jan
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by jan on Dec 21, 2005 1:00:41 GMT
Third vote for ultimate configurability.
I'm fine with the Draft category (it will have to stay anyway since Scrivener's Draft view and export options depend on it), but everything else should be configurable. I cannot make any suggestions for "useful" root folder names and icons because the whole idea of pre-configured categories is fundamentally wrong.
Every tree has its own roots, and every new writing project needs its own "root folders". I might need twelve additional categories or none at all, depending on the project I'm working on. I don't know what they teach in creative writing classes, but in my experience, there are no rules about how a project should be planned and structured. It always depends on the project itself, not some made-up textbook rules, and the categories you use for your notes and ideas are constantly in flux.
The only thing that's certain is that I would never use a program that forced me to file my stuff under seemingly helpful categories (or "root folders") like People, Places, Things or any of the other keywords that have been suggested in this thread. A program for fiction writers shouldn't force a surgical corset of pre-configured categories on its users.
Neither do I need any icons for my project folders, like a compass rose or a dog cow or the silhouette of an accountant / murderer / programmer. This would add nothing to my workflow. It would only be a source of distraction.
Why not keep it simple and flexible and use the plain old folder/file metaphor for the outline view? What would be wrong with that? Let users create and nest as many folders and files as they want. If you want to get fancy, let them choose custom icons for each main category.
Why not? Why shouldn't I be allowed to drag the root folders around and delete them? Is this some technical problem? It can't be a deliberate design decision because, try as I might, I don't see any special significance in this concept of an immovable set of root folders. It's a constraint, not a feature, and it ruins Scrivener's greatest strength: it's flexibility.
|
|
|
Post by KB on Dec 21, 2005 11:22:23 GMT
Well, as I said, this will become more configurable before release. However, icons for root folders will remain, and root folders will never be draggable. Mail has icons and the root folders are not draggable, and nobody complains about that... The same goes for iPhoto and iTunes. And, for that matter, Finder. Root folders have special significance because if you can drag them, you could, if you wanted, drag the Draft folder to become a subfolder of another category. Suddenly your whole draft folder is gone and you have nothing to export or print, and nothing for Draft view. The program needs to know where the Draft folder is. It also needs to know where the Research folder is, so that if you try to import media files when a Draft document is selected, it can dump them into the Research folder rather than tell you that you cannot import them. (Media files cannot, and should not, be imported into the Draft folder.) There just have to be some restrictions to prevent users from breaking their project. Thanks, Keith
|
|
jan
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by jan on Jan 3, 2006 21:51:25 GMT
As I said in my first post, I'm aware of the fact that the Draft folder is an integral part of the whole interface concept (at least in its current state). It should always stay on top of the categories / root folder list and it shouldn't be draggable. (Unless you decide to remove Draft view in the next version, of course.) But why use root folders that are not needed by the program? Why would you want to limit users to a fixed set of folders like "Places" or "People" – or whatever you deem helpful – without any technical reason? Instead of being forced to use artificial categories that don't make sense to me, I'd rather be able to structure my projects the way I'm used to. The categories I use wouldn't make sense to anyone else, and they often change with new projects. This argument does not convince me. In an email program, it's easy to come up with a fixed set of folders that make sense to everyone. Inbox, sent items, drafts, trash – there's a logic about this structure that no one will argue with. But things are not as simple when it comes a program aimed at writers. Which categories are essential for writers? What's the most commonly used structure for planning a novel? I'm a writer, and I don't know. All I know is that I can't use a program that dictates how I have to organize my projects, no matter how great it is in every other regard. There are root folders like "Library" in iTunes and iPhoto and some system-level folders in the Finder that have custom icons and can't be deleted. But all of these programs let you add as many folders or categories as you wish, drag them around and delete them. Why shouldn't Scrivener follow these examples and allow an unlimited number of nested folders and files in outline view? Fixed root folders only have disadvantages in my opinion, they add inconsistencies to the interface, and they only seem to be there because of the technical constraints you mentioned. (Btw, these constraints would probably evaporate completely if you decided to streamline the interface and remove the Draft view.) Anyway, I don't want to criticize your work, just trying to add my own view to the discussion. Happy New Year and thanks for the new beta!
