Shaded or colored boxes of text: footnote numbers are not shaded

I have a lot of colored sidebars in my book, with a non-white background color. If I insert a footnote into this sidebar, when the compiled PDF is produced, the superscript numbers do not have the shading, but a white background. How can I get footnote superscript numbers in the sidebar text to adopt the background color?

Here is an example. And also, how to get rid of the thin white line that appears between paragraphs sometimes?

Here is another example, with colored text and white background. The superscript does not get colored. How to make it take on the color or background of the text it came from?

AND here is another problem: if there is a page break across a paragraph with a colored background, there is an annoying white space at the beginning of the next page:

This seems clearly like a bug to me. Is there a way to report bugs in Scrivener?

You can report bugs in either the Bug Hunt forum or by opening a support ticket, here:
literatureandlatte.com/contact-us

However, except for the footnote numbers the answer may be that Scrivener is not intended to be a dedicated page layout program, and you may get better results with software that was built for this purpose.

Katherine

Here is info for Rob, who responded to my support ticket:
I am using Scrivener for Mac 3.1.5 and outputting to PDF, viewing in Acrobat Reader.
I am using my own highly customized compile format.

In response to Katherine, Thanks for that info!
Yesterday, I came to the conclusion that I have outgrown Scrivener. It was great for the book writing process, but now that I am trying to create a publishable PDF, I am running into too many problems.
Scrivener is trying hard to do page layout with all those compile options and settings. Perhaps they should just give up on that and focus on the writing part, with all their excellent tools for outlining, editing and reorganizing the text.
I am going to try Mellel, a WYSIWYG word processor which is good for large academic books with indexes and footnotes and whatnot.

Mellel 5 is a good word processor, but in my experience comes with a pretty steep learning curve.

I have a project with footnote and endnote streams:

  1. If I compile it to .docx, Mellel fails to load it completely;
  2. If I compile it to .doc, Mellel does not appear on the list of apps that can open it;
  3. If I compile to .rtf, Mellel opens it, but completely ignores all the style information. It seems with Mellel you have to set up a template and somehow import everything into that template. I have not done this, so I don’t know how to go about it.

However, a project with only one note stream compiled to .docx opens in Mellel, though again, any style information is ignored.

My word processor of choice is Nisus Writer Pro. It has many advantages (as I don’t use Mellel, though I keep it up to date, I don’t know how it matches :

  1. Its native format is RTF, just like Scrivener’s;
    [list=1]
    [*]Compiling to RTF and opening directly in NWP is very quick;
  2. Style information is respected;
  3. Handling two note streams is quite straightforward;
  4. It is less quirky than Mellel, with a very “Mac” UI so doesn’t have nearly the learning curve;
    [/:m]
    [
    ]It has extremely powerful Find & Replace, with three levels of technicality up to full RegEx;[/:m]
    [
    ]It has an extremely powerful macro language;[/:m]
    [
    ]The forum is very active and has very friendly and helpful members, with regular contributions from Martin at Nisus, and other users who are experts in the macro language if you need to make use of it.[/:m]
    [
    ]It works very well with Bookends, with the ability to do the scan from within NWP (I think Mellel may automate this slightly more, though choosing “Activate Bookends” (if it’s not already open) and “Scan Document” can hardly be considered onerous!) I can’t comment on any interaction with Papers, Mendeley, Zotero, etc. as I don’t use them.[/*:m][/list:o]

So I would recommend you download a trial of NWP as well as Mellel, and see which suits you best. For me, Scrivener has never been a one-stop-shop; I always open anything compiled in NWP, do the spell check there, modify styles if necessary (for instance, I use Adobe Garamond Pro as my default font, but if I am going to share the document with my Windows and/or Word-using friends in China, who don’t have the font, it is very easy in NWP to change it all to Times New Roman),

:slight_smile:

Mark

EDIT: I forgot to say NWP can also do indexing, TOC creation etc.

The original vision for Scrivener always assumed that people would need to use additional software to produce their final publication quality output. Over the years, Scrivener has become more capable and self-publishing has become more popular, so the boundaries beyond which other software is needed have expanded. But they are still there.

Katherine