Scrivener as a project tool for non-writing projects: version 2 is good enough, version 3 is overkill

This is my response to Scrivener 3 - please note that I’m not asking for anything; certainly not for a refund. I’m just writing to give feedback from a particular kind of user (me) as to why Scriv. 3 has not got me excited.

Although at one time I was a fairly constant novelist, I never used Scrivener for novel-writing; I had my own system of brainstorming, drafting, and building chronologies & characters which revolved around Word plus my own schemas of choice. Later I was primarily an essayist (writing, publishing, and teaching essays) ; there too I preferred Word and my own schemes of organization to Scrivener. The reason I stuck with Word was simply that when I got started, it was in the old pre-Windows days of MS-DOS and character-based screens; Scrivener wouldn’t be around for many years. My scheme for organizing drafts and supporting documents could accommodate not only Word as it evolved, but any method of producing documents I chose. A tool such as Scrivener was therefore never relevant in that part of my life, even once I learned about it & bought it & got to like it pretty well.

As GUIs developed & application software followed suit, I spent many years being very interested in not only learning new software, but coding and scripting as well. I wrote scripts and templates for Word in Visual Basic, with toolbars to help my co-writers style text properly for books we were writing together; I wrote AppleScripts for use in OS X; I wrote Python and command line scripts for all platforms for various document automations. I ran not just Windows and Mac, but Linux.

So in those years it was not at all a problem to learn about Scrivener, too, starting with version 1 and then version 2. My primary use for Scrivener 2 the past few years has been as a brainstorming/notes/organizing tool for documenting all sorts of projects - repairing guitars, learning electronics and other new interests, etc. Back when I was still teaching, I also sometimes used Scrivener (along with many other tools, e.g. concept mapping software) for brainstorming the elements of big topics like argumentative writing and how I would teach them. I used Scapple a bit here & there as well. Even now I use Aeon Timeline, which Scrivener in effect introduced me to, for projects involving chronologies.

In my opinion Scrivener 1 and 2 did one special thing brilliantly on Macs: They made it far faster to organize separate small documents into a coherent whole (via the Binder), Documents opened instantly; no wait required. All this was far better than Finder, esp. since most document editors for Mac weren’t that great. Scrivener wasn’t a great document editor either but it was good enough.

Today, my interest in playing with new software is just about over. I’m older now (early 60s) and my time is shorter and what I do is more focused, I am less interested in computers - they are almost an interference in a way, a typewriter that went mad & now consumes people’s lives, sometimes with scant return - and much more interested in simply using what software I already know, whether for writing, organizing notes on a project, or any other purpose.

So here comes Scrivener 3. I went ahead & bought it a few days ago for two reasons: 1) the strength of past performance of Lit. & Latte products; and 2) the unfortunate fact that as each new OS X upgrade comes out, older applications are steadily made obsolete. In this case, though, I hope Scrivener 2 sticks around awhile longer, because having looked 3 over, I realize I won’t be using it any time soon. Here’s why:

  1. It doesn’t add any particularly brilliant new features for organizing text & brainstorming. The heart of Scrivener, the Binder (and to a lesser extent, collections), is the same.

  2. I’d have to invest time learning how everything works again for those features I do want.

  3. I’d have to redo not just presets for styles, but the macros I built using Keyboard Maestro to trigger those presets. It could be done quickly enough, but why bother given points 1 and 2?

I may be unique or nearly so among the Scrivener user base in not caring at all about compiling and certain other features. And I imagine those new to Scrivener won’t have any of my qualms with version 3 as they won’t have as much invested in learning the previous version. So take what I say with a grain of salt.

P.S. One additional point I just thought of, about why I never wanted to use Scrivener for fiction or essay writing: its versioning system didn’t fit the way I work as a writer.

I remember I experimented with Snapshots quite a bit; but I found them wanting and eventually stopped. They worked only at a very micro level; whereas I was versioning not just to to save snippets of text I might someday want back, but as part of drafting and revising; most of my versioning was large scale, e.g. scenes, chapters, character arcs, etc. That was something that didn’t seem to fit in Scrivener very well.

P.S. It seems I’m not alone in choosing other methods to version - this thread (in a different forum) is interesting;

Thanks for posting your feedback, even if it isn’t the kind of news we’d like to hear, it’s good to know how you found the update. Firstly, if Scrivener 2 works well for you, I hope you find it useful for many years to come. Something you should be aware of, in terms of system updates around it, as that you will probably want to halt upgrading macOS at 10.13 for as long as you continue to use v2. That’s the last OS from Apple that will support 32-bit software.

