Changing inspector width changes binder width?

Scrivener Scrivener for macOS
1

On the strength of the wonderful thread about different user layouts ([url]https://forum.literatureandlatte.com/t/post-your-scrivener-screenshots-here/7084/1] ), I decided to experiment with my own new layouts of the binder, editor, and inspector.

My default layout had been to have all three panes each spanning about a third of the screen. I defined that as my “Standard” layout with the “Show Layouts” window, and then went on to create another layout (dual editors, no binder). When I returned to the “Standard” layout, however, the widths of the binder and inspector were not what they had been; specifically, the binder was a lot narrower. The real problem was that when I tried to widen it, I could only get it to be about 1/4 of the screen wide; the only way to make it wider was to make the inspector narrower.

I had never noticed any limitation on the width of one or the other, still less that their widths were linked. Suddenly, I find that if I want to make the binder as wide as it had been before, I have to make inspector narrower than it had been. And if I try to make the inspector wider to match its former width, then the binder gets narrower. It seems as if Scrivener is trying to keep the Editor pane at some fixed width, but that width is wider than what I had been using.

This has happened since I’ve updated to 1.5.4. Have I missed something? I’ve looked in the preferences but couldn’t find any setting to change. I have the “Default editor width” set at 0 to force full width windowing. Is there anything I can do to get back to the layout behavior I’m used to?

2

Follow up: I’ve just replaced the Scrivener prefs file with a backup from before I made the layout changes noted in my first post. Everything seems to be back to normal. But still, what caused the change of behavior? Was it a corrupt preferences file? an issue with 1.5.4? or?

3

Hi,

Nothing has changed in 1.54 in this regard. There is a minimum width that the main editor needs, and if it starts to get narrower than that the inspector or binder will get shrunk down instead, within certain limits, but had you resized the window then you should have been able to resize things again, so what you are reporting is strange.

The Layouts feature is being dropped from the first version of 2.0, though, as not many users seem to use it and it may be rather fragile - it’s also difficult to maintain because any minor change to the interface needs updating in the Layouts code, too, in order for it to get saved. It’s possible that a change has been missed somewhere along the line in the Layouts updating code, I’m not sure. (I’m also not convinced that Layouts as a concept is germane to the writing process in Scrivener. Although the idea of having different layouts you can switch to is a nice one in theory, and it’s fun setting different layouts up, in practice I’m not convinced it’s that useful - how often, in the middle of writing or editing, does anyone really think, "Oh, right now I need such-and-such-a-layout, which I set up earlier? I’m pretty sure most people - myself included - find it much more intuitive just to adjust the interface as they need it. Although I am open to reintroducing a better version of Layouts to a 2.x update.)

All the best,
Keith

4

When you say the layouts feature is being dropped in version 2, I assume you mean the ability to save layouts as I was trying to do? I suppose you may be right that this feature doesn’t get much use — I certainly didn’t think of using it until I saw the possibilities for alternate layouts in the user layouts thread. But I’d be sorry to see it go, because I think I would be more likely to change layouts in the middle of writing or editing — or I would do so more often — if I didn’t have to worry about fiddling around with setting the visibility the various panes and getting their widths “just right” every time. There are layouts better for rough drafting and shifting ideas around, layouts for comparing two documents, layouts for concentrated writing, layouts for revising, etc., just as the users in the original thread were demonstrating. I have always hesitated to mess with my setup for fear (irrational, I know) of not being able to get it back to my satisfaction. After my recent experience, of course, I am even more leery. But in any case, I’m as eager as anyone is for 2.0 to come out!

5

I wonder how much the layouts would really get used after initially setting them up, though.

The main trouble with saving layouts in a program of Scrivener’s complexity is meeting user expectation. There are some things layouts should obviously save - whether the binder and inspector are visible, their widths, the split type, the binder affects and selection affects states, for instance. But then there are a vast number of settings that some users would expect to get saved, but which would annoy others, and for which having checkboxes would just complicate the issue and force the user to make too many decisions ahead of time.

