Binder click behavior

This is a long standing issue for me (and yes, I searched for it): Clicking in or on a title in the binder:

One click anywhere in the field selects the document in the Binder. Fine.
Double click anywhere in the field selects the title—all of it. Fine—but I rarely want or need to completely change the title.
Triple click anywhere in the field is identical to one click. To get the insertion point at the end of the title, I have to hesitate before the third click. This is not intuitive.

So what I suggest is: On a triple click, the insertion point is placed wherever in the field the pointer is. If in the open field, at the end of the text. If over the text, exactly where the cursor is. That way, If I need to change the whole title, double click. If I need to edit the title, triple click, insertion point at the point clicked. This is consistent with the way multiple clicks behaves on a Mac (or Windows, IIRC.)

Hmm, unable to replicate on Windows. Unless it’s a Mac-specific bug, have you attempted to tweak your double-click speed?

If I need to edit the title, triple click, insertion point at the point clicked. This is consistent with the way multiple clicks behaves on a Mac (or Windows, IIRC.)

I don’t think we’re doing anything out of the ordinary here (indeed, not sure if we even can), with regards to how the Mac works with this particular type of view. The main point of variation I’ve seen is that most programs using this type of view have a double-click action that you kind of have to awkwardly get around by pausing for just the right amount of time so that the second click toggles editing mode, and then the rapidly sent third click toggles editing back off—just like Scrivener.

In fact, I’m having a really hard time finding anything that works like you say the Mac standard does.

That said I’d suggest just using the keyboard if you find the mouse approach less ideal. Esc toggles title editing on and off, and Up/Left = beginning while Down/Right = end of field. I prefer Up/Down since those work no matter where the cursor is. And of course if you just want to position the cursor, you hit Esc with your pinkie and click with your mouse. Job done.

1 Like

The standard behaviour on a Mac is for either ‘3 single clicks’, or a ‘double click plus single click’ to edit a field at a specific point, and this works exactly the same way in the Scrivener Binder (because the Binder is using standard MacOS controls, I think…)

Out of interest, which programs on a Mac have a rapid triple click without pauses working this way? I had a quick unscientific look and couldn’t find one, but obviously, that’s no guarantee of anything :grinning:.

Well, I’ve been using the Mac OS since 1982. Maybe I’m not describing things properly.

In the Finder, one click selects. A second click after hesitation selects the whole title, the third click places the insertion point. A double (or triple) click opens the item.

In an application (say MS Word), one click sets the insertion point. Two clicks selects a continuous character string. Three clicks a paragraph or equivalent.

So the Binder is essentially a mini-Finder, but I’ve never thought of it that way. And yes, I read the Manual—for Scrivener 2. Did the tutorials, too. When ver. 3 came along, I was (still am) deep into a very large project, so if this is made clear in the current manual, I missed it. (Circumstances necessitated upgrading to 3. Bad idea to change technology in the middle of a project, as this demonstrates. Looking it up just now, there is at least a clue: Section 6.2 "The Three Root Folders. That word is the clue. Even if I read it in Ver. 2, it has only been in the context of this discussion that it “clicked:” The Binder is the Scrivener Finder. (Might be useful to actually put that phrase in the Manual.)

All that said, I still think there may be a timing difference between the Binder and the Finder. It wouldn’t take much, but is it worth the effort to find out and change? For me, if I were writing the code, probably. For those who are writing the code, probably not.

Thank you all for your help.

I will try the keyboard approach, thanks. May work better for me.

So the Binder is essentially a mini-Finder, but I’ve never thought of it that way. And yes, I read the Manual—for Scrivener 2. Did the tutorials, too. When ver. 3 came along, I was (still am) deep into a very large project, so if this is made clear in the current manual, I missed it.

And to be quite clear, that impression is intentional! We go out of our way to avoid drawing comparisons between Finder (or more accurately, the file system) and how the binder or the outline view in Scrivener works, and actively try to push other metaphors. In other words I think your first impression is the best and right hunch. It’s an outliner, like OmniFocus, Tinderbox and other such tools where information is expressed hierarchically in a collapsible node tree. True, a file system owes some of its metaphor to outlining, but there are important differences (not relevant to this discussion I would say).

Now as for standard mouse clicking behaviours among outliners, that’s a bit more difficult to say, because there are so few of them and hardly any of them act alike. When I said that the type of view we use is likely using Mac standard behaviour, I meant it in a very technical sense—not one of behaviours typical to software overall, or even a specific software genre. In other words when you create a tree view using the programming tool that we use to draw it as you see it on your screen, it comes prepackaged with behaviours for double-click and such. Unless you change them deliberately, they are ipso facto Mac standard behaviour.

And so to that end…

All that said, I still think there may be a timing difference between the Binder and the Finder. It wouldn’t take much, but is it worth the effort to find out and change? For me, if I were writing the code, probably. For those who are writing the code, probably not.

There is often a risk in doing that. If you override a default behaviour, then if later on Apple comes along and changes something that depends upon the assumption of default behaviour happening elsewhere, then your customisation becomes a bug. Hence the more you do this, the greater the likelihood of having to spend most of your days fixing bugs introduced by yearly Apple overhauls to whatever they consider to be “modern”.

It’s worth looking at, to be sure, but there are good reasons to not customise everything in sight—even if it makes good sense to otherwise.

Hopefully that background information is insightful to what you’re seeing.

Oh, and by the way: the main point of variation that I saw between your description and most other Mac tools I tested against is that if you are clicking so fast that the third click is not separate from the second click, then that sequence is treated as a double-click: the result is to select a word within the now open editing field. If you click slowly enough that double-click behaviour is not triggered, then it places the cursor (and does in Scrivener as well). I didn’t see anything with an actual triple-click behaviour that does anything special from an unedited state.

I just wanted to emphasise that if we can change this, and decide it’s a good idea to do so, it like still won’t work the way you asked for initially, because if you’re clicking that fast: it’s going to select the word under the pointer.

There is an engineering maxim, probably as old as the human species, if not older: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!” Whoever at Apple made the decision that there has to be a new Mac OS every year needs to have that driven in to their solid neutronium head. But I don’t think anyone has a hammer that big.

Now that my understanding is better, it seems I click too fast—I have a similar problem editing and renaming file names in the Finder, though it seems worse in Scrivener. Maybe arthritis will eventually slow me down as it has with typing, and I won’t have the problem any more … :grimacing: (I can no longer over-run the keyboard buffer.) I’ll just approach it as I do in the Finder, and it will be less aggravating.

As to the Binder being an outliner, I’ve never thought of it that way, though its utility as such is obvious. Shame Scrivener wasn’t around when I was writing scientific stuff, in which I really needed it.

Thanks for all of your help.

1 Like