Scrivenings and subdocuments

[karelt]

Hi,
I have just now realized Scrivenings probably work very differently from what I expected and I would like to ask for an opinion on my current deduction, pls.
The starting structure is folder with documents and subdocuments (see the image below).

When I select the folder, Scrivenings show all the documents in the folder (see the image below). This seems like a logical behavior.

When I select the individual documents in the folder however, Scrivenings again show all the documents in the folder (see the image below). This has been addressed in this thread (Select documents without subdocs for Scrivenings) and although I don’t quite understand the explanation, I could see logic in this behavior considering Scrivener might treat the piles of documents as piles of documents, nevertheless this is not a good behavior because it can be argued that the user does not want to select the pile, but the individual document in which case this behavior disregards the user input. Since this is not a yes/no argument, an option to choose the behavior would certainly be the ideal solution.

The solution to the suggested problem as outlined in the above mentioned thread is selecting an empty dummy file at the bottom of the file list (see the image below).

Which can be done faster, if you display only level 1 items in the Binder and then use Shift+LMB to make your selection (see the image below).

Is this how Scrivenings really work, pls?
If it is, what is the logic behind this behavior?
Also, would anybody perhaps know about a better way to send only the first level of documents in the folder to Scrivenings, pls?

Many thanks in advance for any kind help!

K

[AmberV]

I could see logic in this behavior considering Scrivener might treat the piles of documents as piles of documents, nevertheless this is not a good behavior because it can be argued that the user does not want to select the pile, but the individual document in which case this behavior disregards the user input. Since this is not a yes/no argument, an option to choose the behavior would certainly be the ideal solution.

In our experience, there is more of an interest in seeing the entirety of the text that is represented by the higher level item you select, whether that selection encompasses one or two items, and that this “default” approach more naturally cascades from the behaviour of singular selections:

1. Select one group: you get the full text represented by the group. This conforms to the expectations of how hierarchy works, where higher level entities are proxies for lower level entities. The “Draft” is a sum of its parts, and so a chapter group is a sum of its parts, and so on and so on as you walk down the chain.
2. Select two or more groups: nothing surprisingly different happens here. The underlying operating assumption is that you’ve selected multiple proxies, or multiple sums. It would be less expected, in other words, to select one chapter level group and be able to read that chapter, but the moment you add a second chapter level group to the session, the entirety of the content vanishes (quite likely replaced by nothing but an empty editor with a divider down the middle).

So part of that operating assumption is fed by standard usage, as indicated toward the end. You and I use nested text items in a way that is perfectly valid and well-supported by the software, but less common in that it requires a more advanced concept of what an outline is. Most of our users are creating folders with no text within them, and some amount of subdocuments beneath them (usually in a flat list). That’s where the likelihood of a literal interpretation of a multiple group selection would often result in an alarmingly empty text editor.

Those of us putting text into the “proxy” outline nodes themselves are less common. But that doesn’t negate what you say—for those that do work that way, there is often a desire to isolate just the text of what you select, regardless of whether or not they are proxies for larger sums of text.

Your suggested approach is to make this a checkbox somewhere, but we feel that is not the best approach, because this is very often a spur of the moment contextual decision. Maybe you want to just view the text by itself right now, but maybe just as often you want to view the entirety of what these items represent as proxies. For myself, that is certainly the case, I couldn’t say which of the two approaches I prefer the most, and having to drill down into some panel to toggle a checkbox every time I needed whatever I didn’t use last would be an annoyance.

Is the current behaviour a little arbitrary and out of the way? Sure, but once you know it, it works perfectly fine and is simple to use at a high rate of efficiency. Could it be improved? Maybe, but I would look for a solution that is equally fluid and contextual, and there aren’t too many ideas that come to mind that match what we already have.

[Adam_Smashe]

I’m not exactly sure I understand what the problem is, but there is something you might try that might work for you.

In the toolbar, unless you have customized this out of the toolbar, there should be three icons that work together: one for the scrivenings editor mode, one for the index card mode, and one for the outliner mode. In scrivenings mode, that icon toggles between a mode where all nested documents are displayed in the Editor, and a mode where just the selected document or folder appears in the Editor.

Check to see whether that icon is white or black. If it is black, the program will operate in the normal mode where all nested documents are displayed. If it is white, just the selected folder itself will be displayed, regardless whether anything is nested inside that folder or not.

This is really very non-intuitive, but Scrivener is a very complex application with lots of options, on purpose. I had read the manual and watched all the videos and even took a couple of online courses about Scrivener, and I only discovered this by stumbling over it about a year later.

So I would suggest clicking on that icon to get it to turn white, and see if that doesn’t solve the issue.

[JimRac]

@Adam_Smashe

If it is black, the program will operate in the normal mode where all nested documents are displayed. If it is white, just the selected folder itself will be displayed, regardless whether anything is nested inside that folder or not.

This is really very non-intuitive…

The Group Mode buttons are just toggles, and all three of them work in more or less the same way.

If you’re displaying a single binder item in the editor and click one of the Group Mode buttons, then that Group Mode is toggled on, if the binder item has subdocuments. Click the same Group Mode button again and you’ll toggle back to the single binder item in the editor. Or click a different Group Mode button and you’ll toggle to that different Group Mode.

Best,
Jim

[karelt]

@Adam_Smashe
Thank you for replying, but the original question is not about Scrivenings vs Document mode (which you refer to and which @JimRac summarized very well) but rather the functionality of the Scrivenings mode itself. I will get back to this topic and reply to @AmberV in detail when I have appropriately more time.
If you want another perspective on Scrivener I’d recommend getting one of the books written on the subject. I’m personally very fond of this one: https://www.kobo.com/ww/en/ebook/mastering-scrivener?action=addPreviewToLibrary

K