Scrivener 3 with the new Bookmarks feature has the capability to do almost everything I want to do, but something that would make Scrivener over the top awesome is to add a basic Macro Capability (NOT a complicated, extensive one like MS Word’s macros).
Maybe in Scrivener 4??? 
Leisa
We should not have to pay $36 to be able to use macros!!
Yes, I agree. Also surprising they don’t have a vote system for these ideas. Instead people have to keep posting on them…
I think you are new to these forums, so I’d encourage you to read the developer’s comments in the first thread: [url]Guidelines for posting wishlist requests]. Particularly no. 4.
I have read them. Not sure why this precludes me from politely noting that it is surprising that he does not have a voting system. He could still say he was not bound by any request that gets a lot of votes. But it would certainly help him get a sense of what issues affect many users and thus be more responsive and help prioritize. Otherwise, there may be lots of people who want this, but who are dissuaded from posting precisely because of the “read this” points.
No vote system, because as Keith has said, development decisions aren’t made based on a popularity system. It’s his company and his process.
If Keith and team feel a suggestion fits their vision for Scrivener it may be included.
Given their limited resources - 1 man for iOS who is also chief Mac developer, and dozens of requests holding breath is not recommended even when L&L say a feature is in the pipeline.
That said, what does come through the pipe is always tops.
Hi da123,
My observation from the inordinate amount of time I spend on these forums is that Keith & the windows devs do prioritize issues based on the number of people impacted.
But this thread isn’t reporting an issue, it’s making a feature request. That’s why it’s in the “Wish List” forum.
In his “read this” post, which you’ve read, Keith clearly summarizes the factors that influence his consideration of feature requests, and “lots of people who want this” is explicitly called out as not being a factor. Bolding mine:
So your implied question has already been answered, and I’m surprised at your surprise.
Best,
Jim
Why not? The development effort and overhead for maintaining the code base and providing user support for this kind of feature has been priced by the market at an additional $36 as evidenced by Keyboard Maestro’s success.
What you’re asking here is for KB to do what the people behind KM have done, only for free. Now Keith does do that sort of thing from time to time (lots of additional features have appeared in free upgrades to Scrivener) but it’s worth having some appreciation for the effort (and market value) involved. And of course, KM (and similar apps?) would give you benefit across your entire OS rather than require that same development effort for something that can be used for only single application.
LeisaAGH—you list yourself as “Mac + Windows.” I’m strictly a Windows guy, and in Windows there’s a fabulous, free, open source app called AutoHotkey that provides macro capabilities across all Windows programs. I use it extensively in Scrivener. If you’re running Scrivener on Windows it would probably address your needs.
Unfortunately, I use Mac for my actual work. I keep up on the Windows version because I teach Scrivener and want to be able to help anyone who uses the Windows version.
However, thanks for letting me know, I might try it in the Windows version and see if there are macros I could create and share with students who have the Windows version.
Have you looked at Alfred? It can do a lot of things, including issuing keyboard sequences
It’s well worth the investment, and you’ll find you use that program in many other applications and situations.
I’ll say this much about the strain on the company and the development pipeline. I paid $40 for this software. I’d gladly pay THREE TIMES that amount for a more robust development pipeline and more consideration of user feedback.
Maybe I’m the only one, I don’t know. But I assume there are a lot of serious writers using this who need serious tools. I love it, but it would be great to get some features we really need.
Maybe the owner doesn’t want to expand, or maybe it’s not enough - just my two cents.
Except, as noted above, for a small fraction of that you can get an excellent cross-application macro capability.
Katherine
Not to mention that with each addition of such features not directly related to writing tends to bloat the software and eventually diminishes its ability to do its intended function.
I’ve played with Maestro, it’s a pretty rough app, not user friendly. I can’t really get it to do what I want. I would prefer better functionality in app anyway.
I say use the right tool for the right job. Scrivener is almost always the right tool, and when it isn’t, I use another tool.