|
|
|
Post by KB on Jan 10, 2006 19:10:18 GMT
Well, you made your point. As have others. And as you probably read elsewhere, I *am* streamlining Scrivener. "People", "Places" and "Research" will go. I think "Draft" will stay, though - I don't think there is a way around that. If Scrivener only supported text files, it wouldn't be an issue. But Scrivener allows you to import research files that can't be exported to text (movies, web pages, sound files etc), so there needs to be a folder ("Draft") that allows text-only files for exporting. Otherwise export gets more complicated, and you have to set up a separate export list, or just skip non-text files from the export, and I don't think that is helpful. I think "Draft" makes a lot of sense in this context. Anyway, streamlining will start in a couple of weeks. Right now I am working on better RTF export (footnotes, comments, pictures in RTF). So it will be a month or so, probably longer owing to external circumstances, but a more flexible system will appear before release. If there is ever a release. (A brow-beaten) Keith
|
|
janra
New Member
Posts: 41
|
Post by janra on Jan 14, 2006 22:20:37 GMT
I vote for "Draft" and "Research" to stay - they both seem to have particular functions within the program. Research might be renamed to "Imported files" or something that reflects its particular purpose; just as Draft is where the word count, export, and various other final-product-related stuff operates, there should be a place where imported files are put by default.
People and Places both seem to be the type of thing that are suited to some projects and not others, and so should be configurable.
Just my opinion. It's your program, Keith, don't let us bully you ;-)
-janra
|
|
rayz
New Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by rayz on Jan 15, 2006 12:51:07 GMT
Well, you made your point. As have others. And as you probably read elsewhere, I *am* streamlining Scrivener. "People", "Places" and "Research" will go. I think "Draft" will stay, though - I don't think there is a way around that. If Scrivener only supported text files, it wouldn't be an issue. But Scrivener allows you to import research files that can't be exported to text (movies, web pages, sound files etc), so there needs to be a folder ("Draft") that allows text-only files for exporting. Otherwise export gets more complicated, and you have to set up a separate export list, or just skip non-text files from the export, and I don't think that is helpful. I think "Draft" makes a lot of sense in this context. Anyway, streamlining will start in a couple of weeks. Right now I am working on better RTF export (footnotes, comments, pictures in RTF). So it will be a month or so, probably longer owing to external circumstances, but a more flexible system will appear before release. If there is ever a release. (A brow-beaten) Keith I have an idea which I reckon you will absolutely hate! ... The draft folder stays BUT .... add a project level option, that sets the 'display root' of the project: display 'draft' folder -> shows draft folder and all documents/subfolders do not display 'draft' folder -> the browser shows the level BELOW the draft. That way, you can have a flat list of documents if you want to ....
|
|
rayz
New Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by rayz on Jan 15, 2006 12:59:35 GMT
Well, you made your point. As have others. And as you probably read elsewhere, I *am* streamlining Scrivener. "People", "Places" and "Research" will go. I think "Draft" will stay, though - I don't think there is a way around that. If Scrivener only supported text files, it wouldn't be an issue. But Scrivener allows you to import research files that can't be exported to text (movies, web pages, sound files etc), so there needs to be a folder ("Draft") that allows text-only files for exporting. Otherwise export gets more complicated, and you have to set up a separate export list, or just skip non-text files from the export, and I don't think that is helpful. I think "Draft" makes a lot of sense in this context. Anyway, streamlining will start in a couple of weeks. Right now I am working on better RTF export (footnotes, comments, pictures in RTF). So it will be a month or so, probably longer owing to external circumstances, but a more flexible system will appear before release. If there is ever a release. (A brow-beaten) Keith I have an idea which I reckon you will absolutely hate! ... The draft folder stays BUT .... add a project level option, that sets the 'display root' of the project: display 'draft' folder -> shows draft folder and all documents/subfolders do not display 'draft' folder -> the browser shows the level BELOW the draft. That way, you can have a flat list of documents if you want to .... Forget I said that! Yes, I can see the problem now. The rule is that you can only export from the draft folder, which does make a lot of sense. Not as felxible as many would like, but it certainly beats having no folders at all!
|
|
|
Post by KB on Jan 15, 2006 13:49:49 GMT
I don't see how this is not flexible. The alternative is allowing you to organise files however you want in the binder, and having you choose what to export only in the export panel. But this would mean that every time you rearranged your project in the binder, you would also have to rearrange it in the export panel separately (because how could the export panel guess what you wanted in this case?). Clearly, you cannot include QuickTime files in text you want to send to a publisher (you can't print sound or a movie!), so the question is, at which level should such files be disallowed? In fact, this is only an issue at all because Scrivener is currently the *only* software of its kind that allows such supporting files. (I'm not counting DevonThink because that does not allow you to export everything as one long, merged text file.)
I just do not see the issue with having a compulsory Draft folder. Presumably, if you're using Scrivener, you are doing so with the objective of creating a long piece of text. The draft folder is where you put the files that comprise that text. Simple and intuitive, I would think...
