Inline Titles in "Edit Scrivenings"

Would be nice if there was a pref to show the titles of docs inline when in “Edit Scrivenings” mode. This way, if you are using doc titles as actual section headings that can be formatted on export you can read your draft with the titles in the proper place on the fly.

Hi,

This has come up before. Titles work quite differently to the text chunks, which is why they are not included. Edit Scrivenings is intended as a way of looking at text as though it is all one entity.

Sorry, this was a bad explanation. :slight_smile:

All the best,
Keith

There is a bit of a work-around you can use. While it does not show all of the titles in the text display, you can still get a functional table of contents for the current session. When using Edit Scrivenings, the Go To menu (which is conveniently located in the header bar by clicking on the icon next to the title), changes to only display the currently selected documents. This will jump you to the correct location in the session.

Thanks for both your replies. Keith, let me elaborate just a tad on why I would like this and think it useful: I am writing a manual of sorts. Headings are very critical to the flow of the reading of it. I started by putting the headings in the text and either centering or underlining them to set them apart. The folly of this is that when I export, if I choose to take advantage of the ability to change formatting and font, I then loose the headings and must reformat. Since the export feature has the nice ability to format titles differently, I realized that just using the doc titles as my headers would work great for exporting, and it does. I can then change formatting at will on all my docs en masse. But the Edit Scrivenings feature then loses some of its functionality, as the nature of the text really needs the Title Headings inline. For more technical writing this is quite important I think. On your end though, I could understand the technical difficulties of implementing such. Thanks.

Thanks for both your replies. Keith, let me elaborate just a tad on why I would like this and think it useful: I am writing a manual of sorts. Headings are very critical to the flow of the reading of it. I started by putting the headings in the text and either centering or underlining them to set them apart. The folly of this is that when I export, if I choose to take advantage of the ability to change formatting and font, I then loose the headings and must reformat. Since the export feature has the nice ability to format titles differently, I realized that just using the doc titles as my headers would work great for exporting, and it does. I can then change formatting at will on all my docs en masse. But the Edit Scrivenings feature then loses some of its functionality, as the nature of the text really needs the Title Headings inline. For more technical writing this is quite important I think. On your end though, I could understand the technical difficulties of implementing such. Thanks.

Another useful hidden feature. Thanks Av.

Another thing you could do, which requires a little bit of extra work, is to copy and paste the section title into the text area, and enclose it in an annotation. Give it a distinct colour to set it apart, and now you have a visual indicator of section titles that will not export with the Draft.

That’s exactly what I’ve been doing. And given that you can actually drag a page’s title into its text and thus automatically create a blue scrivener link, you don’t need to cut and paste. I also have “Make Annotation” listed in a mouse button pop up menu (In the Kensington Mouse software) to speed creating the annotations.

As usual staying consistent in my kazillion notes is the main problem.

E

Thanks, Amber and Eiron. Both of those suggestions are decent workarounds. I hope Keith reconsiders though, then it would be seamless. The fact that the Export feature already allows special formatting for Titles is what begs them to be used this way.

I agree it would be useful and I recall suggesting some time ago that titles would be a good option to fill those extra lines that get temporarily inserted between files in an Edit Scrivenings session. Nonetheless, one does get used to the workarounds.

cheers,

E

Eiron, yes, a checkbox right in that part of the Pref panel to “Show titles” is just what would be nice.

I completely agree with the request. I just started looking at Scrivener and I like the concept a lot. But I consider titles an integral part of the text, so I was really suprised they’re not displayed in the ‘Edit Scrivenings’ view. Adding a checkbox wouldn’t really hurt anyone it seems. Since most of the writing I’m doing is fairly structured (academic or technical), having the ability to differentiate different levels of titles (e.g. through indentation) would be even better. But that might be a bridge too far.

I’m going to have to agree, this would really suit my current project. However a couple of workarounds were presented above, so I guess it all boils down to how Keith thinks it will fit in with his workflow - unlike HogBaySoftware Keith has never said anything along the lines of wanting Scrivener to be ‘User-powered software’. In fact he has said the exact opposite - that the development of Scrivener is based on the tools that he needs as a writer. Its just that a lot of us happen to agree with his way of working, but we can’t win all of them.

Please understand that it is not quite as simple, from my end, as “adding a checkbox”. The whole Edit Scrivenings feature would require a complete rewrite to accommodate this suggestion. Thus, I can safely say that such a feature will not make it into Scrivener in a 1.x release. I will consider it when I come to look at features for 2.0 in a year or so, though.
All the best,
Keith

Keith, I appreciate your frankness and understand completely. I realize some ideas which on the user end are simple, are difficult on the programming side. Glad it’s on the consideration list for the future though. Thank you.

We do understand Keith. It sometimes easier to describe the ideal while trying to find workarounds that will be good enough. At this point, I don’t think anyone considers this wish list anything more than a discussion.

E

um… I do. :smiley:

When I request a feature, I want Keith to add it. (…please?)

It’s up to him to make the decision. He’s made it clear that there are limits, so I only ask for the Most Important Things.

That being said, 35 bucks does not give any of us a right to yell [color=darkred]dance,monkey! Dance! at Keith.

Remember that I have also made it very clear both in the readme file and on the website that post-1.0 the focus is on stability rather than new features, because I am using Scrivener, too. :slight_smile: The wish list still stands - I do seriously consider suggestions. The difference is that big wishes are saved in my “Think about for 2.0” file, which won’t get looked at until next year some time. Minor wishes are considered now and if I like them and they are relatively easy will get added to 1.x releases. The most you can expect of 1.x releases are bug fixes and minor refinements, as is usual with .x updates.

I just want to be clear on this, because I don’t want anyone thinking that I’m being unresponsive or negative when I say things like, “I’ll consider this in the future, but now now”. Scrivener 1.0 took a massive two-year development cycle, and right now it’s difficult for me to see the forest for the trees, as they say. Thus, I want to use it myself, make sure it’s stable, and only make minor refinements for the foreseeable future.

That said, the suggestion in this thread is a good one, so it does have a good chance of making it into 2.0, but that is a looooong way off, given that 1.0 has only just come out. :slight_smile:

Best,
Keith

As I said: “at this point”. Though you’re right, Popcorn, I certainly shouldn’t presume to speak for you. Request away. I’ll just watch. :wink:

E

You’re being extremely responsive, and clear about your intentions.
This is much better communication than most developers provide.