Outlines, Tiered Lists

Scrivener Wish List
1

Hey guys,

I don’t want to come across as a grump-gus, much less a repetitive one; after all, I’ve often and publicly lamented Scrivener’s (or rather, the OS X text system’s) problematic implementation of lists, but I’d like to draw special attention to the area of outlines. I know Scrivener has an Outliner built into it — but that’s for projects and documents, not actual textual outlines within documents. What I mean, of course, is something like this:

I. Outline level 1 text, auto-styled appropriately
A. Outline level 2 text, indented and auto-styled appropriately
B. More outline level 2 text
1. Outline level 3 text, indented and auto-styled appropriately

Currently, Scrivener supports nothing like this; indenting within a numbered list doesn’t indent to a user-specified level, the numbering scheme does not change (or stay consistent) when you indent, and of course, Scrivener cannot “back up” to a previous level based on indentation. Also, there is no way to tell Scrivener to insert a blank line between the items of a list, nor is there are there any built-in “outline styles” of lists, nor for the user to create and save this own list styles in order to make things easier. If you want this functionality, you have to implement it and keep track of it manually, which is a huge pain in the keister. I can understand the logic of using Scrivener to create a basic document and then going into Word or Pages to add the finishing touches, but . . . basic outline-lists aren’t really “finishing touches,” are they? I mean, they’re pretty central to basic document creation and for doing any kind of academic work, or for brainstorming within a document, or for inserting one’s note-taking into a larger project, as well as for breaking down writing goals within a single document, or whatever. Don’t get me wrong — Scrivener is already an impressive feat of engineering, and a marvelous program for most content-generation tasks . . . except this one, which is what’s kind of frustrating.

Me personally, I think this is a feature that needs implementing, like, yesterday :smiley: , and if the OS X text system doesn’t support it, well, there’s custom code in Scrivener for dealing with ordinals, right? Even the most basic implementation would be better than what we have now, which is pretty much nada. It doesn’t strike me as a feature that would be particularly difficult to add, but then, I’m not a developer and don’t have any sense of perspective on what is or isn’t a huge load of pain in that department. All I’m saying is that if we all know that the OS X text system is — to say the least — somewhat limiting (even given its expansive and otherwise impressive feature-set), then why not make this an instance where we reach beyond it in order to add features that Apple (perhaps unwisely :wink: ) left out?

1 Like
2

Overriding the built-in lists and replacing them with something completely custom is far from a trivial task. In fact, before the OS X text system introduced bulleted lists several years ago, I started to implement my own - and it was hideous. So there are no plans to override it in the near future (not even for 3.0), I’m afraid. Fortunately, not many users find this a problem - although the built-in lists aren’t perfect, they do most of what people want.

I’m not sure what you mean about not being able to number different levels using different numbering systems - this is fairly easy, unless I misunderstand you. It’s even easier if you use the keyboard shortcuts in the Format > List menu for cycling between list styles.

You can also adjust indents for lists using the ruler.

You’re right that there’s no way of adding a line between list items, although for blank lines you can always use paragraph spacing:

Hope that helps.

All the best,
Keith

3

Well, I had no idea it was that thorny of a programming problem. I’m working on creating my own outliner right now, in Java (I know), so many once I’m done, I could share the code with you? Of course, it would have to be recoded in Obj-C, but hey, at least the logic would be there! :smiley:

—A.H.

4

Thanks for this response, Keith. I have a similar query but what I would really like to do is create a list style that works consistently like the heading and text presets I have created.

Is it possible to pre-define a list preset using the list style options as well as the indents and spacing options? For example, I set all my paragraph numbers against the left margin and indent the paragraph text at 0,5cm intervals so a level 1 paragraph is 1cm from the left margin and the number; a level 2 paragraph is 1,5cm from the left margin and so on.

I also break my documents up into sections so I’d like the numbering to run through a compiled document and not restart with each section. One thought I had is that I could switch to Placeholder Tags instead of numbers in a list and see if the numbering doesn’t generate when I compile a document to finish off in LibreOffice or Word.

I’ve looked through the manual but I just see tips on how to do this although I’m probably looking for the wrong terms.

I realise this is a pretty specialised use of the software which it wasn’t really designed for but I am losing so much time messing with Word styles and recovering the odd LibreOffice document that self-destructs that it is worth exploring options deep inside Scrivener. The solution you outlined in your comment looks pretty close to what I want to do. I just want to create presets to automate much of that formatting.

5

Hi Keith,

Wow, this topic is almost 13 years old. I fear you’ll feel justified in not implementing a document outliner as opposed to what you have now. But I really want to put my 1 vote in for a true outliner. I do not know what level of familiarity you have with MS Word, so sorry if this isn’t worth reading, but try and learn how to use Multi-Level Lists in Word. It is a very thorough, though not perfect implementation of the outline feature that SubGeniusZero described. It gives users a pretty good degree of customization per level of indentation. It doesn’t “get lost” like simple lists do in Word. You can also mix numbering styles so something like I.A.1.i.a. You can also mix numbering styles and bullets styles. Lastly, part of style definition allows users to link a traditional style to an indentation level. There are more features but I’ll stop here.

As far as why you would take on this effort, outlines are very useful for non-fiction writers (along with tables, but that’s another entry). I use both multi-level lists and tables extensively and love them. To me, they are some of Word’s best features.

I really look forward to getting a solid grasp on Scrivener but I was disappointed to learn that your outline view mode isn’t what traditional outlining is.

Let me close by commending you, Keith. As a former database programmer, I have a small idea of what is necessary to write a program like Scrivener. That one person made this is impressive. And to port / write it in so many operating systems is really impressive. Frankly, as a PC user, its one of the reasons I would switch to a Mac.

All the best, Keith,

Steve

6

Paul,

If you haven’t already, look into Multi-Level Lists in Word. They preserve formatting for your entire document, something which normal lists fail to often do.

I avoided learning them because of the apparent complexity of the two dialog boxes, but once you get a feel for them, it’ll be easier than one originally expected. Also, they start off in a pre-defined arrangement, so you don’t have to undertake extensive modification.

Give them a try!

Steve

7

Here is a much newer take on this conversation, where I provided a large round-up of discussions. It goes over the philosophy of Scrivener, and why this full-featured outlining software doesn’t have an entirely different kind of outliner inside of each outline node’s text fields.

I really look forward to getting a solid grasp on Scrivener but I was disappointed to learn that your outline view mode isn’t what traditional outlining is.

It’s always interesting to see what people consider to be traditional or true. :slight_smile: The kind of outliner Scrivener is, in the binder/outliner, is what inspired programs like Word, or we might say that is what they came from rather than the other way around. There isn’t a set group of necessary features you must have to be “true” or “traditional”, but Scrivener does have a lot of what we would consider to be traditional or true outlining features (for its class of outlining). The links I provided above will go into that in depth.

They may not be the kinds of features you are used to, for sure. But to provide a little perspective from another point of view, from someone that learned of outlining from programs like MORE, Acta, ShadowPlan, OmniOutliner, NeO, Tinderbox and Scrivener—I would feel extremely restricted in a Word-style outline myself, because I have almost no interest in a stylesheet based text outlining. I would rather have an outline where each node is an element that can be listed, saved into search trees, cloned, linked to, tagged with metadata, and so on. That, to me is the kind of outline that is very useful for non-fiction writers, not a text enumerator.

It’s okay to have different opinions, I’m just trying to get across that concept I guess. It’s not that Scrivener is lacking an outliner for writers, it just does things in a different way than what you’ve grown so accustomed to, and the kinds of things it does with its outline can be amazing for non-fiction in particular.

1 Like
8

I fully agree with you.
As an alternate example, it is not the same thing to create a table in Scrivener, Word or Excel.
Each software is dedicated to a specific purpose.
As a French language native, I have already identified that Scrivener has limitations.
I had to translate/rename the tag or status names.
No big deal.
And for grammar and vocabulary check, it is easy to compile an extract of the project and send it inside the appropriate software of your choice.
Again, no big deal.

1 Like
9

Amber,

The outlining features you described are impressive! You wrote:

I would rather have an outline where each node is an element that can be listed, saved into search trees, cloned, linked to, tagged with metadata, and so on. That, to me is the kind of outline that is very useful for non-fiction writers, not a text enumerator.

But I feel that your feature list should not negate the need many writers have, which you describe as a text enumerator. What I’m getting at is that, at least to some extent, Scrivener should support the way we work, not totally make us learn the way it works. As a former database programmer/analyst, I know this balance can be tough to make. It’s a balancing act at the developer level, which involves a lot of work. The notion of whether or not software should emulate traditional physical systems and methods or start from scratch from a new paradigm is not only a challenge for developers but also for users.

When I was a little boy and mom and I went shopping for shoes, she would always remind me that, “The shoe should fit the foot. The foot should not need to fit the shoe.”

Scrivener is a unique paradigm to me in writers tools. But it still has to be useable as well as novel.

Steve

1 Like
10

I understand what you are getting at, and sometimes this is indeed the right answer, but I don’t think that approach is applicable to this context. At a certain point you have to look at a vector illustration program, and wonder if asking for it to become a pixel editing program is the right way forward. There is nothing wrong with learning how to use a vector program if you started out thinking it was for pixel editing, and have been struggling against it for that reason—but to say the software should change because of your preconception going into picking it up, well I don’t really follow that line of thinking.

Scrivener is a unique paradigm to me in writers tools. But it still has to be useable as well as novel.

I might have glossed over on the history of things a bit, but we’re not actually doing anything new here. The kind of outlining software Scrivener falls within goes way back, further back than any folding text editor or stylesheet-based list tool. I believe the first demo of the concept, in primitive form, was done in the '60s. We aren’t coming up with stuff from scratch, but using tried and tested mechanisms that have been refined over many decades.

Now, it might be a new genre of software to you, and that’s fine, but I feel it is always right and correct to say: this is the program, if you like how this works then you’ll love it. Maybe you’ll learn to love it if you don’t already, or have never used this kind of program before. Maybe not, and that’s okay too. The latter case doesn’t make the software categorically “unusable”, because the other two categories still exist for other people. I wouldn’t want to use a program like you describe, to write with, I would look for other software if that is how Scrivener worked.

I’ve used software that is wilfully unlike anything that came before it. Some of these program I grew to love and they changed how I worked, even long after their demise. There were of course others where I never really got along with them, and moved on to other tools. To the contrary, I think the variety and uniqueness of software should be celebrated, even if we don’t always get it ourselves, individually. The fact that someone else might, is okay. :slight_smile:

Minds aren’t feet. They benefit from being used in ways that challenge them.

4 Likes
11

“We” is doing a lot of work here.

The universe of working methods that (some) writers use is vast. I’m not sure any single piece of software could address them all without becoming hopelessly bloated.

2 Likes
12

Right. No software offers it all.
Your task is to find the one that fits you best.
It is like that, it has always been like that, and it will forever be like that.

If one day a software succeeds at offering an absolute and uncompromised way of doing things that fits any and all users regardless of their preconceptions, it will only be to have its new users complaining that there is too much, and that it is way too hard to make sense of anything. (Writing software or not, any and all software/purposes alike.)

(By that time if A.I. hasn’t completely demolished the book industry, it’ll be a brain interface that transcripts your idea on paper for you. One will think his/her novel or book or whatnot and then print it.)

. . . . . . . . . . .

:rofl:

(I wish someone had told me that in time.)

2 Likes