So to respond to the main bulk of your argument, I hope you don’t take these as criticisms of your feedback, but more my own inability to understand where you are coming from—precisely because I use Scrivener heavily has a notepad type program, and much of my feedback into the shaping of version 3 was built around that motivation for using it in such a fashion. So naturally I am a bit biased there, but I find the many little improvements to the project window user interface to make notepad usage in v3 in entirely different league than v2.

To be clear, v2 for me was always more in the realm of it being a good notepad program in theory. It did work all right, and I did use it that way to some degree, but I never did fully migrate away from other more dedicated programs for that purpose (Notational Velocity, VoodooPad, etc.).

Once the early alpha builds for v3 were tuned and stable enough to use regularly, I never looked back, and for the last few years now I really only use Scrivener for that particular task. But, if I try to use v2, phew—it feels like I’m constantly running into roadblocks. :slight_smile:

So I’d like to have a bit of discussion over this aspect of the update, since it is something I have a bit of a passion about—this kind of software and how I feel Scrivener 3 dips into that role.

It doesn’t add any particularly wonderful features for organizing notes & brainstorming.

I’d be curious to know what that means to you. It’s difficult to take this as constructive criticism since it is vague, and from our point of view there are hundreds of new approaches in the software that make it more viable for this kind of work—so it feels a bit like one spent a long time writing a book about wrenches only to get feedback that the book doesn’t talk about wrenches. First reaction is: say what? :slight_smile:

Here are a few that come to mind:

  • The corkboard and outline now receive content drops from all sources.

    • I can select text from the web browser and drop it into a corkboard to capture some text into a new outline item.
    • Drop a JPEG onto a corkboard to import it as a file to that folder.
    • Drop a file from another project into an outliner to import it. This is really great for those kinds of idea-nexus projects where data may be coming in or out of it from other projects.
    • Etc. Experiment. The idea being if you think it should work, and it is technically possible for us to import or duplicate data via drag and drop, it should work.
  • Much of the content creation capabilities have been tuned to have a more content-centric aftereffect. For example if you hit ⌘N while typing in a document, the result will always be to bring you to the new note with the cursor blinking in the current context. In Scrivener 2 you were forced off into the binder, demanded a name for the new note right then and there (maybe in brainstorming you don’t even have a name in mind yet) and then had to manually get back into the editor. Now it’s the note that matters. You can name it later, and easily so even with binder closed with ⌃⌥⌘T.

  • And I think a tangent in that prior point is worth mention all on its own. I have maintained for many years now that one of the most important things a notetaking style program can do is keep out of one’s way while they are rapidly taking notes. The less interface between you and typing down your ideas, the better you’ll be able to jump from one thing to next, and then back again to whatever you were doing if need be. If you have to stop typing, reach for the mouse, click on a little button, assign something a title, give it some metadata, choose where it will be saved and finally click into an editor (maybe not necessarily all in that order)—well, by the time I’m done with all of that I’m already thinking about something else, and the main thing at the forefront of my mind is frustration over how much I have to do just to start typing already. I’ve used so-called notetaking programs where the above isn’t all that much of an exaggeration—and no matter how much I liked the rest of the program, that one point could spell doom for it in my workflow. I wouldn’t say Scrivener 2 was that bad, but there was a bit of friction, and we’ve worked hard to remove as much of that as possible:

    • Names no longer really matter, and sometimes not using a name can be more beneficial than naming a thing. One’s content can drive the name dynamically if it is left empty, either the synopsis or the main text in that order.
    • Synopses can be deferred if one prefers lead-in text to hand-crafted summaries. In the past you could generate these into static text (and bother with refreshing them if the lead-in text changes), but now you don’t have to bother. Index cards are immediately useful even if you haven’t touched the feature in years.

    Aside from the obvious reduction of UI friction as one moves from one note to the next, there are some impactful implications to this approach. With the ability to rapidly capture your notes and then have the content of your note generating meaningful identifying information about them in the various group views, your overhead in sorting and up-front cataloging is automatically diminished to only what you need to do—and there is no penalty for not doing so. Adaptively named items sort right into manually named items, they can be searched for by name, they can even have that handle compiled as an option.

