And assuming that there was a business, and not merely a social, purpose for the survey, the issue of complexity is one that L & L wants to address. I did not raise the issue, but merely suggested a way to deal with the perception other than coming out with a whole new “Scrivener Lite.” Perhaps you are correct and Compile can never be simplified and no Wizard could possibly be created. I don’t agree with that, but my opinion is merely one of 5000 or so who have answered the survey. Perhaps a multilingual, multinational, multi-regional advertising campaign after Brexit explaining why Scrivener is not really complex is the better way to go. For the copy, try to use alliteration (e.g., SIS! “Scrivener is Simple!”) or a rhyme for your advertising to be effective. Consumers enjoy being told that they are wrong and commonly-held notions, when widely believed, are trivial to change.
Finally someone admits that there can be “simple” Wizards. Hooray. Ulysses has (basically) five Wizards, but its functionality with respect to long document navigation and outlining is limited. This is merely an example and not an invitation to a Scrivener v. other programs discussion.
Something was missing from the ad hoc GUI.
Methinks you doth protest too much.
I didn’t organize the survey. L & L did.
Hi there.
I might be wrong, but I think you can do something like this by using meta-data.
I wrote a piece on it a while back. Maybe it’ll help.
@Rayz: this might work for pleadings, which thankfully I don’t often have to create anymore. But many still do and may find that your method solves this problem. If a lawyer filed pleadings in a single court it would definitely be an improvement to the fake GUI I posted.