Automated Way to Change Label?

I’ve used a Keyboard Maestro macro to automate the moving of my editor’s changes (in a DOCX file) back into Scrivener. It works well, but I’d like to be able to mark a document as having been transferred.

Is there any way to do that other than through mouse clicks?

This is what the macro looks like at this point:

The best solution I’ve found for this is to present a scenario where the mouse can reliably find the label control, and that is in the Quick Reference panel, where no matter how wide the window is, or what has been done to the internal arrangement of the metadata splits, the Label and Status buttons are predictably pegged to the lower right, given us access to click points calculated from the lower right corner of the active window.

So what you can do is trigger the Navigate ▸ Open ▸ as Quick Reference (which will work from an editor, out of Scrivenings mode, etc.), click on the label control, and then use an insert text command to type in the name of the label—which on a Mac will select the text label in a menu/dropdown/etc.

Here is a sample workflow that selects the “Done” status for me:

I’d love to hear if anyone has come up with a better solution for that. It has a bit more “window flicker” and lag than I’d care for, but it seems to reliably get the job done.

That worked like a charm. Thanks.

Okay, I got the manuscript transferred back into Scrivener. This was the fastest, easiest transfer, but the process is still a little nerve-wracking.

One trick I have is to put the screen titles in the DOCX file, like this:

That helps me highlight the correct scene text.

With a little more automating, I’m sure the process could be totally automatic.

If the main intention is to split things back up into individual files, have you tried the .docx import with File ▸ Import ▸ Import & Split…, using the document outline (based on Header 1, Header 2, etc.) to split by?

Of course if the idea is to get the material back into the original binder items they came from, to preserve metadata and interlinking, then splitting that way is no good.

Either way, sounds like a useful setup you’ve got.

Right. I wouldn’t want to lose the synopses, document notes, snapshots, etc., so this way seems to be the best.

If I wanted to spend time with LibreOffice macros, and so on, I bet I could make this whole process a one-click operation. The only part that’s manual at this point is the selection of the text in each scene.

It wouldn’t be worth my time to program and debug that, since I can now transfer the scenes in less than an hour (and I only have to do it once per book).

Yeah, hmm or maybe that’s the part where import & split could be handy? Not as a way of getting the material back into the binder, but as a way of getting each chunk of text into an easy to select fashion, without having to figure out a LibreOffice macro. For example if you import & split into a blank project and then have your script walk through the binder with ⌥⌘↓ with a procedure like:

  1. ⌃⌥⌘T to jump into the title field; copy to named variable; Return to get back into text.
  2. Copy body text into named variable.
  3. Activate main project window and use ⌃⌥G to activate quick search; paste stored title variable into field.

Now here’s the part where it could get unreliable if scene names are not absolutely unique. A fully typed in match will always come up to the top of the list, and thus Return will take you straight to it in the main editor. But it might be worthwhile throw an “Alert” action in here, so you can manually confirm and request the script proceed or halt it.

Then you’d do the rest of the stuff you do on this scene chunk, switch back to the blank project, advance to the next item and repeat.

Well, it’s probably not worth it to shave the hour down to half an hour for a once-per-book project—but I hadn’t thought of using import & split as an input buffer like that before; might be useful for some things I do as well. MMD has a similar easy round-trip mechanism in that Scrivener can import & split by header depth, but again you have that same problem of that convenience being outweighed by the total loss of what might be a very intricate binder structure.

Nice. That’s thinking outside the box. Since I don’t use the scene names in the final book, adding numbers to them could help:

10 Bob and Mary Eat Lunch
20 Monster Eats MC
30 Steve Sees Ghost

Perhaps someone could design a macro and post it.

Al