I get the rigidity argument very well.
Maria
I like it. Do it.
Seems simple and non-intrusive.
Dave
I think that my reluctance to embrace such a change derives from the fact that Scrivener, as it stands, suits my writing methodology and work flow so well. I believe it to be the best, and I do mean THE BEST, writing tool available, on any platform. DevonThink, Mellel, Word and Final Draft all figure in my mix, but from refined research to near completion, Scrivener provides the process backbone. Its strength and its flexibility have become crucial tools and, while I can see merit in the change from the examples provided, I’m sceptical that what amounts to an imposed top-level hierarchy will do anything but restrict the very flexibility on which I now depend.
Then again, you created this sweetheart of a program Keith. I’m prepared to trust your judgement and stop trying to chock the wheels of progress. Who knows? With fingers crossed, maybe it won’t be a problem for me at all.
Roy
It seems to me that it adds extra navigability for things that wouldn’t wind up in the draft section anyway, and anything not in the draft folder would fold up at the bottom, the way it does now.
I have been using extra folders in the Binder for stuff beyond Draft: my queries and marketing materials, in one instance an extra copy of the entire book I’m revamping, experiments in prose. It’s great to have odds & ends immediately accessible in the same Project yet not part of my Target count and not cluttering up my work area.
So I’m used to having a bunch of folders beneath the Draft folder.
As an extension of Binder functionality, it seems to fit the way Scrivener thinks.
I’m in favour of the proposal, partly because I agree that the UI should be kept on the cusp of the curve, but mainly because I believe it should increase still further the degree of self-organisation that Scrivener encourages (in my case, a trait that needs all the encouragement it can get).
I don’t have a strong feeling about this either way, so whatever you do is fine with me.
One question: if you did make the change, is it possible or practical to have the Trash be one of the separate items? 1) It would stand out better and first timer’s wouldn be more inclined to notice it. 2) On purely personal preference grounds, I hate to have trash mixed up with my other work. Anyway, it’s a thought.
Margaret
Sorry to say, I don’t like the iTunes/enforced structure binder.
What works well for content browsing and buying does not necessarily work well for content generating. I would greatly prefer the ability to treat saved searches as any other item in the Binder. Putting a Saved Search in a folder with notes and draft pages would be quite helpful.
I would have no objection to both features, that is, saving searches to a predefined section, with the ability to drag and drop elsewhere later.
Thanks for considering my suggestion.
This is going to possibly sound wishy-washy, but I think that while I would initially be a bit annoyed with it - as I was in iTunes, esp. when they added the Audiobooks and only a certain format would end up there (not mp3) - in the end, I will probably become blind to it and just use it.
It’s a shame the user can’t customize the headings, because then I would heartily welcome them. No matter how useful someone else’s choices might end up being, they are still someone else’s choices and that will annoy for a while (esp. “Other” - that’s right up there with “Misc”). I will no doubt get used to them.
Actually, there is no reason why you wouldn’t be able to rename them if you so wished…
Ahhh… 
8)
Wow, then I’m fine with it.
Funny, I just tried to do exactly this in my template for journalistic projects. That’s how I discovered that Saved Searches can’t be put in a folder, which was no biggie, but still, quite a coincidence.
I am going to hazard a guess that Leopard also features tight integration with Apple’s tools – that one could have a Scrivener project with all the above plus links to Addresses, Calendar, emails. Which would be spiffy.
I guess my only hesitation lies in the fact that often the origin of text or other stuff is not very important – ie, I don’t particularly care if the source of a good quote is my own DevonThink database or a web archive or an email. I think the key to source lists'' usefulness would be user control: Not being able to access iCal and Saved Searches according to their origins, but rather according to my needs. Source lists like Stuff for the First Draft’’ would be more nifty than source lists like ``Saved Searches.‘’
That said, I too have not found myself wishing that Scrivener was more impressive and versatile – it is a wonderful tool as is, so please don’t take these thoughts of a non-programmer as an expression of dissatisfaction in ANY way.
Cheers,
David
It would be very helpful to be able to file Saved Searches in the context in which they will be used.
If it isn’t a big engineering headache to enable Saved Searches to be put in folders/hierarchies, please consider doing so.
Thanks!
Just to clarify: the source list thing won’t be able to contain anything to do with iCal or e-mails; the actual content will be exactly as it is now. There is no tighter integration.
And popcornflix, Saved Searches will not be able to be saved in folders in any 1.x release, as I have already said - this has been discussed before so please search the forum for an explanation of the reasons for this. The source list will at least allow you to collapse saved searches, though.
Best,
Keith
Every little bit helps. 
That’ll be good! Thanks for the clarification, Keith.
Best
David
Just FYI, I’ve decided against these titles and the source-list thing. I tried it and it did, indeed, feel rather rigid and awkward.
Best,
Keith
Thanks for letting us know. I was a bit worried about this, so I’m personally relieved you are not attempting it. I really like the way the binder works right now. So there’s at least one person happy about your decision! 
Alexandria