Another Happy Technical Writing Fan

I read the NYT article and decided to give the tutorial a try. The article did an excellent job of describing the difference between writing support and word processing/pubs support. Well written scientific papers are presented as a linear, logical, almost mathematical flow from hypotheses and premises to conclusive results. However, that has little to do with how science is done, how scientists think, or how papers are written. I find Scrivener to be an excellent “thinking” support environment.

I am simply amazed that Scrivener is so naturally usable. I don’t use all the features, but what I need behaves as I expect it to behave, and what I don’t need never seems to be in the way. After I had been using Scrivener for about a week, and was comfortable with the application, I went back and did the tutorial again. I highly recommend such a review. The second time around I picked up many capabilities that didn’t stick on that first day.

Thank you for a fine application and fine support in these forums.


Thank you. :slight_smile:

I’ve had several people go to the tutorial first and tell me it’s too complicated thus being scared off. I told them to just start using it as it’s just like your Mac. Then they went back to the tutorial and realized it’s not all that complicated. The more you use the more you learn. Great great application.