu - just drag and drop). And the button's presence seems to, almost invariably, result in an extra line in the palette, possibly as it takes up at least 2 cells - again a problem for small, laptop screens. While other items can be reduced in size, this doesn't seem to be possible with the "More" button.
I no longer have a Mac, but I think one just has to hold down the shift key to turn the single mouse button into a right hand button. Which is a lot easier than trying to annotate Shostakovitch - which is definitely possible in MuseScore - thank goodness (we'd lost the VC part)!
The attached image shows that the new palettes take up more room than was the case before - which is a real disadvantage on a laptop. (The "old" image is from a 13.3" screen, and the new image from a 14" screen - so the difference is greater than the images would suggest.)
Perhaps one could consider having palette size options - one for small screens and one for large screens. The programming for the small palettes obviously already exists!
I do wish programmers wasting screen space! I don't like unnecessary scrolling!
MuseScore is excellent, but I don't like these changes!

Attachment Size
MuseScore_Old3vsNew3_Oct2019.jpg 205.39 KB

In reply to by KMKelsey

For me, while I wasn't sure about the extra space at first, after living with it and using it hours a day every day for the past month. I would say it's a benefit - make it easier to find and click the right palette.

As for being simple to customize before, maybe once one studies the manual it's possible, but for the average user, needing to discover about creating workspaces, needing to explicitly enable editing, not being able to just drag palettes up or delete them in a click, needing to go to an entirely separate menu to access the master palette - it was far harder., requi8ring far more clicks, far more reading of the manual.

So again, I'd suggest really living with this, trying out some palette arrangements that are easy to do now but would have been far more work before, before passing judgment.

I am surprised by your attached image. For me, the latest version 3.3 of MuseScore presents the pallets in the same compact way as before. (Windows 10 64bits v1903)
Is there any configuration to be done?

In reply to by Shoichi

I'm using a Windows 10 laptop, but I also use Xubuntu (18.X) and Linux Mint on desktop machines. The update will probably be fine on the desktops as the screens are so much larger. I used to use a Mac at work - but no longer have access to one.
I do think developers need to remember that requirements differ considerably when using a small versus a large screen. I might try to modify the way the whole of MuseScore is displayed - currently I use a 75% manuscript size, on my laptop, but perhaps I can change the whole application to a smaller scale, and use a relatively larger manuscript size. I'm off to try to figure that out!
Thank you for your comments and image.

In reply to by Papibois

The size shown here looks OK - but I suspect that is because of the screen size. Mine is just 14" (356mm), being a laptop. I think my "Old" version would look more compact on your screen, than is shown in your image. I note your "Plus" field is not on an extra line - but again I think that might be because your screen is bigger! (I'm using Windows 10 fully updated.)
I think the background colours can be customized - but if I've done that, it was some time ago! It might be one of the Windows' settings - a couple of updates ago something changed, and I fiddled to get back close to where I'd started.
Apologies for not replying in French! I would probably be able to read it adequately, but wouldn't dare to write in it!

In reply to by Papibois

Your images seems to show far less space between each of the palette items - much more like the old version, except for the ... to the left of the items. That would work for me! It's the double spacing, in my MuseScore 3.3 that bothers me. I've managed to reduce the height of the panels along the top (Preferences, General, and adjusted Icon height and width) which I hadn't done before, and that definitely helps - I might not lose the voices menu so often.
(By the way, it all looks perfectly functional on my 22" screen.)
I think I'll just have to accept that on my laptop, these items will be double spaced!
Many thanks for your (and everyone else's) helpful comments.

Not sure, but for example the beams properties palette items look really very huge for me (using the AppImage of 3.3.0):

In reply to by kuwitt

My problem is with the "Palettes" Menu/Index. I can change the cells in each individual palette (and have some that are only 25 pixels wide/tall), but the palette items seem to be double-spaced - hence the limited number of items visible, when all palettes are closed up. And I can find no way of customizing that aspect. So much IS customizable - just not that!

It seems then we are all seeing somewhat different things according to our OS, screen resolution, etc. This has actually always been the case, but the specifics of what differences we see may well have changed or 3.3. Would be good collect some info here, where people attach screenshots and say what size their monitor is, what the resolution is in both pixels and DPI.

I can say on my Microsoft Surface Pro 6 (running Windows 10), things look good and like I expect them to look (whereas 3.2.3 was definitely too small, something I've just lived with since 3.0). My Surface Pro is fairly high DPI (267) but not particularly large (12.3"), and I have always needed to set the QT_AUTO_SCREEN_SCALE_FACTOR environment variable to get readable results not just in MuseScore but in any Qt-based application. But for me, the increase in palette size from 3.2.3 to 3.3 was only on the order of 20%, most of that being extra padding between palettes that I actually find quite beneficial.

So here's how it looks for me:


In reply to by Marc Sabatella

I have been amazed at how different the new version is on different screens so here are all of mine.
The 13.3" laptop is an HP Spectre x360 G2, Windows 10 Pro, 1820, OS 17763.805,
Resolution 2560x1440, Scale and Layout set at the recommended 200%.
The 14" laptop is an Acer Model: Swift SF514-52T, Windows Version:10.0.18362 Build 18362
Resolution 1920 x 1080, with the Scale and Layout set at the recommended 150%.
(These weird resolution settings have always puzzled me, why can't the layout be 100%? Scaling is easy enough to organize when you know the pixel size! I have previously fiddled with this, to the detriment of other programs.)
The 22" monitor resolution is 1920x1080, and running Xubuntu 19.04.
I had both MuseScore 3.0.5 and 3.3.0. on the 22" screen so the image sought to be exactly the same size.
I've tried to scale the images so that they relate moderately well to each other.
And I think the images show that the variation in appearance depends largely on the equipment, given that the spacing on the 22" is much the same for the two versions. So why the "Palettes" menu items are so spread out on 3.3.0. (that's how I feel about it!) on my 14", is just plain weird.
It's obviously not a simple problem. I may install 3.3.0 on the 13.3" just to see what happens - but I'll have have to build myself up for that!!
If I ever find a setting that reduces this spread on my laptop I'll let you all know!

Attachment Size
MuseScoreCompare22vs14vs13Inch.jpg 206.01 KB

In reply to by dmitrio95

FWIW, My wife's computer shows what I might take to be a similar issue but it has never had a second monitor attached. But in this case, there's also a more general issue of tweaking the display settings to get the interface as a whole sized reasonably. I've been toying with the various options I know about for tweaking this but not being entirely happy with the results. Right now I have the score the right size but the toolbar icons seem to small, the palettes and Inspector both too big.

The world of high DPI displays is one where it seems hardware manufacturers lept into before consulting with software folks, and operating system / library / application support is still all over the map. We provide "-D" and "-x" command-line options, also Qt provides QT_AUTO_SCREEN_SCALE_FACTOR and other environment variables, and it's basically trial and error to find a combination that works. Given we're unlikely to solve the general problem of autodetecting things perfectly in the face of continually changing OS and library support, I'm thinking maybe we could find a way to provide control of these options via an advanced preference.

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