When viewing long-form writing as a whole or in combined sections rather than in discrete sections and subsections, I would find it much faster and more efficient to use the Windows click-scroll feature. With a standard mouse, this is activated by clicking the scroll wheel in the center of the mouse and then moving the mouse up or down to scroll. This feature is standard on most Windows programs and, notably, Word, Google Docs, and web browsers. Yet it’s missing in Scrivener. It would be a useful feature for this excellent writing tool.
If click the scroll wheel, you can scroll up and down a scrivener document with the scroll wheel. Windows version 3.12.
FWIW, this is something that the QT framework does not have, and Scrivener for Windows has never had (as can be seen here: Middle mouse button click-to-scroll?). For the effort to bring it in, this is the right way to do it.
True, but that’s manually scrolling with the wheel. For very long documents, that’s cumbersome.
I never try to read the whole document at once, work in sections for novels like a chapter where the scrolling is manageable. If looking for something then comments, keywords, footnotes help pinpoint specific sections of the text. It all depends on how you approach what you are creating- all at once or smaller bits. The advantage of Scrivener to me is to break down a novel into small 800-1500 word scenes where manual scrolling is satisfactory.
It’s so strange that I am getting so much pushback here. I need to get back to my novel now. I’ll just deal with the cumbersome scrolling, then.
I’ve done a little coding but not with QT. A quick search suggests that this can be implemented in QT pretty easily, though. See here.
Maybe. I would need to see the code around it to even get an idea as to what is happening. It may be L&L has other stuff there that either stops this from happening, or ignores it completely. Since I am not somebody working at L&L with access to their code (nor any desire to have such power and responsibility), I can’t say. We could very easily suggest this and have it mess up something vitally important leaving the program in an unusable state.
Anyway, I’ve beaten this feature request “horse” to death. If L&L is listening and decides to add this feature, great.
It’s so strange that I am getting so much pushback here.
I came on here to find how to use (or to request) the same “feature” myself. I’m shocked by why everyone’s saying, “Why ask for a standard Windows function when there are workarounds?”
It seems like saying, “Yeah, Scrivener doesn’t allow you to type the letter ‘q’ but there are workarounds. And you shouldn’t be using ‘q’ that often anyway. Just use synonyms when q-words show up”.
So I’m here to say that I support the request for this function - or “feature” as some people think it is.
Those who have never used it just don’t know how powerful and wonderful it is and I’m sure they too would miss it if they used it themselves. For those of us who do, it’s just “standard” and thus missed.
That would be quite inaccurate.
But hey, it is, after all, the internet.
…Or perhaps you confuse people offering alternatives to help out in the meantime with arguments against…
I appreciate your thoughts here.
Well, sure, I don’t doubt that suggestions for workarounds are well-intentioned.
Anyway, I’m satisfied that the feature request has been stated and I even documented how the feature might be implemented in the QT framework that Scrivener is coded in (so far as I know). So it’s really up to the developer to implement it or not. Our work here is done.
The “everyone’s saying” is an average of the actual statistic and a rounding up of the number.
The comments are spread across multiple posts.
I can recognise that an alternative is an alterative and a cat is a cat. Don’t worry, I know how the universe works.
Thank you for your comment though.
I wouldn’t know.
. . . . . . . .
I have added this feature request to our development tracking system. It is not a problem to implement the feature, the problem is to find time and fit it into our development cycle. There is always a fight which bug, or feature is more important to include in the next release. Hope to implement it sooner than later. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, SCN.