For instance: Should which outliner columns are visible or not be saved as part of a Layout? It may depend on what the layout is for - if it’s a layout for a specific sort of outlining, maybe yes. But if you’re just saving the general window set-up layout, maybe not. Should window size even be saved? What about the corkboard state - the number of cards across, for instance? What about pins and status stamps being shown or hidden? You might say yes, but other users would wonder why these things disappeared upon loading a Layout. Should layouts save whether the rulers are visible, whether the header and footer views are hidden? Should the text zoom be saved (surely it depends on whether you are using it only for particular documents)? If all of these things are optional, the user will be overwhelmed in just trying to create a Layout; if they aren’t, Layouts will only annoy users as every user will have different expectations as to what gets saved. And, of course, from a programming perspective this is a very complex problem.

All the best,
Keith

6

Hi, Keith,
Like gasparschott, I was inspired by the thread of screenshots–possibilities that I didn’t realize existed. I am a radically non-linear thinker, and almost any structured space and line is paralyzing, especially at the beginning. Speaking for myself, now that I’ve found layouts, I’ve broadened my use of Scrivener considerably. The layout does seem finicky (which is what led me to track down this thread). I have three that behave as expected, but my favorite one for starting a project, behaves badly. It’s a set up that shows just the corkboard, with the binder, the inspector and the toolbars hidden. I can put whatever strikes or what I remember, or a url form something that I looked up on an index card. I only use a few commands to add, move or delete cards.

Eventually, I might open up the binder because the cards are starting to diverge; I move them around in the binder, hide it again and go back to shuffling a subset of cards. They work like a storyboard. I’ll get to a point where I use klcorridan’s (Post your Scrivener screenshots here!) left-hand “column of cards” (without the binder showing), and then I might hide and unhide just the inspector, adding notes, links in the editor, and document references as needed. After that, I have about three different layouts I use depending on the material to be added in order to finish what eventually will be a document (an article, a syllabus, someday a book). This eases a lot of stress when I’m writing, and allows a lot more of the unconscious work to be harvested. And I much prefer the index cards on a screen than mind-mapping, whether on-screen or by hand; it’s too slow, too terse.

So all this is to say, I accept (boo-hoo-ooo…) that layout won’t be in 2.0 (but I’d be happy to have it there even in its finicky form), but I would love to see it back in a 2.x as soon as possible. I suspect if you have a page set up for people to study users’ screenshots, that many would learn lots more of Scrivener’s features, and Layouts would probably get more use–possibly even becoming one of the most important programming pieces for users to manipulate to suit their own styles of writing. It may be that once people had a couple of layouts set up, that it could become a big selling point because they would be able to better imagine how they could use it. . . . Do you think that I could continue to use 1.54, at least for the first two steps, and then move my projects over to the 2.0 version (assuming that we could keep both versions on the same computer)?

I’ve used Scrivener off and on for a few years (and talk it up to my students), but it feels new all over again, and for the last few weeks, it’s been running most of the day, creating a frictionless invitation to work even in a little 5 or 10 minute gap of available time.

I want to say again, thanks for such a great program.
atb,
linn
index cards blur sm.png

7

Hi,

You could use 1.54 and then move projects to 2.0, yes, although the process is one-way only - the projects would then get updated to the new 2.0 format, and the 2.0 projects cannot be opened in 1.54.

The main trouble with layouts from a technical point of view is that they are technical and can break if I change the slightest thing. They have to remember so much visual information, that the code needs updating if I change part of the interface. And there are so many grey areas where it’s difficult to know whether the information should be saved by the layout or not (for instance, whether the toolbar is hidden or not - some users would want that saved, others not), and having options for all of them would make the feature overwhelming to use.

So, the reason it will most likely get dropped from the initial 2.0 release is simply time - I don’t really want to put off 2.0 for a feature very few people use. I could then give it the attention it deserves once 2.0 is out there and stable. It depends on how much time I have left, though - if there’s time to look at the layouts code, I will.

All the best,
Keith

8

Hi, Keith,
Perfectly understandable–those folks over at the 2.0 thread are really getting outta hand and wild!!

I’m not a programmer (but my partner is, so I hear the angst, the stories, the gotchas and the passed deadline woes). I’ve learned it can’t be rushed. You know, some programmers get a special kind of aphasia? And they can only talk in song titles? Does make me wonder what their documentation would look like…

L

9

A page…

…with kaleidoscope eyes!

10

You really got me.

11

Amber, Like this? :open_mouth: or this? :unamused: or lyrics? set to music? (I search on “layout” and the documentation hums “dum-de-dum-dyn, dum-de-dum-dum” in funereal rhythm. Or–oh, no!–the documentation is in riddles!

just sign me,
pure C