Scrivener 2.6.5 Svelte Icons

The beta for 2.6.5 is out. Love the clean new svelte icons.

Take a look …

[attachment=1]icons1.png[/attachment]
[attachment=0]icons2.png[/attachment]

And the format bar…

[attachment=0]formatbar.png[/attachment]

Nice. Thanks for the pics.

Eagerly awaiting this update - which is odd because 30 minutes ago I didn’t know scriv needed a UI refresh. But now “Oooh, shiny. Can’t wait.” :laughing:

Welcome.

The new UI (especially on El Cap) does make Scrivener feel more modern and pleasing to look at (IMO). The icons don’t look so “heavy” at the top of the window. Far more subtle. Think the designers have done a really good job: familiar, but more slick and refined.

There is a new file format as well (which is not backwards compatible).

I’m really glad you’re liking the updated UI! We were going to hold off on the UI refresh until 3.0, but as that’s taking longer than hoped (I originally wanted it out this year, but with all the OS X updates, I’m spending time making it as modern under the hood as possible so that it has a solid groundwork for the next ten years of development), we decided to spruce up 2.7 a bit. There are still plenty of areas that need work for full modernisation - the Preferences and such - but that will all be coming. :slight_smile:

A welcome improvement, IMO.

Scrivener’s functionality is more important than its looks, but a nice step towards 3.0 all the same.

Really the new icons look very nice. Good Job!
I have used in the past beta versions of Scrivener without any issue. Should I trust this new beta and drop version 2.6 (Mac) which I found very stable and complete?
Thanks.

You can download and try it without deleting your current installation.

But if you commit to it, do note that it has a new file format that is not backwards compatible. When you open an existing project, Scrivener tells you it needs to convert the project. It then makes a backup of the project (in the same folder) and completes the conversion. A converted file cannot be opened in a previous version of Scrivener (though you will still have your backup).

Has been perfectly stable on the three Macs I have tried it on, but it is a beta build…

Oooooh, new icons, and all the little UI refreshes (Inspector, formatting bar etc.) are are luuvrlery!!!

Downloaded and installed in parallel with 2.6.0, even though I haven’t been using the 10.11 betas.

I really like the new look — very clean and smart — and particularly the fact that you’ve moved the inspector icons to the top of the pane, rather than the bottom … brings it more into line with the rest of the layout and they’re more handy in their new position.

:slight_smile:

Mr X

Why hadn’t I noticed that? :confused:

Agree completely.

You’re on 10.10, Yosemite? Must look slightly different to the images above, given the new system font in 10.11. I also have an old Mac on 10.7.5; the new UI looks good on that, but not as fresh (obviously) as on 10.11.

Yes, I’m on 10.10. Neither of my computers have enough SSID space to let me partition them, and no way am I going to commit a working machine to a beta OS. I’ll wait till 10.11 has been out for a while and then upgrade, when I know all my apps are working happily on it.

I’m not sure it looks that different. What’s the new system font?

Mr X

The new system font is “San Francisco”, which as you might guess by the name was designed by Apple, originally for the Watch. It has a weight and feel that is much closer to the older Lucida Grande font, less wire and more stout. I like it, it’s a subtle difference, but a good change. I wasn’t terribly fond of Helvetica everywhere like in 10.10. It’s a nice font, but for UI, it just felt a bit weak to me. Point of trivia, San Fran is also the font used for the keyboard on the new MacBooks.

Thanks.

I’ve never had any problem with the Helvetica in 10.10. I’m not too concerned with such details of System UI interface, as long as it’s clean and readable … even changes to icons and their colour, as long as it’s subtle, pass me by completely. What matters to me is usability, accessibility and lack of clutter, so for me the really great interface change is the move of inspector icons to the top of the pane; it just feels like the right place for them and that they should always have been there.

When it comes to output to the page though, fonts do matter, so I find TNA utterly boring, and will always go for a well-balanced and kerned font like Adobe Garamond Pro — by contrast, the Garamond that comes, or used to come with Windows, I find incredibly ugly, unbalanced and badly kerned. And I’m still trying to settle on a font for iBooks, and Kindle and Kobo e-Readers.

:slight_smile:

Mr X

Reading the following:

Is 2.6.5 on the Mac still compatible with 1.8.6 on Windows. If not, is there a timeline to realign them?

Thanks,

Richard

I would think not, which is why I’ve put 2.6 in a separate applications folder within my user account, and 2.6.5 in the main Applications folder. That way, any project that I collaborate on with my friend, I will continue to edit in 2.6; any project which for the moment is “For my eyes only” is converted under 2.6.

As to a timeline for compatibility, maybe LAP or Tiho_D will find time to comment. It’s certainly going to become important as people upgrade to El Capitan. But what do I know? :slight_smile:

Mr X

2.6.5 is not compatible with Windows 1.8.6, for the same reasons it’s not compatible with earlier Mac versions. There will be a Windows beta using the new file format out before the end of the month, in time to maintain cross-platform compatibility with the new Mac release.

Hi Jennifer

I know the change is down to future compatibility with iOS Scrivener, but what exactly is the change (as the format is still RTF)?

Thanks

Briar Kit

One can assume this will also mean that files converted/created using the new Windows beta will not be backwards compatible with ver. 1.8.6? Which will also break compatibility with the Linux beta version.

Is this new format a move away from the formerly transportable RTF file format, as it seems to appear?

The docs are still in RTF format, my guess is that it’s the .scrivx side of things that has changed. But perhaps Jen or someone more knowledgeable will give a more informed answer.

:slight_smile:

Mr X