Ddrag and drop PDF files from a file manager to an item in the Binder does not work anymore?

[Aron]

@lunk

Scrivener is built for writing new text, writing books, not for handling pdf’s. There are other softwares built solely for handling pdf’s.

Please - I never said scrivener should be a PDF tool, I said it should be able to import PDF files in the Manuscript/Draft folder, and not just in to the research folder, in addition to some minor features so we don’t have to copy PDF content so manually as we need to do today.

By the way, I have written many non fiction books with other tools, and now my first in Scrivener, so I think I know a few things about what Scrivener can to for non fiction writers that - as you put it - write new text.

Please read the documentation of Scrivener, the thoughts of the author/developer of scrivener when he started to make it, and what his goal and purpose was… also read some of the selling point in the marketing material for Scrivener… would be great if you did that so we can talk about what this reduced PDF support actually does to Scrivener - based on what Scrivener is supposed to do. Because Scrivener is now going backwards based on the original goal.

Just look at the template system, the Compile features where you can select Non-fiction with sub-heads and how you can select formats for academic articles and so on. Scrivener is marketed to people writing theses and all kinds of scientific articles. There is even insert features for Math Type Equations in Scrivener, so what you are saying is just not accurate at all. Scrivener is a tool for organizing research material, referencing this material and with those features included it becomes very cumbersome when it is not possible to import PDF files in the manuscript folder.

The extensive focus on organizing material, the research folder etc attracts people like me that are writing books based on material that come in photos, illustrations, pdf files, websites and so on… and on and on… and if you look at Scriveners features and all the focus it has on organizing material for research you might start to connect the dots… in to a line - a red thick line that goes through this entire applications development.

Organizing material is a major feature of Scrivener !! So what you are saying is just completely false. Just because you do not need to import PDF files does not mean that nobody need to… In my work this would save me about one hour per day, so it is not just a minor feature, but a huge time saver. And like I said, I write many books, about 200 pages per month.

[lunk]

@Aron

So what you are saying is just completely false.

First, I think you should be a bit more careful about the way you present your thoughts in here. Your conception of the world is not necessarily the only correct one.

Secondly, if you have a wish for a future feature, just enter a short post about it in the Wish list. Don’t fill up space in the Technical Support forum arguing for something that is currently not included in Scrivener (and possibly/probably never will).

Thirdly, as someone pointed out in another thread, many users would like Scrivener to be simpler, not more complicated, and adding more complex features make it more complicated.

[Aron]

@lunk

First, I think you should be a bit more careful about the way you present your thoughts in here. Your conception of the world is not necessarily the only correct one.

Your conception (or should I say lack of such) is noted… You will not receive any more intrusions in your world view from me.

[DavidR]

It seems to me that this discussion keeps going at cross purposes because a distinction between importing and exporting PDFs is not being clearly enough maintained. Aron, you’ve said a couple of times that Scrivener cannot import PDFs, and obviously this is not true. You’ve also said that it can’t import them to any location but the Research folder, and this obviously is true. The reason for this distinction, as I would frame it, is that PDFs–containing text, images, graphs, etc.–are part of what one gathers as research and places in the Research folder. The Draft folder is where one prepares one’s own newly created material for “export”–to export (literally) or to compile or to copy to the clipboard for sharing with other programs where final polishing can be done.

I think the Windows version of Scrivener could do better at handling PDFs in the Research folder, and also at handling images (and much better at handling Web pages). All of this, I hope, is coming in the updated version. I don’t at all see the need to export an entire PDF that I obtained from elsewhere as part of my own (nonfiction) text. If I want to incorporate material from a PDF into my own text, that can be done by copying and pasting, whether from within Scrivener or from outside. As for deleting pages, etc., from a PDF, that, it seems to me, is what a dedicated PDF handler like Adobe Acrobat or ABBYY FineReader is for.

Two final thoughts on this: I use Scrivener, Evernote, and other software, and I often see suggestions made by users that seem to imply that one of these programs should essentially do everything that the user needs done, from gathering research to organizing to drafting to rewriting to final, formatted publication. I can see that that would be handy, but only in a spherical-cow sort of universe. In a world where small programming staffs create remarkably sophisticated software for specific purposes, we are probably going to have to continue using multiple software tools.

