[SUGGESTION:4432] [B42] Compile to Ms Word errors

First time I’ve compiled anything for a long while (but I finished my fourth chapter!).

A couple of problems:

  • Footnotes are rendered as hyperlinks (in blue and underlined), which looks awful. Not too hard to fix, but it would be nice to have an option to format them as ordinary text.

  • Even though I have UK English (a.k.a. “proper English” :smiley: ) as my default dictionary in both Scrivener and Word, Scrivener insists on changing the language to US English :frowning:

  • The inspector footnotes in Scrivener are formatted in a Segoe UI in Word; again, not hard to fix with search and replace, but it would be nice to be able to define a footnote style in Scrivener so the footnotes appear in a font of your choice in the Word version.

  1. Check RTF Compatibilty “Ensure hyperlinks are colored and underlined”
  2. Not sure what you mean by that.
  3. Check the compile format “Footnotes & Comments” > Override font.

It is more than true that «it would be nice to be able to define a footnote style in Scrivener so the footnotes appear in a font of your choice in the Word version.» Even though it is not only for fonts choice, but a lot of other paragraph formatting parameters that could have been changed in a couple of mouse clicks for all the dozens of footnotes in my document, but they couldn’t. Yes, it is extremely important option still missing.

What is much more disappointing for me, even unbelievable, is the fact that the developers have not seen still that exporting footnotes without any special style attached to them is essential conceptual error. If you understand that a quotation paragraph needs special style, how can you not understand that a footnote paragraph does need its own style too—just as a special type of paragraph, special type of contents? In this perspective, we are not speaking about an option, but rather about an important error to be finally addressed.

I did not plan to mention this again before the release, but it was really sad to see this senseless advice concerning «Override font» option.

The “senseless advice” about the override font option is a working advice in the current state, to the problem of changing the font family of Inspector footnotes. I can always give “nice to have” advices which will not help. Which one do you prefer?

@tiho_d, I’d certainly agree that over-excited posts aren’t clever or useful.

I have though just tried this out - as a chance to learn a facet not yet used of Compiiles, but it doesn’t seem to work, so may deserve a bug listing.

It’s a little hard to discover, but then with the Gear at bottom left, Edit Format, setting Override Font for Footnotes and Comments, I try other fonts and sizes.

But I still get ‘the same’ font for Footnotes in a Word or PDF compile: Sitka 10 in my case. Size changes don’t over-ride either.

Sitka 10, for whatever reason, is actually the font you see by selecting in the Inspector Footnote itself, which seems odd, as Sitka isn’t a standard font though I have it.

This is all in Beta 42, from a fresh deinstall-install. So it looks that the font is getting hard-coded, or otherwise mis-set, somewhere, and not obeying the override.

Unless of course I’ve missed something important about all this, always possible…

As far as the idea of a settible ‘different font’ for Footnotes, that’s sensible, isn’t it, something Formats would use unless it is specifically over-ridden. So, a feature? I actually went looking for this in File | Options, but didn’t find anything – actually hoping to find out where that Sitka 10 had been set…

@narrsd: Just tested this one more time, and the Inspector Footnotes when compiled to PDF and DOCX do get the specified overridden font and sizes. If you have a case which fails, please upload your demo project and I will have a look at it.

I do agree that there are superior ways to handle the Inspector Footnotes styling, but this is not something we want to adjust or introduce at this stage. First of all we try to match the Scrivener for Mac v3 functionality. This is feature request which makes sense, and could be added to our “suggestions” list for further in-house discussion.

@tiho_d, thanks – here’s a zipped fresh small project, A Footnote, with Word output.

Again, if I haven’t missed something important.

The Footnote font originally said it was Palatino Linotype 10, but came out in the compile as Sitka Small 10.
The footnote format was 1,2,3

I saved these changes, using a duplicate of Default. namedFootnote Format:
Footnote font: Arial Italic 12
footnote format: a,b,c

But as the Word doc shows, I still got Sitka Small 10 and 1,2,3
Changes are in the project
A Footnote.scriv.zip (40.2 KB)

Thanks for the helpful info. I was using the “default” compile output style, which you can’t edit, so I hadn’t seen these options. I duplicated and edited it, which solved problems one and three. However, my Scrivener project uses the UK English spelling dictionary, as does my default Ms Word style, but the compiled document from Scrivener defaults to US English:

Screenshot.jpg

– so all my correct (e.g. s not z) spellings are flagged. Obviously, that’s really easy to fix in Word, but I thought I would let you know.

Once again, thanks for the prompt assistance.

Please may I suggest that everyone takes a minute to think about their tone before they post (here, or anywhere else online)? The whole world is feeling stressed and anxious right now, for obvious reasons, and this level of near-hysteria over a trivial feature in an as-yet unfinished piece of software seems a bit unhelpful.

