How do I select two folders via the menu?

Scrivener for Mac: If I want to select two folders in the binder that are not under each other, I click on folder A and then select folder B with ⌘+click.


Does anyone know of a way to do this via the menu? Navigate → go to …


I have tried to do this also with ⌘, but of course that doesn’t work :joy:

Thank you :slightly_smiling_face:

Wouldn’t you have the same challenge in Finder, hence the use of a selection tool like a mouse and trackpad (and touch screens for the mobile brigade)?

I don’t know any default method (would be cool, though). Using third-party automation tools, you could simulate a -Leftclick. That’s relatively easy. But then how do you navigate to other Binder items to select those? Using the arrow keys “unselects” the previously selected folders.

I’m not sure what you mean. cmd+whatever click works in the binder but not in the menu. I need the menu. Which third party app are you thinking of?

Well, the menu says “go to” and it can’t go to multiple different folders at the same time. What exactly are you trying to achieve this way?

Yes, it’s probably not possible. :slightly_smiling_face:

Mm, it’s a bit complicated. I’m trying to do what I do with one nested folder, with two folders (or more). In the end, it’s about showing the contents of folders as a collection.

Do you mean how some (mostly Linux and some Windows) list views work, where selection is something that has two different states: a passive selection that works as an implicit selection if nothing else is selected, and explicit selections that do not go away when using arrow keys, and are toggled manually (usually with the Spacebar).

Such models then have a solid highlighted row for explicit selections, while the passive selection (or cursor we might even think of it) is a dotted line around the row. There is also a heavier reliance upon a “Deselect” menu command, naturally.

This is very unusual in Mac software, and not native to the listing/table tools anyway. I think most people would find it confusing, honestly. Where I’ve seen this capability given, it is not as described above, but with checkboxes. Another approach some outliners take is different from either, using the “mark” model. Selection remains native and familiar, but there is an additional mark feature that can be used as the selection for further tasks, and working in a much more persistent fashion than selections. Scrivener does have a similar capability, it stores its marked items in separate lists however, as Collections.

The process of adding items to collections and switching to collections can both be keyboarded aided as they have menu hooks:

  • Documents ▸ Add to Collection ▸ X
  • Navigate ▸ Collections ▸ X

Follow the latter up with Ctrl+A / ⌘A and there’s your persistent marking mechanism.

Obviously that feature set, whether Marks or Collections, is for a slightly different use case than simply avoiding the mouse for ad hoc non-linear selections.

Thanks @AmberV I’m not sure if I follow you, but probably no.

I have automated this, but what you would do manually is the this.

  1. with the menu (go to) I select a nested folder
  2. ⌘+R
  3. in the search menu “Search binder selection only”
  4. type * in the search field

The content of this folder is now displayed (in the Binder) (as a Collection?)

If you do this in the binder (instead of the menu), several folders can be selected and their contents displayed.

Yes, you can think of the search results list as being a special kind of collection that cannot be removed—one that has a direct connection to the current search setup rather than one saved into it, like a search collection would. In every other way it functions exactly like one.

Ok, but is there a way to do what works in the binder via the menu also? Select two folders at the same time?

I would do it as I described above: have a shortcut on a “Temp” collection (or whatever), and add items I want to work with to it, then switch over to it once I’ve got some material selected in it. I think the result is the same as what you are doing, but with fewer steps.

If that isn’t what you’re talking about, then I do not understand the desired result. I’m looking at the result one gets from searching, though, and using a different approach to get the same capability.

Ok, I need to understand your suggestion properly first and then try it out. That’s what I’ll do … after I’ve slept :slightly_smiling_face: thanks AmberV!

It works! Thank you @AmberV.

1 Like