Ah, the muddier and muddier waters of Scrivener not being WYSIWYG but offering a vast range of formatting options and layout tools that users partly get to see and partly have to imagine: the full WYSIWYG has to happen in the user’s head until compile, and then it has to be reimagined and recompiled endlessly to be perfected. It’s a very odd hybrid that frustrates and alienates a lot of users (or former users). If layout and formatting are meant to be done elsewhere, why offer them at all, beyond the absolute basics of bold, italic, underline, etc?
Personally think it is disingenuous not to acknowledge that Scrivener is at least partially a WYSIWYG tool. Sure, people can write in Comic Sans and compile in Baskerville, but most (from the people I have helped) don’t. They work on their styles and their typography in Scrivener. They do a lot of core WYSIWYG work on the screen in front of them, and they don’t leave it all to the compile stage … in fact it is hard to leave it until compile because a lot of the time Scrivener “pushes” users to use styles while they are writing so that the compiler can then make better sense of their work. Even the choice of output narrows down how users have to write in Scrivener, encouraging users to make design decisions before they start writing. That is all WYSIWYG thinking and processing.
The ribbon of formatting options and onscreen rulers also encourage users to think about and use quasi-WYSIWYG tools. And yet anytime anyone asks a question that touches on WYSIWYG issues, they get hammered with the “Scrivener is not a WYSIWYG environment” mantra. Think that is really unhelpful and far from the reality of what the app offers.
Scrivener is great for writing and structuring and restructuring. Users are told it is not a WYSIWYG tool, and yet it offers a panoply of layout and design options that make users focus on WYSIWYG-related ways of thinking and working.
I don’t think uses are in a muddle about what Scrivener is and can do. I think the muddle is on the other side of the fence. Until that fundamental truth is acknowledged, it will be impossible for people to have an open debate that is based on actual facts and reality. Unfortunately, the same tortuous round of threads like this will carry on ad infinitum.
For many people—most in my experience—Scrivener is largely used as a WYSIWYG tool (with headers and footers and footnotes added during compile). Telling those people that Scrivener is not a WYSIWYG tool is not helpful and not in touch with the reality of how many users use Scrivener. It just blames them for using tools that Scrivener provides for them. It’s not a real-world response, irrespective of how many times it is repeated.
But iBooks Author is already pretty much dead:
macrumors.com/2020/06/10/ap … uthor/amp/