Really hating this program right now

[NeilCross]

@MimeticMouton

You’re missing the big Apple picture, Keith. What you need to do is reduce the complexity completely, as you suggested, and then sell a Pro license that allows users access to all the customization settings!

Erm, my irony detector may be on the blink here – and Keith, you may want to track me down and beat me with a birch for saying this … but actually I don’t think that’s a bad idea.

A small sector of the market tends to mistake flexibility for complexity. Perhaps a “Prefs Locked to Keith’s Defaults” version would help that sector become more immediately comfortable within the Scrivener environment. When that comfort is established and the desire grows to tweak Scrivener to their own tastes … they get to upgrade to the full version - which means, the Preferences are unlocked.

(The Soulmen are doing something similar-ish with Ulysses core.)

(Well, perhaps not that similar. But you know what I mean.)

This may be a stupid idea though.

[scriv-pete]

@KB

But if anyone can suggest a better placement for the full screen text colour in such a way as it doesn’t get separated from the “Override text colour” check button, I’m all ears.

How about duplicating the options in both places? Of course a change in one pane would effect the setting in the other pane since they would refer to the same thing, but would mean that people would find everything they are looking for no matter which way they choose to find it.

[Jaysen]

OH OH OH OH I HAVE AN IDEA THAT MIGHT BE USEFUL (and it hurts).

Have a big button that lets to set scriv to “Ioa Mode” which will expose all the complicated prefs that seem so confusing to folks who have nothing better to do than to look for ways to make things special (which seems counter to the whole productivity complaint to me). Think about it; ignore button and you get a locked down UI with limited customization but really simple pref; click the button and you can change everything, but YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO WHINE BECAUSE YOU CHOSE TO CLICK THE DARN BUTTON.

What do you think?

That said, I still don’t get the real issue here. Every artist or tradesman I have ever known got the job done no matter what the tools looked like. Heck, I work in windows every day but I still manage to get the job done.

[MimeticMouton]

@scriv-pete

How about duplicating the options in both places? Of course a change in one pane would effect the setting in the other pane since they would refer to the same thing, but would mean that people would find everything they are looking for no matter which way they choose to find it.

I’d worry that duplicating the option, like those crazy multiple light-switches on either side of a room, would just add further confusion. Do I set it here? Oh, I should set it here! etc. and the user doesn’t understand why it’s not working at the end of the day. Additionally, maybe this isn’t the same as ptram suggested, but Keith seems to have implied that putting the option in the Customizable Colors pane wouldn’t work:

@KB

@ptram

You have probably already considered this, but is there any chance to make the checkbox fit in a Appearance > Customizable Colors > Full Screen > Text box? I see there are other options where the “Chose texture…” button appears or disappears. Maybe it can be replaced by the “Use natural text color” checkbox for this paritcular option?

It just wouldn’t fit there very well. The checkbox would need to go before the colour palette because it determines whether or not the colour palette is enabled or not.

@NeilCross

Erm, my irony detector may be on the blink here – and Keith, you may want to track me down and beat me with a birch for saying this … but actually I don’t think that’s a bad idea.

I was vacillating. To be truly serious, I think the Pro version should be the regular bundle and users should pay extra for the simplified version, thus saving me money.

In total seriousness, though, while the idea may have merits, I don’t think it really fixes the issue, which is that once users do want to customize something, they get overwhelmed by the options (and think of the stink that might arise once they found they’d paid extra for that confusion); and if they have no options whatsoever, they get grumpy that they can’t change “this one simple thing.” Perhaps if there were a middle ground, where it weren’t completely “Keith-default, no way to change anything” there might be enough customizable settings to satisfy a large user base–but then which settings should be fixed and which allow change? At a guess, though users on average may change only a few settings, those few settings will be different for a lot of people.

An “advanced” tab seems like a decent idea except that how do you organize all the “advanced” settings, even assuming you can decide which they are? Right now, the entire Preference pane is “advanced,” but it’s organized into Navigation, Appearance, Formatting, etc. Would the “Advanced” tab have that same break down or jumble everything together? The latter seems much worse than the design now stands, and the former just duplicates so much unnecessarily. Maybe leave it as it is and instead of an advanced tab there are “advanced” settings hidden via a disclosure box, a la the Compile settings?

None of this gets away from the main point, though, which is that once you do get to those “advanced” settings, whatever they are–and in all likelihood, a lot of users are going to try it at least once just to get that one setting that isn’t the way they want it in the default–there are a lot of possibilities and someone is going to get confused. You’d like to think that having clicked the disclosure/advanced tab, they’re agreeing to some kind of contract accepting that they’re going to have to read some manuals and do a little more work to understand the features they’re now making accessible, but people being people, I don’t think that’s something to count on. And even with a manual, some people just need it broken down another way before it clicks.

Right, I’m going to stop speculating and go pretend to be productive.

Edit

@Jaysen

ignore button and you get a locked down UI with limited customization but really simple pref; click the button and you can change everything, but YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO WHINE BECAUSE YOU CHOSE TO CLICK THE DARN BUTTON.

What do you think?

They have to check a box that says they’re over thirteen and then digitally sign it with their PIN so that we can track them down and sue if they whine. What do you think?

[AndreasE]

@KB

I wasn’t entirely serious, given the amount of work I put into the preferences only recently for 2.0 - every preference there is something that has had some serious requests and debate. If I simplified the preferences, there would be just as much moaning the other way.

There’s an easy solution: The meta-preference - an option where one can choose whether one wants the full option set or the light-weight version with the presets. And everybody will stay happy.

Then again you could implement a phone-home-function that reports how many Scriveners are set which way: That would be a reliable reference for further decisions.

I am not entirely serious, too. In case of doubt, I’d option strongly for all preference settings there are in the moment; I love to be able to fine-adjust an important tool.

[AndreasE]

I should have read the other postings before …

[bargonzo]

Maybe I’m not getting it, but it seems to me like we already have the simple and complex options right there:

Simple: Start the program, open a project, start typing. Don’t change a damn thing from the default settings. Watch the videos.

Complex: Play with all the settings. RTFM.

What’s to argue with?

[Jaysen]

@bargonzo

What’s to argue with?

Apparently everything!

Although I think this is becoming more an argument of “protect the user from themselves”.

[MimeticMouton]

@Jaysen

Although I think this is becoming more an argument of “protect the user from themselves”.

Isn’t that what UI design is all about?

[Hugh]

@Jaysen

I still don’t get the real issue here.

The key issue is that Keith’s core customer-base is People Who Write. Many of us spend long hours with Scrivener, a lot us characteristically hold strong and well-articulated views on many things, including software, and not a few of us are fastidious to the point of obsession about our methods and tools. I certainly am.

@Jaysen

Every artist or tradesman I have ever known got the job done no matter what the tools looked like.

Every good artist or professional I’ve ever known will get the job done no matter what, but will still care deeply about what she does it with. My dad was a carpenter, and he even cared deeply about his oilstones!

I think the truth still lies with the 16th President’s observations on pleasing the people. As Scrivener grows in popularity, so will the absolute number of users that you can’t please all of the time. So I’d like the existing preferences kept. I can’t offer a view on how they should be grouped: that it seems to me is a matter of continuing user feedback, plus Keith’s expertise in UI design.

H

[KB]

@MimeticMouton

…but then which settings should be fixed and which allow change? At a guess, though users on average may change only a few settings, those few settings will be different for a lot of people.

This is exactly the heart of this issue. I’m going to quote Brent Simmons, a NetNewsWire developer, from his inessential.com blog, as I think he sums the problem up perfectly:

Here’s the schizo thing about software development (at least on Macs):

1. Everybody praises apps that don’t have a ton of preferences and features.

2. Everybody asks for some new preferences and features.

(Okay, not everybody. Not you, I know. I mean everybody else.)

To make it worse:

1. Everybody thinks they’re representative of the typical user, so what they want ought to be a no-brainer.

2. And they act like you put skunks in their fridge if you don’t do whatever-it-is.

(Okay, again — not you. You’re cool. I’m talking about the others.)

The trouble with the idea of a Pro/non-Pro version, and also with the idea of “Advanced” tabs and so on, is that really I just want to develop a single program that I want to use myself - maybe in the future when we have a team of dozens and are all billionaires (well I can dream), we can afford some other coders to deal with that sort of stuff. But I just don’t want to start splitting Scrivener up into different versions at the moment.

All the best,
Keith

[NeilCross]

@KB

The trouble with the idea of a Pro/non-Pro version, and also with the idea of “Advanced” tabs and so on

Well, I was just thinking: Version 1 - the Keith Version. You get to change font and zoom. That’s yer lot.

Version 2: All Prefs are unlocked for you to customize as you will.

For most of us here, this would’ve been unnecessary. I’m by no means a tech-head, but I never found Scrivener’s preferences the least bit difficult to negotiate – and the prefs in 2 seem entirely transparent to me.

(By way of contrast, thinking about Mellel’s preferences even now now makes me want to curl up in the corner and sob.)

All it is: at times I’m baffled by board posters – such as the OP in this thread – who just seem to be missing some fundamental point, and to be railing at … well, nothing.

