Why is there no edit style button?
While there is a “use the style of current text” button, there are other attributes (such as next style) that are not immediately apparent via that method,
I guess the workaround, rather than editing the current H1 style as I would in Word, is to create a NEW H1 style, make sure the following paragraph is indeed BODY style if I want that, and then create a new BODY style that also has next as BODY?
Then things would work how I am familiar with them working…
Put your cursor in a paragraph that you have changed to what you now want, go to Format > Styles > Redefine Style from Selection …
[attachment=0]Screenshot 2021-01-08 at 16.26.47.png[/attachment]
Mark
There is no “edit style” feature, so I’m not sure what such a button would do. 
That shouldn’t be necessary. If you want to edit a style, just apply it to some random text somewhere, make your modifications using the normal formatting tools for doing so, and then redefine it. This brings up the panel, where you can examine any other settings you may have been foggy on, and change them. You don’t need to actually have “body” text after a heading to change that setting to “body”.
If you aren’t finding that, either right-click on the style in the Styles panel ( Ctrl+\ or ⌃S to toggle that), or use the Format ▸ Style ▸ Redefine Style from Selection ▸ submenu for quick one-offs.
I’d highly encourage you to read §15.6.1, Think Different, in the user manual PDF, pg. 403. The style system in Scrivener is not like how you would use a word processor. Chiefly, the idea is to use styles for exceptional ranges of text, and not bother with them otherwise. We very intentionally do not have a “Body” or “Normal” style in the stock set for this reason, and make you go out of your way to set things up that way, precisely because it works against the core design of the software.
Another thing worth mentioning is that the whole heading, text, heading, text approach to writing is also a bit outmoded by the design, though to a lesser degree. The idea is generally to have your document structure described by the binder structure—compiling can turn all or some of that structure into headings as you wish, and it is at that point that the output can be fully styled, too.
You don’t have to use Scrivener in its optimum designed form, to be clear. But since it isn’t designed to work like Word does you shouldn’t expect it to provide a familiar environment—and you should expect things to be more confusing and generate friction, because you’re trying to force it to do something it isn’t meant to do. If it’s worth it to you to do that, then so be it and carry on, it can certainly be coerced to work more like a word processor.
One of my biggest frustrations is editing styles. I don’t understand why right-clicking on a style doesn’t provide a “edit style” dialog.
It seems the only way I can change a style once its made is to modify the actual text and then redefine the style with that.
Not only is that extremely unintuitive, it’s the opposite of how most text editors work with styles. Am I missing something or is there a better way to do this?
No. You got it right.
On the other hand, I don’t quite see how it can be considered unintuitive, as the user sets the formatting as he/she wants it, then simply create a new style or redefine one.
As a matter of fact, it could even be considered more intuitive than the other way around you described.
Once you’ve formatted a paragraph to look the way you want it too, it makes sense to create a style that you can then later apply to other paragraphs, if and when needed. Nothing complex there.
Evolution didn’t craft our brains to produce any sort of intuition for software; you simply have to learn it. In this case, changing Scrivener to do it the way you’d prefer would require another, rather complicated formatting interface, on top of the one already available.
That is absolutely right.
“Intuitive” is merely here a synonym for “the way most of the other popular apps handle it.”
Scrivener is indeed different in more than many ways.
A lot of those making a solid contribution as to why it is the one app I consciously choose to use.
To add to my post above, something I put into my personal project templates is a sample stylesheet in the Research folder. This contains a variety of sample text that I have styled, and can use both as a reference and a handy place from which to redefine styles throughout the project. It’s a tradition that comes from a design background I suppose, where one first designs in gibberish text, and uses that design as a basis for how the final text will look.
Personally I find this a much nicer interface for modifying styles than the explosion of tabs and thousand checkboxes I’ve seen, as referred to. Design is done in the natural layout and context of other styles and text around them. A caption can be designed with an image beside it, a heading with text around it, etc.
@Vincent_Vincent: As a matter of fact, it could even be considered more intuitive than the other way around you described.
I’ve always felt that way as well. What better way to adjust how things look than entire program’s native interface for adjusting formatting. You only have to learn one interface, rather than two, and the one you do learn will have keyboard shortcuts, easy to remember menu access, and (on Windows anyway) a customisable format toolbar.
I don’t think the Massive Window of Tabs approach is terrible. I do see arguments for it, but we’ve never felt it was the best use of our time to spend ages building such a thing. If we did, it would probably more resemble the interface found in the Styles compile format pane—which is just the editor in microcosm, so at that point, why bother?
“Intuitive” is merely here a synonym for “the way most of the other popular apps handle it.”
Even further, it’s usually “the way most other things I’ve used before handle it.”
For myself, with my background in text-based markup systems where one builds formatting based on instructions you type out rather than playing with buttons and sliders, the most “intuitive” interface for customising style appearance would look pretty much like the Cascading Style Sheet editor in a browser, or a tool like Sigil, where the formatted text changes its appearance as you type in formatting instructions like, margin-top: 0.28rem.