Spot on, @JJE.

May I also point out that the compiling default to US spelling also happens—and has always happened in my experience—with the Mac version. I’d always assumed it was something to do with the OS and beyond Keith’s—or in your case LAP and Tiho_D’s—control.

As you say, it’s easy to correct, but a little nuisance nevertheless.

:slight_smile:

Mark

Well, the former is preferable. Even though the advice in question was in fact for me too and proved to be senseless.

Thanks a lot, it seems the first time I’ve got some response on the matter in question from the devs.

To be clear, two things. It never occured to me to insist on any improvement, or fix, or option, nor to hurry up the developers team just because it was something important for me personally. This case is the same—since the last year, I do not expect that you solve the problem by the final release. But I am still really worried about the approach: syntactically correct export of the document markup is not an option, it’s core functionality of the app. If you, say, export half of the existing paragraph styles, or even all but a random one, it is definitely an error. So just keep it as this, please. It is by no means about when you are going to correct it, but about your understanding of styles in general, which is critically important for me as a user.

Well, it was not to insult anybody, so sorry if it happened to touch you. Anyway, so far as you had some time to give me an advice on my tone, could you frame any objections or comments on what I said? Please, note that it was by no means about «yet unfinished piece of software» (see above).

Well, I don’t want to escalate this, but I just felt that “senseless advice” was a bit rude (Tiho’s advice worked perfectly when I tried it).

Similarly your comment that it was “unbelievable… that the developers” had made an “essential conceptual error” rather implied that you think they are idiots and haven’t even considered these issues. In fact L&L have said many times on this forum that they are focussing on getting Windows 3 features to match those of Mac version 3 (Tiho just said it again in this discussion).

Once V3 is s done, new features (like the one you’ve requested) will be considered; I would also like to see more robust and useful styles, including a footnote style, in Scrivener 3.1. However, I’m sure that L&L already have a long wish list from users, and they won’t be able to do them all (and will, of course, also decide not to implement some, for perfectly good reasons). In the meantime, apologies if I caused offence – that wasn’t my intention.

You may indeed; thanks for the info (I’ve never used a Mac, so had no idea). Clearly doesn’t need to be prioritised, but if it could be fixed, that would be a nice, helpful bit of extra icing on the cake (once the cake is finally baked and ready for us all to consume).

@narrsd: I checked your project. There was only one custom compile format “Paperback (6” x 9") Test New Page HeaderFooter", so I believe this is the one you were testing. This compile format specifies in “Footnotes & Comments” as an override font “Palatino Linotype” 9pts. Your Inspector Footnotes use “Sitka Small” 10 pts inside the main Scrivener GUI. When compiled to DOCX using the above format, the Inspector footnotes were formatted with “Palatino Linotype” 9pts as expected. From what I have seen and tested this feature works as expected.

Hi @tiho_d, and this is where something is quite different in what you tested, vs. my posted test project actual contents. I just downloaded it directly from this forum, opened and checked, to be certain we’re on the same page.

  • In my test project you have, there is no modded Paperback 6x9. Only the stock one.
  • The actual modded format is ‘Footnoting Format’, a copy of default. You can see that in its image below, formats.png.
  • if I compile using the unmodified Paperback 6x9, I get what you did - after which I duplicated on a project copy just to check what was in the Footnotes format. Palatino Linotype 9, just as you found, and I see on the compiled docx
  • if I compile using my actual modified default, named Footnoting Format, I get what I said: Sitka Small 10, even though Footnoting Format is set to Arial Italic 12, by previous edit. You can see that setting in its image modded-format.png, below.

Ok – interested what you find, with this information, and thanks, of course, Tiho.

I think I see @jje may feel his problem solved above, so I will look closely at his definition, and also I will once again completely remove Beta 42, check for any remains of any Scrivener as I often do, and install again, followed by a re-check, report note to follow.

Clive

x


In your screenshot the “Override font” checkbox is not checked, narrsd. When you check it, does it help?

Absolutely. Just found that myself, and logged in to report.

Do notice remaining bug, please, but this is much better…

  • Footnote Font override now seen working: no bug there
  • Problem was low contrast for the small checkboxes on Solarized Dark, theme, probably others – and/or my laptop screen/eyesight, biut this could be improved…
  • There is still a bug apparent, though: Footnote format selection isn’t followed. I always get 1,2,3 form

Thanks, as ever, Tiho…

p.s. I did do the full workstation cleanout - Program Files, Program Data, AppData Local/Roaming, and did find a few leftovers after full present and prior uninstalls. Nothing that would be active or cause problems, but all gone before I did the fresh as-admin 64-bit redownloaded reinstall.

You know why completist in such a case as this, but also hints for when final cleanup time for installers.

Yes, the footnote format is a known bug.

Good man :slight_smile: