Yes, the “Summary” view that Keith referred to is what would provide a very simple way to set up compile. If you follow the template structure (or do so in your own blank starts because you like how those work), then compiling has about a half-dozen settings in summary mode, selected based upon the output format. So when you choose an e-book format, the Cover picture selection menu is provided, and when you select Final Draft other options appropriate to that selection are presented, etc. Then if you want to get into the full detail (what the blue arrow is right now), you’d click an “All Options” tab and have at it. So something like this would let you adjust the compile settings based on how you structure your work, without having to go into the full options and figure out how the Formatting pane works.
I noticed this was a MAC forum, so don’t know if my answers apply-- I’m on PC
I mostly work with screenplays.
I have three main folders named ACT I, ACT II, ACT III
Under each of these I have each scene as a different text file.
I tale what I like out of various files and make my own. 
I use the basic Folders-for-Chapters set-up, with documents (and sub-documents, nested as deeply as needed) for sections within that. In short, if it represents a visible difference in the final document, I’ll use a folder (because I can set-up different compile settings for folders and documents); but if it’s for my own reference to track ideas, I’ll use a document.
Checking my thesis (the only book-length text I’ve completed) I used a folder for each chapter and then nested documents within them. I initially used sub-folders for sections within each chapter, but later simplified this as I moved back and forth with my reviewers (if not for this step, I would have maintained this structure to the end). Now that I know more about how to use Scriv, I would keep a more formal structure of folders for anything that requires a heading in the final text (e.g. chapters, sections within chapters) and documents for everything else.
In my thesis, I did include text in the folders but in a Scriv 1 kind of way. i.e. Chapter numbers and titles (on separate lines) so I could format them exactly the way I wanted on compile.
I took a Short Story Template and used it as the basis to create a template for writing series.
It becomes a complete series Bible and holds all of the books and drafts, all of the information regarding Characters and world, as well as all publishing details and marketing information.
Each book/novella/novel is a folder and each scene/chapter is a text file within that folder. So… a thirty chapter novel had 30 text files
I have also created templates for the novel structure to save time… elements such as plot threads and plot point are color coded.
There is a folder holding all of the Character files/one per character
If it would be easier to understand, I would be happy to send you an empty project 
I LOVE Scrivener and it saves me hours of time…
Tink
I use the folders-for-chapters (or short stories), sub-documents for writing for the majority of my fiction.
For Uni I use a slightly different structure, with all my notes stored in one project. I have folders for each class, then sub-folders for each week of the semester, which contain a document for each lecture/tutorial that takes place that week - basically a parallel to the Parts/Chapters format, now I look at it. All my readings are included in the research folder and linked to and from the appropriate lectures/tutorials.
For essays, I tend to use a flat list of documents - I’m still undergraduate, so essays are still pretty simple straighforward things. I’ll work out which points I want to make, assign each to a new document + one each for introduction, conclusion and bibliography, then work out how to divy up the assigned word count between each point (roughly) and assign those as the document targets. I’ve been thinking about just combining all my essays into a single .scriv project using the folder/document method, but keeping them separate reduces distraction and procrastination.
I added “Other” to my choices, as I, when writing screenplays, make extensive use of custom-meta data for outlining etc (one category called “two sentences”, summarising the scene/beat and explaining its relevance for the story/plot; another “treatment”, with a free, “novelistic”, summary of the scene/beat).
Second that Yay!
Cheers,
Mats
When you say a writing series, what do you mean? A series of short stories, or a TV series.
I’d be interested if you could explain more fully. Sounds innovative.
Thanks,
I was going to say this
but then mats said it.
I do that.
I do that but in the Synopsis pane
Sometime I do that, but only if I’m stuck or lost or it’s not working; it’s a remedial, not a planning, tool for me. (If I were a better writer and/or a better man, I’d do it like popcornflix here & save everyone a lot of trouble including myself but I’m not & I’ve learned nothing.)
Third it!
I am using empty folders for Parts and Chapters - and i insert between them all texts documents for each scenes. I am using / testing this structure to avoid folders, sub folders, sub sub folders etc. it’s is faster to navigate from a text to another, and like that, i don’t have to open / close any folder + I am using specific colors for Parts, Chapters and text to have a clear overview of the structure.
The idea of doing that for me is to have a kind of “Time Line” in the Binder, and be able to read the “Text document / Scene title” at any time.
I gave different answers, since I use Scrivener to write very different types of documents.
For monthly magazine articles, I use only documents for chapters.
For academic writings, I use folders to separate parts, sub-folders for chapters, documents for sections inside chapters.
Something similar happens for screenplays and novels: folders for blocks of events (call it parts?), sub-folders for chapters, documents for sections of a chapter/sequences.
Maybe you could use templates, with option names based on use cases: Thesis, Novel, Feature Movie, Short Movie, Article, and so on.
Paolo
I voted, but I wanted to voice my opinion about compiling because I doubt that the summary window will be of much help to me.
Gruber posted a day ago about how Fantastic lets you see real time the translation of natural language syntax into a calendar entry, and how that implementation is way superior to implementations that delay the feedback ( daringfireball.net/linked/2013/0 … antastical ). That real time feedback is what I like about MMD Composer: even though MMD is obtuse, you can see real time what happens in the right hand pane, instantly. Then, it immediately becomes clear if I did a link alright, if I did images alright, etc. I think that approach would be perfect for Compile. All the options would become meaningful if in real time I can preview the effects of my options in a right pane. I know this exceeds what you’re thinking on, but previewing , real time, what my selections do to my formatted document, that would make a real impact in my use of scrivener. I hope the suggestion is worthy for future consideration…
The trouble with this approach is that, in order to show the preview, Scrivener would pretty much have to re-compile the entire manuscript every time you changed an option. It also couldn’t possibly show you how your work would look when opened in Microsoft Word, or on a Kindle and suchlike, because when you’re exporting, the final look is to a large extent dependent on the program in which you open the file.
Chapters with scenes.
All we need now is the iOS version, and all will be right with the world!
I had to vote other. Your quick compile idea would not be useful to me with a Scrivener novel project.
You are thinking of the binder as representing book structure, but my binder is meant to represent, first and foremost, dramatic structure. These two structural ideas cross classify. (Which is why I sometimes dream of having a magical double binder.)
I think Chapter is fundamentally a reading unit, not a dramatic unit (like Scene). Evidence every chapter break that was ever placed in the middle of a scene! So, as i see it, Chapter divisions cross-cut Binder structure that represents dramatic structure. I also think it just makes sense to write to the dramatic structure of your novel, and impose chapter breaks afterwards. So, chapter breaks in my binder are separate documents which get sandwiched between text documents later. (Without wanting to sound too doctrinaire or bigger than my britches, in my current thinking, it might actually be doing young writers a disservice to encourage them to “write to the chapter” as though it were a dramatic structural unit like any other. You /can/ write this way, of course, and evidently many do, but should you?
My scenes don’t always end up all in one document either, because scenes of any length tend to have definite dramatic parts which are integral to conceptualizing the scene.
For these reasons and more, my binder has a lot more structure than any of the quick options would recognize.
—said the amateur
P.S. For a dramatic example of cross-cutting, consider the tv series Alias. You might think that for a tv series, ‘Show’ at least would be a dramatic structural unit, but here is an easy counterexample. In this show (at least in its early incarnation), the dramatic structural unit, Episode, and the viewing unit, Show, were perfectly cross cut – each episode started half way through the show and did not finish until half way through the next show. Another interesting example is Veronica Mars which layered so many dramatic arcs of varying length and states of completion that the viewing unit “Show” seems almost an afterthought – tied only to some C or D or E-story. These are both shows people could not stop watching (and now of course binge view on Netflix). The reason seems simple enough – their dramatic structure was not “written to the chapter”, but was instead counterpoised to it.
My Other is for classroom or lecture presentations.
Draft: nothing there
Research: week by week folders containing
Text, Images (jpg or gif), PDF files, Web links, etc.
Arranged in an order that outlines the discussion.
This creates a far more versatile array
Than PowerPoint or KeyNote can handle.
And most files are simply drag-and-drop.
One problem in structuring the Binder according to logical developments such as Acts is that, well, it prevents the author from splitting a chapter in the middle of a scene.
It does help the author in early stages of composition to consider the Work in a logical manner, and so can help to get a solid working outline. But once involved with the actual writing of the first draft, this must be thrown out to allow for the sort of free form cross-cutting that movies and tv scripts enjoy.
Even structuring the Binder in terms of scenes limits the author by preventing a break in the middle of a scene.
So some writers might like to structure the Binder in logical breaks such as Acts and Scenes without regard to chapters (and chapter titles), and then compile the solidly-structured First Draft as one long thread. Outside Scrivener in a word processor, working on second and future drafts, chapter breaks can be added according to other considerations such as moments of dramatic suspense or chapter length.
Or staying within Scrivener, the author could Merge all the sub-documents of the Draft folder once a satisfactory logical structure is reached, and then split it down again according to ‘reading units’ in later drafts.
Just a thought.
- asotir
I generally have folders for Chapters, with anywhere from zero to lots of subsections underneath.
But I mostly put in my own headers, rather than having Scrivener do it for me. This is partly because I’ve been using Scrivener since before it got so sophisticated about structure, but mostly because the document names that make sense to me don’t necessarily work as titles in the finished work.
I’m not sure I’ve ever used the Summary compile, though, so I’m not sure I’m the target audience for this question.
Katherine
My main Scrivener project holds a Series with the following structure: Book folder, Chapter subfolder, Scene/section Document, besides the separate research and story data folders. Chapter folders set to preserve formatting; these folder-documents contain the <$Title> tag; and the font varies for each chapter.
I kind of love-hate the Compile feature, since it unifies the font settings nicely, but it rips away italics and my quote fonts. (I use antique-style fonts for certain quotations from books/scrolls my characters are reading or quoting in their speech.) I’ll probably sort that out eventually, but I haven’t taken the time since I mostly use the Compile feature to send an epub copy to my Android for review on the road, or to make a pdf of a draft.
Just FYI, the File -> Compile -> Transformations pane defines how Compile handles italics and similar issues. The -> Formatting pane lets you tell it what to do about fonts.
Katherine