Secondly, I think that the Scrivener folks have given themselves far more headaches than they ever should have by including the ability to compile to digital publication formats. If it only compiled to, say, .docx and .rtf, people would be content to do final formatting in another program and let Scrivener do what it does best. By raising expectations for a fully, inclusively, and perfectly formatted published output from Scrivener itself, they have left themselves open to criticism for failing to accomplish this, well, perfectly.

Such are my 3.79 cents (adjusted for inflation).

[lunk]

@DavidR

Secondly, I think that the Scrivener folks have given themselves far more headaches than they ever should have by including the ability to compile to digital publication formats. If it only compiled to, say, .docx and .rtf, people would be content to do final formatting in another program and let Scrivener do what it does best. By raising expectations for a fully, inclusively, and perfectly formatted published output from Scrivener itself, they have left themselves open to criticism for failing to accomplish this, well, perfectly.

For fiction and narrative non-fiction, where you don’t have complicated tables, equations or complex layout, Scrivener already delivers perfect output in both Kindle, epub and pdf format.

Thatś my humble opinion.

[kewms]

Just so I’m clear about what you actually want to do, could you clarify whether you want to use text that happens to be stored in PDF files, or PDF-format images? The two tasks are very different.

To incorporate text, it is necessary to either have a PDF that was created with a text layer, or to have an optical character recognition (OCR) built into the tool. In either case, though, extracting the text from the PDF will necessitate either copying and pasting or creating a separate OCR output file. By design, it is not possible to convert a PDF file to text “in place.” That is, if you cut a chunk out of a PDF file, it will still be PDF format and will not be handled as “text” by any word processor that I’m familiar with.

Whether to incorporate a text layer into the PDF is a decision made by the creator of the file. There is nothing that Scrivener or any other program can do if the creator of the file chose not to include a text layer: data that doesn’t exist cannot be copied. Which is why OCR engines are sometimes used for this purpose. It’s theoretically possible to incorporate an OCR engine into Scrivener: DevonThink Pro Office has one. However, it would increase the cost of the program significantly. The cost difference between DevonThink Pro Office (with OCR) and DevonThink Pro (without) is greater than the cost of Scrivener. It’s not at all clear whether the number of people who would find this feature useful is great enough to justify the cost increase. (Incidentally, DevonThink is an excellent piece of software in its own right, and I highly recommend it for people who need to manage large research archives. Note that it is Mac software, though.)

Incorporating images is a bit easier. It is possible to cut a small PDF format chunk out of a larger PDF file, and incorporate this image into a text file. Mac Scrivener can already do this. (See Section 15.5.2 of the Mac Scrivener manual.) However, again by design, PDF files cannot be edited using standard image manipulation tools. Also, most potential output formats cannot incorporate embedded PDF files. One way or another, it is very likely that the PDF file will need to be converted to an image format at some point. Since many excellent PDF and graphics editors already exist, it is not clear how much the extra cost and complexity of this functionality would actually add to Scrivener.

A point that is very easily forgotten in discussions like this: Scrivener for Mac costs $45. Scrivener for Windows costs $40. You are comparing it to software that costs, in some cases, hundreds of dollars more. At some point the only reasonable answer is going to be: if you want the functionality of Adobe Acrobat or InDesign you are welcome to pay for those programs. Scrivener is not attempting to serve that market.

Katherine

[kewms]

@Aron

I do not know if we agree that Scrivener is a document processor… and, maybe I’m wrong about that as well ?? maybe it is just me but to me a document processor should be able to import the widest spread document format. PDF is more widely used than RTF - and that says allot when we know that RTF is so compatible that close to all text editors and word processors can use it. So why in the world not PDF that is used way way wayyyy more… ??

No, we do not agree that Scrivener is a “document” processor. Its primary function is to help authors manipulate text. A PDF format document does not necessarily contain any text at all: that’s a decision made by the creator of the file.

Katherine

[DavidR]

@lunk

@DavidR

Secondly, I think that the Scrivener folks have given themselves far more headaches than they ever should have by including the ability to compile to digital publication formats. If it only compiled to, say, .docx and .rtf, people would be content to do final formatting in another program and let Scrivener do what it does best. By raising expectations for a fully, inclusively, and perfectly formatted published output from Scrivener itself, they have left themselves open to criticism for failing to accomplish this, well, perfectly.

