New Meta-Data Type: Checkbox

Hello,

i use scrivener for technical writing.

I would find it helpful, if there would be an new Meta-Data Type “Checkbox”. Implemented like the “Custom Meta-Data”.

So one could make Meta-Data-Checkboxes like:
[ ] is red
[ ] is green
[x] is blue

In Outline-View one could view and check/uncheck these columns like the given checkbox “include in compile”

If you than would have a “Keyword Search”, which not only can search “Custom-Meta-Data” over all, but search like:
Search in “is blue” = true

You could find all articles which are “blue”. So you could use some articles for the project “blue”, and others for the project “red”.

I know, that i can do something similar with keyword, but

  1. i like to use these for doing other categorization
  2. checkboxes (in outline view) gives a better overview on less space

I hope, you could understand my Problem (described in my bad english :blush: )

Thanks

Tilo

Hi Tilo,

Checkboxes and other kinds of meta-data are on the list for the future (most likely version 3.0, which admittedly is a long way away). It’s a lot more difficult to provide customisation of data type, but it is something we want to do in the future.

Thanks and all the best,
Keith

Hi Keith,

thanks for your fast response!

I`ll wait a long way :wink:

Tilo

This would be great!

That’s what the List data type does, if you want only one checkbox. If you need several, then Keywords more or less replicates the feature, and you can already search by Keyword.

But having a checkbox list would be useful for example in Outliner mode, where you could see just the option/s checked and not the rest.

For example, I could use it to point that in one scene ( or chapter, or whatever) there are two Locations. I could just check both from a list of Locations. I cannot use keywords cause they are being used -in my case- for characters and if I make a list of keywords for Characters and another for Locations, they would appeared mixed in the same “keyword” column in the Outliner.

The only aproximate “solution” is not useful cause would be having several individual checks in the metadata, but they would be different metadata, so different columns in Outliner mode and a looong list in metadata panel in the Inspector.

@javier: But having a checkbox list would be useful for example in Outliner mode, where you could see just the option/s checked and not the rest.

Well—then that would mean you could not effectively use the metadata in the outliner though, and the intention has always been that you can use the outliner to edit as well as review. (Keywords have always been a notable exception as a technical limitation.)

The only aproximate “solution” is not useful cause would be having several individual checks in the metadata, but they would be different metadata, so different columns in Outliner mode and a looong list in metadata panel in the Inspector.

I don’t feel there were would a big enough benefit to add a whole new metadata field type that works almost exactly like having several checkboxes lined up in the main list. Sure there are some pros and cons, I’m aware, but when we look at all of the things we can improve that could add a large benefit, as far as using that time goes—to do other things instead—as I say this is of extremely minimal benefit.

By the way: it is possible to collapse a checkbox field down to the width of the checkbox widget alone, meaning you could have perhaps only the first of the sequence with a readable header, followed by a sequence of checkboxes to its right that would not take up much space at all.

I cannot use keywords cause they are being used -in my case- for characters and if I make a list of keywords for Characters and another for Locations, they would appeared mixed in the same “keyword” column in the Outliner.

You can limit the use of that feature to one single cluster of information if you wish. I have never felt the need to do so however, and feel the feature design lends itself naturally to holding a wide variety of different types of information. Sure, the list reads “Bridget, London” in the outliner list, but is that actually a bad thing? I’m used to seeing far more disprate information in that list than that, and never really had a problem understanding what I was trying to communicate. Like I say, you can impose a limitation on the feature if you please—but even the tutorial demonstrates multi-type tagging in its example list. It was designed to be used that way.

1 Like

Hi Amber, thank you for your answer.

Well, if you want to, for example, sort the column alphabetically, you can not get a list for only the Characters, or the Locations.

The problem I see is that only the “Keyword System” allows to indicate more than one element (keyword) in the same document. Labels or Status can’t. Metadata can’t do it in such an effective and quick way as keywords. And keywords are visually useful in the outliner (showing them by text or color). So I wonder if, assuming that the development of the Keyword System is already done, it would be easy to just add another Keywords System (let’s call them “Tags” for example) totally independent of the original Keyword. Or maybe I am totally crazy. :upside_down_face:

Thanks!

…So I wonder if, assuming that the development of the Keyword System is already done, it would be easy to just add another Keywords System (let’s call them “Tags” for example) totally independent of the original Keyword. Or maybe I am totally crazy.

I’ve got projects with maybe half a dozen different types of data being tracked with tags (it’s all tags, really, they are just called “keywords” out of affection for the dawn of computing), so then would the logical conclusion be that we would need not two separate lists of tags, but a variable quantity of them? It would be rather unorthodox, at least in my experience. Every program I’ve ever used that allows object level tagging within its organisation model uses a single unified list.

I would think that our time would be better spent improving the system itself—to perhaps better address cases where one might want to sort by them in a more useful fashion (a task that is currently a bit clumsy even if you use it to track just one thing), to make better use of the grouping feature, which currently does little more than visually present tags in collapsible lists in one context, and so on. Or in other words, to go back to your premise: I would not like to think that keywords are “done”, in the sense that they will never improve.

Sorry, I didn’t mean “done” as “finished”, just “in an advanced state”. Sorry but I am not English native speaker.

Ok, I understand. Thank you for your answer. I have been thinking about how to organize the work with the actual tools and maybe I can manage it with a different way… more or less.

Anyway, maybe next updates would allow something new to classify elements!

Thanks!