    Without a penalty for heavy categorisation up front, the possibility of using the software less rigorously, more sloppily and getting similar or maybe even superior recollection results out of it in the years to come is achieved.

    Of course, one needn’t subscribe to chaos if they don’t want to. You still can easily name everything, and give everything a hand-crafted summary, and spend five minutes on custom metadata, keywords and other forms of organisation. That’s all still there (and I would say all improved in their own myriad hundred little ways as well).

  • You no longer have to Reveal in Binder, or manually find a thing in a corkboard or outliner view, to move or copy that item to a different location. All you need to do that is have any icon representing that item visible, even the icon in the header bar. This makes the process of filing things out of inbox or scratch pad style folders so much more effortless, and in return that means less friction toward using those kinds of central inbox folders in the first place. In Scrivener 2 I avoided those constructs because filing things took a lot of effort unless that was what I was doing—in terms of just sitting down for fifteen minutes and doing nothing but filing. Now, filing is an afterthought. I can type, and at the conclusion of having done so, I can say to myself, you know what, I want to save this beyond today, and drag its icon from the header bar into a folder in the sidebar.

    I’ve done that with just this very document. It started out like all messages I write on the forum and in tech support, in a notepad style Scrivener project. But once I realised I had a few things worth making note of for future conversations, I hit the shortcut to give it a name in the title bar, then dragged its icon over to the current quarterly folder, out of the disposable “Today” folder that gets cleared every morning of the thousands of works I write about Scrivener.

    In essence, clicking on a document so that it is shown in the editor is an automatic and implicit pinning of that item for future use in all drag and drop uses. If I have a document I want to cross-reference to in five or six other documents, I can just split the UI and visit those six documents in turn, dragging its icon from the other split into the editor to drop a link in. If I need both splits, I can drag the icon from the editor header bar into same editor header bar with the Option key held down to open it as a copyholder—and now both splits can be freely used to find content.

    As I put in the user manual: if you can see an icon on the screen, you can drag it. And if you drop it in a place that would have a logical outcome, like a list of Bookmarks, or a collection tab, or a binder folder, or within a document’s Notes field in the inspector, or in a corkboard, etc., it’ll probably do what you expect.

    This simple capability even comes in useful for routine things as well. Ever had the problem of needing to drag an item from one end of a very long binder to another? You can sit there with the mouse at the bottom of the sidebar for a minute waiting for it to scroll and hoping you don’t accidentally release the button somewhere random—or in v3 you can click on the item, inertially scroll through a thousand items in a second, and drag from the editor into the desired location. Done.

  • Navigation by title is more direct. If the type of note taking you do results in frequently looking up information by name, then the Quick Search ability is like Spotlight for your project. There is nothing quite like that in Scrivener 2, other than a weird approach using the index card finder tool and manually dragging and dropping search results into header bars. A far cry from hitting ⌃⌘G, typing in “name of no…” and punching return.

    Again this folds right into the earlier discussion on the reduction of mandatory routines for establishing identity for notes. If it is easier to jump straight to something by its name, then the necessity for excessively organising works into topical hierarchies can be scaled back to only what is necessary. And meanwhile a tool that treats an item without a formal name at the same level of priority as an item with a name again helps bolster that sloppy-is-as-good approach.

  • Corkboard and outliner views are searchable now. Hit ⌘F in an outliner to check it out. This means you no longer need Project Search to find an item in a large folder of notes that you’re already looking at, and it also means that if your project search only created a broad list of options that needs further narrowing down, the means to do so is more direct and less disruptive to the project window configuration than running sequential searches was in v2. Of course those methods still exist as well, and can thus be combined with outliner/corkboard filtering for even more power. For me, searching and navigation are integral to note taking.

  • The net effect of many of these adjustments I’ve been referring to above is more subtle: it means you can minimise how much user interface is going on in the project window, without losing core functionality. In the past, if you turned off the Binder and used a simple Notational Velocity style outliner + editor in horizontal orientation, you could do that fine for a while—but eventually you would have to open the binder to do certain things. It was unavoidable, and sometimes even the software would force you back into the binder, opening it for you as a result of some action taken. Thus collapsing the interface was a bit like putting the top down in a convertible car—glorious, until it starts raining. With the new design, I have notepad style projects that consist of a window about as complicated as VoodooPad’s window, or TextEdit for frame of reference if you aren’t familiar, and the project has been like that for years. I strictly and 100% use it as a wiki type hyperlink driven notepad. I don’t even really care what the binder hierarchy looks like. I suppose it is there if I ever need it.