Anyway, back to overhauling the text system... Cheers, Keith
|
|
rayz
New Member
Posts: 26
|
Post by rayz on Jan 16, 2006 11:33:31 GMT
I don't see how this is not flexible. The alternative is allowing you to organise files however you want in the binder, and having you choose what to export only in the export panel. But this would mean that every time you rearranged your project in the binder, you would also have to rearrange it in the export panel separately (because how could the export panel guess what you wanted in this case?). Clearly, you cannot include QuickTime files in text you want to send to a publisher (you can't print sound or a movie!), so the question is, at which level should such files be disallowed? In fact, this is only an issue at all because Scrivener is currently the *only* software of its kind that allows such supporting files. (I'm not counting DevonThink because that does not allow you to export everything as one long, merged text file.) I just do not see the issue with having a compulsory Draft folder. Presumably, if you're using Scrivener, you are doing so with the objective of creating a long piece of text. The draft folder is where you put the files that comprise that text. Simple and intuitive, I would think... Anyway, back to overhauling the text system... Cheers, Keith Well, when I said 'not as flexible as many would like', I didn't mean me .... :-) Never really had a problem with the draft folder; it's the other ones which I thought were a bit superfluous. If folk need to add other folders, then let 'em
|
|
jan
New Member
Posts: 13
|
Post by jan on Jan 17, 2006 9:33:55 GMT
Yes, of course. I don't have a problem with the Draft folder either. The Draft folder is a great idea. I only had a problem with having compulsory root folders in addition to the Draft folder. With a Draft folder as the only fixed category and the ability to add custom folders and sub-folders, Scrivener would be flexible enough to suit every writer and any project.
Come on :) I didn't mean to brow beat you. Sorry if my post came off that way. The feature requests and opinions posted here are not meant to put you under pressure. As janra said, it's your program. We're happy to follow its progress and make some suggestions along the way. Most of us will buy it as soon as you release it anyway.
(Just trying to make sure that you don't get hit by some kind of Coder's Block ;))
|
|
|
Post by KB on Jan 17, 2006 18:06:28 GMT
I'm just kidding. Actually I'm pretty excited about the next version, even though I haven't started putting it together yet (because I'm working on improving the text system first). It will be sleeker and simpler, and Draft will indeed be the only compulsory folder. Watch this space... Cheers, Keith
|
|
smolk
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by smolk on Mar 29, 2006 14:38:10 GMT
I would not like any predetermined root folders, just the option to create some myself. No choice or range of options is likely to satisfy. Having the option of folders is great, to be sure!
I would use the app both for lesson planning, readers, research articles and books, and fiction, and choose my folders according to purpose.
|
|
|
Post by KB on Mar 29, 2006 17:04:17 GMT
Hi, a lot has changed since this thread was started. The next beta has only two predetermined folders - Draft and Research. These two are necessary. The Draft folder determines what will be exported by default - your actually book, thesis, whatever - the actual text output. The Research folder is there (though it can be renamed) because there needs to be a default place to import non-text files.
However, in the next beta you can create root folders as and when you wish. And although you can't move the Draft or Research folders, you can drag other folders in between them, so it is a lot more customisable.
|
|
|
Post by bluloo on Apr 1, 2006 16:38:21 GMT
Hi, a lot has changed since this thread was started. The next beta has only two predetermined folders - Draft and Research. These two are necessary. The Draft folder determines what will be exported by default - your actually book, thesis, whatever - the actual text output. The Research folder is there (though it can be renamed) because there needs to be a default place to import non-text files. However, in the next beta you can create root folders as and when you wish. And although you can't move the Draft or Research folders, you can drag other folders in between them, so it is a lot more customisable. This sounds like a great solution. Keep up the good work. (Seriously, get back to work... )
|
|
|
Post by entelecher on May 28, 2006 11:58:37 GMT
Hello–just discovered this great app via Lifehacker.org.
Am I understanding correctly that the root folder choices will be limited to whatever's on the menu?
I am not understanding WHY the root folders have to be predesignated. No matter how many choices you provide, those might not be appropriate to whatever project I'm working on. I might have to write a work-related document, a school term paper project/thesis, a personal bio/novel project. Someone else might be writing a technical document, etc. etc. innumerable scenarios exist which, if root folders are predesignated, limits the users' ability to create what they need to.
A default set, OK. But limiting the choices by providing a menu of names that may or may not fit the project I have in mind seems unnecessarily limiting.
|
|