For fiction and narrative non-fiction, where you don’t have complicated tables, equations or complex layout, Scrivener already delivers perfect output in both Kindle, epub and pdf format.

Thatś my humble opinion.

No doubt this is part of the issue too. I’ve never tried to compile for publication out of Scrivener, so I don’t really even know how it works. But I would indeed expect a straightforward pretty-much-just-text document to compile much more fluently than one that had technical charts, tables, etc. My own writing, all of it nonfiction and very little of it requiring non-textual matter, would probably not strain Scrivener’s compile function either. But I have done some things with extensive tables and I can imagine that might be more problematic. As with so many good programs, Scrivener has probably long since exceeded its original target audience, to include us who don’t know NaNoWriMo from a great white whale, and so come with a different set of needs and expectations.

[Aron]

When I talk about PDF files I talk about files that have text and images. To be able to copy the text and images form the PDF files, from within Scrivener, is a huge time saver for me.

To process images with OCR, (that are within PDF files or separate) is overkill and not something that should be included in Scrivener. When organizing material that is in an image of a PDF file, the entire image of that page can just be included. It could be handy to be able to chop it, as in crop-copy - so that only the part of the image that you select is copied… or that we can mark or highlight on an image so things in research image text is easier to find… but not that important, because pages are not that big so as long as we know that our stuff is on that one specific page (image of page) its enough really.

@kewms

Mac Scrivener can already do this. (See Section 15.5.2 of the Mac Scrivener manual.)
Katherine

When you say “can already do this” do you mean that if I have a Mac, I can copy text and images from a PDF file within Scrivener?

If that is the case, then I just want that to be included in the windows version - because as of now I have to open PDF files in other programs, maintain what page I am on in the PDF file in the research folder, and find that page in an external program, then copy the content, (text and images) and then place that in a separate folder on my drive where I prepare the images for import. Then I have to import the images in to the text in scrivener, and then copy the text.

I can copy the text directly from within Scrivener, but keeping track of what page I am on when I open the pdf to get the images etc is hopeless, so I just do it all in separate programs.

The point is that I am organizing the content from these PDF files when I come across parts that I want. That is one of the primary selling points of Scrivener, that you can organize your research. But who wants to deal with an entire PDF file and not with the portions of interest that you have located within a pdf file ??

Lets say I open a PDF file in Scrivener and find some text and images that are relevant. I can not mark that position in the PDF file !! I have trouble getting back to it, so I want to put that content in a text so that I have just the relevant part handy when I am writing. Split the research in to chunks, just like we do with our own text. Non-fiction writers need to do this alot, just like fictions writers do it with their own text, we do it with lots of other material.

But anyway, from what Katherine is saying, it could be that Scrivener have this already…

[Aron]

@DavidR

… Aron, you’ve said a couple of times that Scrivener cannot import PDFs, and obviously this is not true.

What you are saying is false. Scrivener can NOT import PDF files. Import means that the importing software can take content from a file and incorporate it in its own format or functionality. Scrivener is just letting you view the file, and to add a file to the programs file/folder structure is not to import the file.

To try to make it more clear to you, Scrivener has a kind of PDF viewer and file organizer. It is not an import… well, I have never seen the Mac version, and it sounds like (if I understand Katherine correctly) that the Mac version might have an “almost” import ability, but you still can not really call it import.

[lunk]

@Aron

• because as of now I have to open PDF files in other programs, maintain what page I am on in the PDF file in the research folder, and find that page in an external program, then copy the content, (text and images) and then place that in a separate folder on my drive where I prepare the images for import. Then I have to import the images in to the text in scrivener, and then copy the text. .

If pdf’s are so long that you just want to import specific pages, read them in a pdf viewer, delete uninteresting pages and import the rest into the Research folder in Scrivener.

Why would you need to include text or images from pdf’s into your own text? If the original text is your own, surely you have it in some other form than pdf? If it’s someone else’s text, copying it and including it in your own text in the Draft area of the Binder is most likely a violation of copyright.

[kewms]

@Aron

What you are saying is false. Scrivener can NOT import PDF files. Import means that the importing software can take content from a file and incorporate it in its own format or functionality. Scrivener is just letting you view the file, and to add a file to the programs file/folder structure is not to import the file.

