More Info on the Corkboard Cards

It seems there have been similar requests to this, but I have made an actual rough example of two changes I would like to see in the corkboard.

  1. The ability for keywords to appear as “flags” in the corkboard card titles, rather than simply colours. This allows for it to be much quicker and easier to identify which characters or locations appear in a chapter.

  2. The ability for icons and custom images to appear larger. This allows for both an image and text (the synopsis) to appear on the card. This would be a simple option setting to allow a custom image dimension across the cards.

These two improvements would allow for much more visual appeal to the corkboard – the more readily-visible information, the better :slight_smile:

I tried to upload my example image of these changes, but the forum won’t allow a direct upload, nor will it allow linking to an image. Am I missing something here? Why is it not possible to share an image on the forum?

Since you’re obviously not a spammer or troll, but a first time user, I’ve copied your image here. Welcome :wink:.

I’d call your “flags” tags.

You know you can show images on a Corkboard?



Thanks a lot for posting my image - I appreciate that :slight_smile:

Yep, the problem with the “images as photographs” is that all you can have is the image - ideally, it would be great to have an image along with text. This could easily be done by allowing us to alter the size of the icon on the card, as images can already be used as an icon.

My “flags” are simply a way of listing the keywords by their actual name. It would also be good to be able to have groups of keywords i.e. “locations”, “names”, etc.

Again, the reason for all this is to make the corkboard provide as much information as possible. For larger projects that use the freeform corkboard, there is virtually no information readable when zoomed far out.

1 Like

I should say separate groups of keywords that can be listed independently on the cards :wink:

Adding information will make the cards less readable when zoomed, rather than more.

If you need to remind yourself of the actual keywords, why not bring up the floating keyword window?

Image cards can show all the same metadata that Synopsis cards can, except for the Synopsis itself.

Let me just ask you something:

Did you see my mockup? Do you think that looks more appealing than the current notecards?

Yes, I saw it. Personally, I found it cluttered. YMMV, of course.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

The point of this section of the forum is to suggest possible improvements. Obviously, I think a more detailed corkboard is an improvement. You might not. Although, it is strange to me that anyone could argue against the OPTION of allowing more information on the notecards. The option would obviously allow me to have a more detailed corkboard, and you to keep it the same.

No one knows what the upper bound on options may be, before the software gets too complicated to use, but a lot of people appear to think we’re already beyond it. Even if Literature & Latte likes your idea, they have to prioritize it among other fixes and improvements. No one’s preventing you making your wishes known, but discussions like this are key to making those prioritization decisions.

Rule number 4 of the Wish List guidelines, as set out by the creator of the software:

“Features are not implemented on a voting system; features are only added if I feel they a) fit in with my over-all vision for Scrivener and b) are practical. (Thus, for instance, please never respond to existing suggestions with “+1”.)”

Discussions like this are NOT required. I am simply submitting my suggestion for the software author’s consideration.

It’s interesting on forums - there are always the long-term users who feel they must “contribute” to every possible thread, no matter how vapid and condescending that contribution might be.

You have a good day there, drmajorbob :slight_smile:

I will. You do the same.

While you are in fact technically correct that discussions like these are not “required,” the implication that they are not beneficial is not borne out from experience. It is not uncommon for users to ask for functionality that already exists (and didn’t know about), or that depends on an erroneous understanding of Scrivener’s model, or for a number of other circumstances. Discussions like this, as longer-term forum users weigh in, can often be the key in convincing the developer that a given request has value beyond face value and may in fact merit some sort of inclusion in the program, whether in the form the OP requested or in some other manner. These conversations can show that instead of a narrow use case, there is a wider set of use cases which had not been previously known/considered, or that (enough of) the requested functionality could be implemented by refactoring existing functions.

1 Like

Including, if memory does not fail, KB – who at the end of the day is the opinion on this topic that truly matters.


While discussions of proposed functionality can be helpful, meta-discussions about what is and is not appropriate in the Wish List forum (or anywhere else) rarely add to the conversation and are generally discouraged.

In the Wish List forum in particular, people sometimes need to be reminded that the forum is public and other users are welcome to comment on proposals, either positively or negatively. If you have input that is only intended for L&L staff, please open a support ticket, here:

If you feel a post is inappropriate, either ignore it or report it to a moderator. There’s no need to add fuel to the fire.