  • And on the other side of the coin, there are some note taking projects of mine that are the opposite. They benefit from having lots of stuff going on at once. The new Copyholder system in conjunction with Bookmarks in the inspector in conjunction with the better integrated Quick Reference window (again, remember that icon is functional!), I can reference a huge amount of networked information at once.

  • Bookmarks record hyperlinks and bookmarks targeting an item. This was true in v2 as well, as References, but given what Bookmarks now provide to you, it means all items have a back-referencing listing in the sidebar where data can looked up, edited and copied and pasted out from the larger network of concepts surrounding the direct material being working on. One can acquire a broader understanding of the context of the ideas and notes as a result. The only program I’ve used that approaches this level of fuzzy awareness of the bigger picture is Tinderbox. DEVONthink is up there as well, but Scrivener is more like Tinderbox in that the fuzzy network is hand-crafted, while DTP’s is algorithmic for the most part.

    And the mechanism we use for that means less core navigation is necessary to dip into that fuzzy meta layer around content. You don’t have to go to the thing that cross-references to what you’re working on, it is right there and fully editable with a full-featured editor in the sidebar. You can go if you want to, just like you could with References in v2, but you don’t have to. The history feature can thus be more tightly bound to what you are working with directly as a side-effect.

  • And speaking of linking, it no longer requires up-front investment to jump between documents based on key phrases. If you right click on a noun for example, one that is discussed in depth in another binder item, right in the contextual menu you’ll be able to jump to that item as though it were hyperlinked. It’s just as easy to actually make a link right then and there if you want to.

  • If categorical and spatial note taking are two meaningful axes to how you work, then the new Arrange by Label feature is amazing. You might, when first looking at it, be understandably confused into thinking it is a tool for novelists—but really all it is is a dual axis system for assigning category and placement within a context. For getting your thoughts in order and at the same time thinking about those thoughts in terms of taxonomic properties, Scrivener blends the two tasks into one simple drag and drop and event. And hey, even if you don’t need a dual axis movement system, even just dragging cards around to assign labels is a bit easier than clicking on each card one by one and using the inspector to assign a label.

Well, one could go on :!:. Point being, while not all of the things above might be integral to how all people who would like to use Scrivener for note taking, I’m less trying to get across details here and more trying to paint a picture of the design philosophy behind this program as a note taking tool. The adjustments made from v2 are many and small. If you go hunting for them looking for branding-friendly marketable Wow! Biff! Bam! style feature bullet points, you might miss the subtle fact that we’ve spent years using this thing as an unstructured note taking environment, and in doing so, have built countless routes throughout its UI to facilitate that usage so that it is at the core already that way without requiring expensive and heavily structured features to do so.

Scrivener has always been that kind of program: where you are given lots of little ingredients and asked to combine them together into larger recipes. Scrivener 3 just adds many more ingredients, and makes those that were there a little more seamless and a little more integrated than they used to be—without heavily disturbing how they were used in v2.

A classic example of a good ingredient tool like that is Collections. You can use Collections much as you always have, if you did before. But where they have been refined in their usage? It’s now far easier and more intuitive to load a collection into the editor, for further work as a pseudo-text in Scrivenings, corkboard, filtering etc. Nowadays, you don’t even need to load up the collection in the binder (and thus have the binder open!) to do that: just right-click on the header bar and “Go To Collection”). What does that mean for note taking? If you used collections to automatically gather notes of a particular topic in the past, the overall UI investment toward viewing that list at will is dramatically lowered. You can even build keyboard shortcuts to open commonly accessed collection lists into the editor, now.

I went ahead & bought it a few days ago - mostly because I had never been disappointed by a Lit. & Latte product before - but having looked it over, I realize I will not be using it any time soon.

  1. I’d have to invest time learning how everything works again for those features I do want.

I don’t see how that can be fully understood in a few days, nor do I understand how Scrivener 3 would immediately block you from working as you did in Scrivener 2 in such a way that within hours you couldn’t figure it out and found the whole thing too confusing and too much of a burden to learn? At the entry level, it would help to know what it was you were doing in v2 that you now find so very difficult to do now.

We did of course strive to keep v3 feeling like v2 at a basic level, but obviously we missed a spot or two if your first impression was that everything had to be learned all over again! It would be good to know where those spots are.

I mean I guess there is compile—that’s the one feature that was given a more extensive surface layer of control (the guts are still much the same once you edit a format though)—but compile isn’t terribly salient to notetaking and brainstorming. So I need some help on what you’re referring to.

  1. I’d have to redo not just presets for styles, but the macros I built using Keyboard Maestro to trigger those presets.

I’m a bit like a broken record at this point, but again without knowing where you are coming from it’s hard to say what’s going on or whether you would even need to fully port over these old ways of working. For example, why would you need a macro to apply a preset in Scrivener 2? A simple system shortcut usually suffices—so you must have something far more complicated going on, something that cannot be easily adjusted via a menu call or something.

For example, to pull from historic posts of yours—you once wrote an Applescript to make it so different projects could use different default font settings for new notes. Of course, with Scrivener 2 you probably abandoned all of that complexity since the capability was built right into the software. Might it be that styles are doing things you’ve had to build a lot of custom macro tech to accomplish in the past?

The one thing that would have made it easier for me is if importing old presets had been possible.

Which presets were you trying to import? I can’t think of anything off of the top of my head that wouldn’t work outright. Even very complicated presets like compile settings can be imported, and some haven’t changed enough to even require importing and work in both programs equally, like preference presets, themes and script settings. I might have forgotten something I never make use of though.

Well whatever the case, if you don’t have the time to flesh out your critique that’s fine. We put a lot of time listening to feedback and pushing Scrivener’s feature set so that it works better for precisely the type stuff you use it for, so it would be nice to see where we might have missed things. If not, well again I hope v2 serves you well for years to come. I’ve even met people still using v1. There’s nothing wrong with that, and we are grateful for your support even if you aren’t finding it useful (hopefully yet ;)).


Oh, on snapshots, I think the new Snapshot Manager can certainly help with the granularity problem. If you handle a revision to notes with a consistent naming scheme, then you can more easily pull that thread out and examine it alone, even selectively export the thread as files or wipe it out when you’re done with it. This could even be informally done as it is possible to scour snapshots by date ranges.

You are right though, it is more a tool for those that prefer that each leaf in a larger outline be preserved individually, as opposed to treating larger branches as “things”.


Just to let you know, I hated Voodoo Pad - I wasted a lot of time on that program. Just not my thing.

Just as Synopses and the Corkboard in Scrivener aren’t my thing, either. I certainly tried to use these features in version 2; I put in a lot of time into learning how they worked & trying them out to see what they might do for me. But I found them clumsy compared to alternatives outside Scrivener.

The fact is, I find most software confining in one way or another, no matter how well-done the interface, how many the keyboard shortcuts, etc. The freest thing is to think without software. I’m most creative not when pressing a key on a computer, but when out walking or dreaming; things a software program can’t do for me. When I do sit down on the computer, I want to keep things simple - not complicated. The fewer shortcuts I need to remember, the better. I’d rather outline on a sketchpad than have to use a virtual corkboard; and if I do want to write up an outline on a computer - just an outline - then OmniOutliner is better than Scrivener for that one thing. I prefer the freedom to choose from the many tools I already know, rather than having to re-learn a single tool that wants to be a giant Swiss Knife and do everything for me.

I’m happy you love Scrivener & find it as useful as you do. I’m just on a different path than you and I thought I would send a message from that path. Obviously I’m in the minority as far as Scrivener users are concerned.

All right, I guess I don’t understand how we are supposed to learn from this posting. If you can think of any specific issues—particularly in those areas where you felt like you would need to relearn most of the software (a thing we tried very hard to avoid making anyone do), then we’d be happy to hear them.

AmberV, I found your post here incredibly useful! I have been using Scrivener 3 much as I was using Scrivener 2, but you’ve inspired me to explore its new affordances! Thanks


You’re welcome! :slight_smile:

To what end? You’ve been asked for specifics, but only offer generalities. I’m genuinely curious what you mean by the following myself (as a user who finds Scrivener 3 to be a big step up from 2 in terms of non-writing organization).

For instance…

In item #2, you express a reluctance to re-learn how to use features you find useful; so in what way would you have preferred the Binder and collections to change, while remaining samey enough not to make you re-learn anything related to them?

And what are a couple of those features? I can’t think of anything that changed (other than Compile) so significantly that you’d have to re-learn them. Unless you count learning the menu structure (which is why I rely heavily on the Help menu’s search feature on most Mac apps).

I’m with AmberV on this… what have you done with presets that the built in styles system + custom keyboard shortcuts (set in Keyboard Preferences, or via KM if you prefer) won’t do for you? As someone who programs for a living, I find dispensing with complex work-arounds refreshing, so maybe my perspective is diametrically opposed to yours.

I get you with the snapshots. Capturing the entire draft structure + titles, synopses, other metadata would be nice; which is why, when I’m about to embark on a big revision of a writing project, I compile everything into an immutable PDF and re-import that into my project. But we’re not talking about writing projects here, and you don’t use synopses… so what’s the missing piece for you with regards to snapshots?

And thus ends my critique of your feedback. :unamused: If your purpose isn’t to provide something for the Scrivener team to examine, or if you’re as done responding to your post as you are learning updated software, then feel free to ignore my questions. :slight_smile:

AmberV, this was an amazing post, thank you so much! Would you consider doing a screencast or something that demonstrates how you use the program? I was completely fascinated, but sometimes it’s hard to visualize through text – it would be connect so much better to see it in action!

It would be incredibly useful to have videos of the workflows of Scrivener masters, to see the features in context.

You’re welcome, and thank you! Perhaps even better (read: I have no interest in making video tutorials myself), I’ve been working on a bit of a project template designed as both (a) a starting point for those wanting to create a kind of a “commonplace book” project and (b) as part of its stock setup, a tutorial on how to take advantage of various Scrivener features toward that goal.

So the tutorial itself will be in this “notepad” format, and could be kept within the project as a reference or discarded if not needed.

I have a few other higher priority things on my plate that need to be finished before I can return to polishing it off, but I’ll be sure to post a note to this thread when I post a preview of it to the forum.

1 Like

Cheers Ioa…

But as an interim measure would it be possible to hive off your post into a Sticky at the top of the relevant forum? it will become buried in this thread and that will be a shame.


Just wanted to express my thanks to Ioa for that long post – very interesting and useful. It has made me wonder about using Scrivener as a notebook. Particularly the comments about Tinderbox. I shall experiment.

I’d be very interested in seeing – and using – a template for a commonplace, as I’ve used Scriv 2 off an on in such a way. Please ratchet the template’s position in your commonplace book!

Any update on the template, Amber? I’d love to get my hands on it. :slight_smile:

It has already been 200 days, hasn’t it! I haven’t forgotten nor lost interest in it, but it did get a bit waylaid by this or that. Thanks for the prompt though, it’s easier to get back to something when you know others haven’t forgotten. :slight_smile:

Hi Amber V, Thank you for your detailed responses and useful content! I write to you a while ago asking about documenting your FSIM workflow and codes. anyway, I would love to get any templates you are wiling to share for anything!!

I learn best by example and image. the instructions are helpful, but I get lost in the words when they are about aspects of technology I am unfamiliar with.

To that end, I am asking if you have an updated file of the Scrivener User Manual Project, or at least one with Scriv3. That was sooooo helpful in terms of finding content (since PDFs don’t often have an index) l and a great template for making my own mini-manuals. I guess another option would be any way of converting the PDF into a scriv project, but that seems unlikely.

I have some significant help needs for getting over 1000 pages of my writing project from 2.9 to Scriv 3.

I read the upgrade guide and did the tutorial, in fact I added screenshots to almost every step, but the permutations of my specific situation does not match much on the forum. I need help, mostly because I did not use the Draft folder in 2.9 because of the limitations of the application at the time.

May I send my file to you and get some advice? It was already a challenge because I was trying to work around the 2.9 limitations. So, now the Scriv 3 import is making it harder to straighten up what I already needed to straighten out.

Unlike some, I RELY heavily on all the GUI features you have worked so hard to implement.

As a bit of reciprocity and to show appreciation for your time, I would like to offer you the Scrivener Tutorial and Upgrade guides I adapted so you can use the screenshots, if you would like. The image sizes are large, as I haven’t figured out how to limit the size and set the dpI, etc. (it was on my ToLearn list), but I am sure it would be a breeze for you.

My opinion: it’s not overkill. It’s better to have the option and not use it than to need it and not be able to get it in cases like this.

Thank you.

Did you ever get the template finished?

Still looking forward to this template, Amber! :smiley:

me too!