To try to make it more clear to you, Scrivener has a kind of PDF viewer and file organizer. It is not an import… well, I have never seen the Mac version, and it sounds like (if I understand Katherine correctly) that the Mac version might have an “almost” import ability, but you still can not really call it import.

Your definition of “import” does not match the definition used by Scrivener. When Scrivener “imports” a file, it incorporates that file into the .scriv folder, creates a location for the file in the Binder, and records the file into the master project index. What else can be done with the file will depend on the file’s original format: the Scrivener manual details exactly what Scrivener can (and can’t) do with most common formats. Whether you see that as an “import” or not is up to you, but refusing to use the word the way the Scrivener manual does while in the Scrivener forum will just confuse people.

As I said above, it is impossible (without OCR) for Scrivener (or any other program) to copy text from a PDF file that does not already have a text layer. Even if the text layer does exist, the PDF itself is not editable: extracting the text to an editable format requires user intervention, usually via copy/paste.

The Mac version of Scrivener can paste a PDF into the body of a text document as an inline image, and from there incorporate it into an output document. As noted in the manual, though, only extremely limited editing functions are available.

Scrivener for Mac is not, and does not pretend to be, a full-featured PDF editor.

Katherine

[kewms]

@lunk

Why would you need to include text or images from pdf’s into your own text? If the original text is your own, surely you have it in some other form than pdf? If it’s someone else’s text, copying it and including it in your own text in the Draft area of the Binder is most likely a violation of copyright.

There are plenty of situations in which verbatim extracts from other works are legitimate. Accusing a writer of plagiarism, even indirectly, is extremely insulting. Please don’t do it again.

Katherine

[lunk]

@kewms

There are plenty of situations in which verbatim extracts from other works are legitimate.

Absolutely!

But in most cases it is only a question of a rather limited amount of verbatim extracts. I didn’t mean to imply that anyone particular was committing plagiarism, but only wanted to point out that including large amounts of text from someone else’s work is often questionable, to say the least.

My point is that to extract a limited amount of text from a few pdf’s using another software only takes a limited time and if it is important for the text someone is writing, surely that limited extra time is acceptable. Hence, such an ability does not have to be available within Scrivener itself. I agree with DavidR:

@DavidR

I use Scrivener, Evernote, and other software, and I often see suggestions made by users that seem to imply that one of these programs should essentially do everything that the user needs done, from gathering research to organizing to drafting to rewriting to final, formatted publication. I can see that that would be handy, but only in a spherical-cow sort of universe. In a world where small programming staffs create remarkably sophisticated software for specific purposes, we are probably going to have to continue using multiple software tools.

Furthermore, specialized software for specific purposes, is usually easier to learn than software that try to cover every conceivable purpose and use.

[DavidR]

@Aron

@DavidR

… Aron, you’ve said a couple of times that Scrivener cannot import PDFs, and obviously this is not true.

What you are saying is false. Scrivener can NOT import PDF files. Import means that the importing software can take content from a file and incorporate it in its own format or functionality. Scrivener is just letting you view the file, and to add a file to the programs file/folder structure is not to import the file.

To try to make it more clear to you, Scrivener has a kind of PDF viewer and file organizer. It is not an import… well, I have never seen the Mac version, and it sounds like (if I understand Katherine correctly) that the Mac version might have an “almost” import ability, but you still can not really call it import.

Frankly, I don’t understand what you mean, nor do I understand what you said in another post, “I can copy the text directly from within Scrivener, but keeping track of what page I am on when I open the pdf to get the images etc is hopeless, so I just do it all in separate programs.” If you can copy the text, why do you say that Scrivener can’t “take content from a file and incorporate it in its own format or functionality. Scrivener is just letting you view the file”?

At any rate, here’s what I am able to do, illustrated by the screenshots below (showing a split-editor view). I can drag a multi-page PDF file into the Scrivener Research folder. I can scroll down deep into the PDF. I can select material there, copy it to the clipboard, and paste it into a Scrivener document (text only, not images). When I do so, the PDF stays put at the page I was viewing. This is all that Scrivener can do with PDFs; but it can do this much.

[Aron]

@lunk

I didn’t mean to imply that anyone particular was committing plagiarism, …

Really ??? … Your words are crystal clear:

@lunk

If it’s someone else’s text, copying it and including it in your own text in the Draft area of the Binder is most likely a violation of copyright.