Quite a few of these people seem to be tinkering with the engine before they’ve got their learner’s permit … then spouting off when they reverse into a wall. And perhaps a locked Keith Version would be, y’know, like taking a few lessons in an automatic. Just to learn the rules of the road.

This pitiful metaphor isn’t really an argument in defence of launching a separate, simplified app. It’s really just a shrug of displeasure at threads which begin like this one – ill-mannered, brusque and almost wilfully ignorant.

[AndreasE]

@bargonzo

Maybe I’m not getting it, but it seems to me like we already have the simple and complex options right there:

Simple: Start the program, open a project, start typing. Don’t change a damn thing from the default settings. Watch the videos.

Complex: Play with all the settings. RTFM.

That’s absolutely right. The meta-preference. There it is!

[Ahab]

Perhaps a way to satisfy both the simple-minded non-techy writing crowd (meaning me) and the propeller-head obsessive compulsives (I’m thinking of the old Bob Newhart episode, where he couldn’t pay his bills because he couldn’t find his bill-paying hat) is to engineer a future Scrivener’s preferences along the lines of the new HDTVs, with six or eight presets–Cinema, Warm2, Sports–chosen to appeal to specific groups of users. The packaged settings in these boxes can be further and reasonably tweaked by the users, and the relentless customizers who want flame decals and moon-eye hubcabs can go into Custom Mode and muck about until their eyes glaze over. With the clear caveat being that opening the hood means you’ve bought it.

I hasten to add that the complexity of Scrivener’s iteration du jour doesn’t concern me in the least, even though I was at McDonald’s the other day and the chirpy checkout-clerk didn’t even have the decency to ask if I qualified for the senior citizens discount before awarding it. Most of the esoteric stuff in Scrivener I don’t use or need, and the stuff I do need or use can be puzzled out with a bit of due diligence.

What frosts my bum is the amount of time Keith has to devote to this customization mania–adapting to or fending off–when he could be doing something useful: if nothing else, writing the novel that spawned this program we all have come to depend on.

Many of us foster a certain proprietary parentalism about how his time gets squandered on nonproductive foofaddle from new users who demand something be done right away to solve a problem that got solved in Version 1 but simply requires a bit of searching to solve. Or urgent requests that Keith devote days and weeks of programming time to save 12 keyclicks and 24 seconds a day for a user whose thinking process is apparently so scattered he will lose his golden sentence should he be required to move his mouse.

But then, if we didn’t have all these types of posts, the get-outa-my-yard fuddy-faction (me) would rarely have anything to post about, other than, Hey, Scrivener Works For Me Real Good.

[howarth]

Big Like button for Ahab’s post.

As for McDonald’s, you must be a big tipper to get that “Why, you can’t be a senior YET” response.

BTW, where’s a decent like/thumbs up button when you need it?

[dafu]

I second that thumbs-up for Ahab’s post! But, since I’m anxious for Keith to finish wiring up the Complete Sentence button I’d say defer work on the presets for a while. It’s my guess, on the subject of customization, that the forum represents a selected, small, population of users compared to the thousands who just buy Scrivener and start tapping away with an occasional muttered imprecation when they are confused by option 223B.

Dave

[Rdale]

I doubt that the “simple vs. pro” version idea would work. Would full-screen color scheme settings be in the simple version, which the OP was complaining about? I doubt it, so in his case, he would have been just as irate, if not more so when he was told, “you have to upgrade to customize that screen.”

Keith gets enough grief from those of us who try to be polite about scrivener not taking our synopses and producing a publishable novel on it’s own.

[Ahab]

Hatching two separate versions of Scrivener seems a nonstarter.

For starters, everyone will order the Professional Version and no one will order the Everyday Version, for the same complex psychological reasons that causes everyone in suburbia to buy offroad-capable SUVs to buzz down to Stop & Shop, and fly-fishers who flail away for a few days a year at an excessively popular pool they could fish in their Plimsolls to expensively equip themselves for a month on the Panoi.

As we’ve seen, to be a professional writer you must equip yourself with properly professional tools. Preferably with a blue screen and white letters. And internal icons of infinite granularity.

[PJS]

Modest proposal.

1/ Save recent posts by Hugh, Bargonzo, and Ahab.
2/ Delete all other posts.
3/ Preserve resultant mini-thread as must-read-before-being-allowed-to-post.

ps

[uhu]

@PJS Excellent idea

is it me or is there really just one person (KBs exquisite would-be idea excluded) who seriously wants to tear down the Preferences Palace (well, at least indirectly, utilising a highly addictive thread title and an aristocratic-sounding name for the purpose)?
So why the fuss?

Nice fireworks though - happy new year! :mrgreen: