Talk:Microsoft Expression Studio

Should this be Microsoft Expression Studio instead? Enochlau 08:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Moved. ··gracefool |☺ 08:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Screenshot

Couldn't we do a kind of screenshot where all the applications are side aligned, like from the Office '07 screenshot? I mean, I've got all the products so I'd do it if you want me to, but would it be suitable?

Akira-otomo, Exiled to the Valley of the Snow. (Talk -|- Contributions)

20:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

no i don't think so —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.84.197.100 (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Free upgrade from Expression 3 to 4 clarification

This sentence: "On June 7, 2010, Expression Studio 4 was released. Expression Studio 4 is a free upgrade for licensed Expression Studio 3 users."

may need clarification. There seems to be some confusion (and anger) online at the moment where the customer has found they are unable to upgrade from version 3 to 4 for free. Discussions on Microsoft blogs seems to indicate that the free upgrade is only available to retail copies, and excludes purchasers of Expression 3 from volume licensing, or those who have legal Expression 3 licenses via now expired MSDN subscriptions. I cannot find a definitive explanation from Microsoft for this, so hawith no source to cite have not edited the main article. Perhaps someone with more knowledge about this subject could clarify?

Suggest merge

Information from Creature House could be merged into this article, to consolidate the information in one place. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"Digital media contents" should be "digital media content"

User:Codename Lisa keeps wrongly reverting me. "Contents" are things in a container ("the contents of a box"), while "content" (a mass noun, or uncountable noun) is material created for a publication. See these convincing searches in Google Books: "content of this book" [1], "advertising content" [2], "Web content" [3]; also check any good dictionary. Lisa, please overlook your prejudices and check this out. My edit should stand. 86.136.110.44 (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

And, of course, Wikipedia has an article on Web content, not "Web contents"! 86.136.110.44 (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi.

Search engine test is one of the commonly used but nevertheless flawed discussions in Wikipedia. You see, even if you were correct, you still aren't at liberty to to change the word because per MOS:STABILITY and WP:ENGVAR, editors are not allowed to switch from one correct form to another. To change, you must also show that the use of the word "contents" is wrong. But it isn't. See:

1. Oxford American English Dictionary (or you can switch to the British version too)
2. Random House Dictionary
3. Merriam Webster Learner's Dictionary
4. Google Book examples: [4], [5], [6], [7]

You can also use Corpus of Contemporary American English for advanced verification.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

According to the dictionary links that User:Codename Lisa has graciously provided, the noncount form (content) should be used in this context. 96.253.76.142 (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Lying is your latest tactic? Surprising. Time to ask for a third opinion.

Just a quotation from my Oxford source:

Information made available by a website or other electronic medium ... 'The contents of the Web site, however, compensate for its traditional image by being versatile and very user-friendly.'

Concerned,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment, per WP:3O: While both forms are technically correct, they are only used in two instances in this article, "... digital media contents." and "...H.264/MPEG-4 AVC contents." Both of those pages use "content" and hence to keep things consistent, that form should be used here as well. No need to make this particular article any special. At any rate, the use of "contents" in regards to the sentence structure of this article is technically unnatural. Also, be civil. No need to accuse someone of lying. —KirtZ^Message 01:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@KirtZJ: Actually, per WP:ENGVAR and MOS:STABILITY, we cannot. It dictates that the only reason for changing from one correct form to another is very strong national ties. Cross-article consistency is never given as a valid reason for change.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with national ties but rather how the sentences are structured. Nor does MOS:STABILITY hold any ground here because Wikipedia is a work in progress, which is why this discussion was started. I've made my case due to the MOS's contested vocabulary section. Just so this discussion doesnt get out of hand, I would suggest to reword the sentences as a compromise, but only if this discussion's initial editor makes another argument. If not then the MOS:STABILITY can hold. I won't be returning. —KirtZ^Message 01:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was implying; it has nothing to do with national ties, hence both "content" and "contents" can be used. (I hope I understood well.) As for MOS:STABILITY, I feel you have confused it with WP:CCC because MOS:STABILITY is about the optional styles and has nothing to do with work in progress.

But if you aren't returning, I can invoke additional third opinions.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

In response to User:KirtZJ's civility comment, one should know that 96.253.76.142's contribution log shows that his contributions to Wikipedia so far has strictly consisted of Wiki-hounding of Codename Lisa and nothing else. As part of those malicious conduct he/she has previously accused me and User:Jeh of having been CL's sock-puppets and Microsoft employees (although he/she used a slightly different IP address.) Another case of The socks, the socks are calling! In this light, 96.253.76.142's inaccurate sentence must not be treated as a super-huge super-careless mistake in good faith, but rather as a lie in the continuation of the past harassment efforts. Note that, I am watching his contribution log now. They say keep the enemies closer!

Now, I have some additional comments too. Call it a 4O if you wish: KirtZJ's comments – although made in good faith, I am sure – are flawed at best. First, WP:WORKINPROGRESS (an essay) has no conflict with MOS:STABILITY (an ArbCom ruling) at all; even if it had, essays do not have any executive powers against a ruling of Arbitration Committee. It says:

Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason. Edit warring over optional styles is unacceptable.^[1]

Second, the sentence structure perfectly allows a plural here; even so, a pseudo-plural is not actually plural. Third, I have no clue as to what he (or she) means by contested vocabulary section. (Seems as irrelevant as WP:WORKINPROGRESS, if not more irrelevant.) Overall, Codename Lisa's first revert was done with the wrong reason but ended up being justifiable. That's why we have WP:BRD. Fleet Command (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Even funnier, I went to see if I could get third-party help on this, and found the WP section on "Resolving content disputes". Content, not contents! 86.136.110.44 (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Well then, please don't convert "content" to "contents" there, per WP:ENGVAR! Also "funnier" implies we agreed on something funny beforehand, which we didn't. Although, Wikipedia:Content dispute probably has a "table of contents" not "table of content". Wow, it is the Apple navbox all over again. Remember?

Concerned, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I think "contents" is wrong, by the way, or at least strongly unidiomatic, despite what you said above. I showed links to many good books (remember, it was Google Books, real printed books, not just Web pages) using "Web content". If you try the same search for "Web contents", you find almost exclusively books by non-native speakers (authors with Chinese names, etc.): [8]. So I know that I'm right, but I also know that you're a very regular user and I will never be able to make a correction if the WP establishment for some reason doesn't want it to stand. We'll leave these comments here in case crazy consensus changes to the correct view in future. Cheers. 86.136.110.44 (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It is unlikely. ArbCom rulings are not overridden by consensus. You see, the majority of your arguments are ad hominem, unfortunately. You called me prejudiced and called writers that opposed your view worthless because of being Chinese (a racist comment). There is of course, resisting the WP:BRD revert and assuming bad faith. And you ignored the dictionary and examples that I provided. Overall, you are playing unfair. This style never succeeds in Wikipedia. (It does not face immediate defeat, mind you. But eventually, it does not last.)

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Are ArbCom rulings overridden by you being perma-blocked for fraud? Equinox ◑ 23:03, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Microsoft Expression Studio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090725030606/http://www.uxpassion.com/2009/07/expression-studio-3-overview-expression-blend-3-design-web-and-media-overview/ to http://www.uxpassion.com/2009/07/expression-studio-3-overview-expression-blend-3-design-web-and-media-overview/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)