Are you suggesting that Scrivener should facilitate plagiarism?

Even when you ask me if I am suggesting that Scrivener should facilitate plagiarism, you are very clearly indicating that such activity is going on, and that I should not try to drag down Scrivener with such actions. There in no other way to understand these words, and even if you might be Swedish (you are listen in Sweden as a 59 year old scientist) your English is more than good enough for me to assume that you understand your choice of words - to conclude that this is deliberate. If you are so totally unaware of the impact of your words, you should really reconsider writing - or get yourself an editor before posting again.

Not only are they clear, but they are in a public forum! You are self published at this moment, and you take no self critique - (based on your reply) - just denial - then you ignore. Even when this was pointed out to you by others than me.

You could not even apologize !!

… lets not forget that your insinuations turn in to clear accusations in your reply to the criticism:

@lunk

but only wanted to point out that including large amounts of text from someone else’s work is often questionable, to say the least.

You use these words: text from someone else’s work and the word include in the same sentence.

I was in fact not even going to reply to this and just ignore it, but when I read your reply to Katherine (a post where you continue), I must admit that you just entered my shit list - as your words are obviously deliberate.

Just imagine if I included my last name (sir name). People would get your insinuation up every time they googled my name, and a journalist could catch on as well. And if that happened, I can assure you that you would have been contacted officially by now. I’m ok if you call me an idiot, that is not a big deal for me at all. You have my permission to use what ever words you like about me, but if you mess with my livelihood you will be up shit creak in a chicken wire canoe - without a paddle … before you know what hit you…

After the involved parties are done reading these messages, I suggest that the moderator deletes this entire thread.

[Aron]

@DavidR

Frankly, I don’t understand what you mean, nor do I understand what you said in another post, …

Yes, Kathrine just pointed this out in a previous post as well, and I do apologize sincerely for the confusion.

I used to be a programmer, and have been doing software development for many years. Started as a programmer in 1993, so I lived in a very technical world for 20 years before I started as a full time writer.

The reason I was not clear was that I had Katherine’s more software development perspective in mind, and forgot that I was in a forum for writers (not software developers). In our terminology (programmers) import is something else than it is in a writers and in Scriveners terminology. So my communication have been very ignorant, and I am - like I said sorry about the confusion.

What I am trying to say is that when images from the PDF files can not be used in Scrivener after the import process, the files is not (in my software developers terminology) really imported - as apposed to the Scrivener terminology where import means to make the file available for Scrivener purpose, and therefor (in Scriveners terminology) quite correctly is described as imported.

What I am after is the ability to organize the content of the PDF file, and that requires the ability to copy images from the imported PDF file from within Scrivener (not only the text). So I need the PDF file to be imported as what imported means in a software developers terminology.

Again, sorry DavidR about the confusion, all my fault.

[DavidR]

Aron, thank you for the clarification. The apology is accepted, though not really necessary.

I certainly agree that it would be very useful to be able to incorporate (let me say that, rather than the ambiguous “import”!) images from PDFs into Scrivener documents. Actually, I find the Snipping Tool, available in Windows (at least Windows 7), very handy for just that sort of purpose. No more extra labor than any other select, copy, and paste operation, and not requiring any further software investment. I keep it handy in a folder on my desktop.

[Aron]

@DavidR

Actually, I find the Snipping Tool, available in Windows (at least Windows 7), very handy for just that sort of purpose.

Yep, maybe I have to just change my work flow, and save snippets in higher resolution so the text is readable when printing them, and just delete them later, because they would take up lots of space when it is all graphics. But this is definitely a much faster way to organize selections of my research material in Scrivener. I have to play with the resolution a bit first i think.

Once I have made collections of this material I can print it with my comments, and start to plan the book from the first research issue. Hmmm maybe, but I think the files would become very large.

If I just get an extra HDD I think I have a working solution that will save me an hour per day thanks DavidR … so obvious now that I think about it.

[kewms]

Lunk, Aron, consider yourselves both on notice.

Aron, your post was removed as a direct attack on another forum member. Lunk, because the post no longer exists, there is no need to respond. This subthread was ill-advised to begin with and needs to end right here.

Katherine