That’s nice.
And I suppose you could add that another advantage is that Find... (which I believe will be preloaded and ready to use as a shortcut without popping up its window) has something to take you to. (If you have a couple in a document, you could use Next/Previous to cycle through your annotations.)
1 Like
I use somewhat the same system, except that I went for styles (C.A.S.) rather than annotations (so that I have control over them at compile – remove or reformat them) and I have a couple.
They all mean something different from each other already. So often I don’t even have to add any comment to them.
For ex: this one means that I should check/validate the verb tenses : 
See snapshots : 
Tame inflexions : 
The blue ones are “Minors” and the red ones “Majors”
(I won’t consider a draft done until there are no more red ones. They’re like a stop sign, sort of.)
The common emoji serves as a category
or 
and the other ones are specifics.
So I can cycle a category, or aim for a specific.
When I want to add a comment I type it in-between the two emojis.
Does the end character have a function significance or is it strictly for visual bookending? Just curious.
(I would call that an equivalence sign, but I digress!)
No, it’s just a decoration I like that I would otherwise not use. The macro would work creating two spaces and moving back one pace.
What I also do is colour the sentence or phrase I’m referencing in the paragraphs with a dark blue colour—I’m not into making my content looking like a chameleon’s nightmare—though that can’t be automated unless it always immediately after or before the annotation.
1 Like
Just to be clear: in the method I suggested I don’t “place the scenes in a Collection”. The Collection is just the way Scrivener displays the result of a saved search.
You can equally invoke Project Search and then inject the annotation prompt of your choice as I did – which I think is what you’re doing above – and which is what I chose to automate.
My use of a Collection (as a saved search) is just a convenience.
1 Like
Out of curiosity, for those who use Inline Annotation, why do you prefer it over Comments?
I use Comments for more permanent references: typically a URL, say to Wikipedia; or a reminder why a piece of text is present or what it means: a translation, say.
Also, Comments refer to (and are linked to) something concrete in the text, whereas an Annotation can be random.
2 Likes
Because it’s inline. For my process, it’s just easier to have the note directly in the text.
4 Likes
Same here. Much better to have them right under your eyes. And it doesn’t take too long to get the hang of ignoring them when you just want to read your content normally. It is just as easy on the brain as a line break is.
This is also one reason I like the double symbol (or emoji in my case) like @RevoTiLlor tweaked his/her setup. The second symbol gives you a (stronger) visual where to quickly jump to if you want to skip the annotation.
3 Likes
Here is my list of pros and cons on the matter (taken from the user manual, §18.1, Inline vs Linked):
Lots of them...
Which of these to use will remain up to you and your preferences in most cases. You might even find that a mixture of methods will suit you, using inline notation for short comments to yourself about prose, and linked notes for other types of comments.
There are a few advantages and disadvantages to each method:
-
Inline notes are always visible in your text; there is no way to diminish their prominence. So for some forms of notation, this can be an advantage in that you cannot defer or easily ignore them. This also makes it easier to see your notes and your book at the same reading speed—there is no need to look off to the side to get a feel for the “meta” book.
-
Linked notes do not disturb the flow of text, no matter how large they may be. This means even the lengthiest of notes can be placed into your text without having to scan from word to word in order to read the underlying book text.
-
Inline notes, being within the text itself, do not require any additional interface to use and never require the mouse to read. They thus work well with a slim workflow, or in situations where screen space is at a premium.
-
Linked notes can act like bookmarks. Clicking on them in the inspector will whisk you right to the spot in the text where they are anchored.
-
Inline notes can be placed anywhere you like (especially annotations), even in between paragraphs or at the very beginning or end of a section, whereas linked notes require something to “anchor to”. This makes inline notation more useful when jotting down notes in sections before you’ve even started to write.
-
Linked notes can be easily viewed together in a collected interface no matter how far they are spread apart in the document. This becomes especially advantageous in a Scrivenings session. A note on page 10 has the same prominence as a note on page 1.
-
It follows then that inline notes are only visible in the current contextual surroundings. Notes that are pages away, and do not presently concern you in your writing and editing, are hidden by the same virtue that hides these irrelevant texts from you: the sheer bulk of your words.
-
Inline notes exist around your text and do not depend upon it to exist. This means you can edit the text that the note refers to freely, without worrying about losing your comments. This is in opposition to linked notes, which are anchored to the text—if the text is removed or entirely altered, the note will be deleted.
By corollary, inline note quantities can exceed the textual capacity of the base text. For most authors this will not become an issue, but in some fields, such as qualitative data analysis, where the amount of annotation can exceed the original text, running out of suitable anchor text could become a problem with linked notes. Inline notes, being unanchored, have no limits.
These are just a few examples, and hopefully that gives you an idea of the individual unique merits in these approaches. The next few sections will address each of these types in more depth.
Speaking for myself, I’m in alignment with the last few posts. I’ve never been too keen on the concept of keeping working notes in separate little bubbles or boxes. If something in the text is broken and I need to fix it, that’s just as important to me as the text itself, maybe even more so. If one is going to think of inline notes as clutter, that’s the kind of clutter you want. It’s putting the trash bag in front of the front door so you remember to take it out instead of festering in a sidebar for months. But, as I note in the list, there are definitely things comments are very good at, like setting arbitrary scroll points. I mark figures, tables and other notable info-dense objects with comments, precisely for that reason.
While I’m at it, I might as well link to some thoughts on the larger topic. There isn’t much new in there, from what I’ve skimmed of the above, save perhaps for some process-design-level remarks on the notion of collapsing legacy habits into a system that can take it. I.e. why use a separate spreadsheet to track your book data when you have a program like Scrivener that can embed all or most of that kind of data into its Outliner? Why maintain a discrete checklist oriented approach when the software can embed what we need to do right into the content itself and provide said checklists dynamically with its search features? Maybe there are good reasons, don’t get me wrong, but I think the question should be asked at the top: can I do this without building a formal to-do list tracker into the software? Can I get away with a collection looking for text markers or some other low-impact / high-reward system?
Here is another approach, which embeds a lot of these smaller pieces into a cohesive system. It is not as narrow as only applying to tracking todos (which often can be forgotten about once done), but is very adjacent in the sense that it attempts to address what needs to be done, where the process of doing these things is important to document; to have what has changed become a long term record of changes, with as much detail as you need (down to what Snapshots-compare can tell you). It’s a bit more overhead than just adding and deleting inline notation markers, for sure, but if you need to know what you fixed in five years, you will want more than that anyway.
2 Likes