Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Strange Cursor Position? (Read 16182 times) previous topic - next topic

Strange Cursor Position?

(See Attachment)

I felt the cursor position strange long time ago...
Cursor position in the last capture scene shows [4 of 4/4 Bar 1] hasn't reached the whole rest.

When working in Viewer Mode, I'd been inconvenient because of that.
NWC User since 2008

Re: Strange Cursor Position?

Reply #1 –
When I use NWC 2.5.1,
I cannot duplicate the problem you are having.

Re: Strange Cursor Position?

Reply #2 –
I can. Toggle between Edit and View with this:
Code: (nwc) [Select · Download]
!NoteWorthyComposer(2.5)
|Editor|ActiveStaff:1|CaretIndex:2|CaretPos:5
|AddStaff
|StaffProperties|EndingBar:Open (hidden)
|Rest|Dur:Whole
!NoteWorthyComposer-End
The cursor moves from one side of the rest to the other.
NoteWorthy is aware of this. It has existed since Viewer Mode was introduced in NWC 2.1
Edit 09Dec2012: this has been fixed.
Registered user since 1996

Re: Strange Cursor Position?

Reply #3 –
Rick, Thank you.

Re: Strange Cursor Position?

Reply #4 –
And this is also probably related to the cursor position problems in 2.5 discussed here and elsewhere (in the Backstage section of the forum). It appears that NWC's cursor handling needs a thorough review.

Re: Strange Cursor Position?

Reply #5 –
      
   It would also help if the cursor were a bit bigger - more like it used to be before the advent of the present 2.5 version.  At the moment it's really quite difficult to see, and pretty hard to find!

   MusicJohn, 6/Jan/12

Re: Strange Cursor Position?

Reply #6 –
Quote from: MusicJohn –
At the moment it's really quite difficult to see, and pretty hard to find!
I admit that it took some time, but Show Crosshair works for me. I'd like it better if I could configure NWC to show only the vertical portion. But then, it wouldn't be a crosshair :)
Registered user since 1996

Re: Strange Cursor Position?

Reply #7 –

        Hmmm.  Cross hairs certainly show up well, and I'll give them a try and see if they grow on me, but ... being an old stick-in-the-mud I'd still prefer a bigger, more obvious, cursor, along the lines of the old one.  Perhaps that could be an option?

        Mind you, I'm still rejecting the attractions of Win7 (!!) and sticking with W2K - if I could make Win7 look like W2k, or even XP, I would! - so I guess there's no hope for me.  [:-)]

   MusicJohn, 6/Jan/12

Re: Strange Cursor Position?

Reply #9 –
I, too, would prefer a return to the larger cursor - maybe I'm just gettin' old(er)...
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: Strange Cursor Position?

Reply #12 –
Quote from: NoteWorthy Online –
Perhaps this 2.5.2 addition will help with awareness of the insertion point location:

Definitely an improvement.  Thanks Eric.
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: Strange Cursor Position?

Reply #13 –
I see I'm not the only one wondering each time where the cursor is...

N.B. I have still to try 2.5.2

Re: Strange Cursor Position?

Reply #15 –
G'day rick,
I haven't used this user tool but knowing you it works fine...  I just don't think it should be necessary.  Surely a cursor that is hard to find is not really fulfilling its proper function...  and while the crosshairs are very effective I do find them distracting.
I plays 'Bones, crumpets, coronets, floosgals, youfonymums 'n tubies.

Re: Strange Cursor Position?

Reply #16 –
Quote from: Lawrie Pardy –
I just don't think it should be necessary.  Surely a cursor that is hard to find is not really fulfilling its proper function... 
I'd rather light a candle than curse the darkness.

IMO, NWC 2.5.2's cursor is fulfilling its proper function. With or without crosshairs it is now easier to find than NotePad's, WordPad's or IE8's. My tool is simply an enhancement to force the cursor into the current view without changing its position on the staff.
Registered user since 1996
 

Re: Strange Cursor Position?

Reply #17 –
   But ... I'd still like the old, bigger (fatter) one back, please.  Is there a good technical reason why it can't be used?

   MusicJohn, 10/Jan/11