Ulysses reborn

Amber, thank you, I was unaware that such a feature was in the pipeline. It does sound like a viable solution to the problem. I was unlikely to abandon Scrivener because it seemed like the advantages outweighed the disadvantages, but that could make life a lot easier. Unfortunately, I will probably have finished my present writing project by the time the new version arrives, but never mind.

Best wishes,

Martin.

In Word 5.1 there was something that I found much more useful: all notes could b seen in a separate pane (the lower half of the split screen). This helped keeping all notes together, and even separately copy all of them for separate handling. I would like to also see something like this in Scrivener 2.0.

Paolo

To my mind, that is the best solution of the lot, and it is that sort of thing that makes me keep using Word. But from what I have read of Keith’s posts on the subject of footnotes, it seems like it would be very difficult to implement in Scrivener.

Best wishes,

Martin.

Actually, there is already something similar to Word 5.1’s footnotes in Scrivener 1.51. Only, it has a different name, and is a bit more difficult to manage.

If you place the cursor where you want to insert a note, and then invoke the Text > Scrivener Link > New Link command, a note call is entered at the cursor’s position, and a split pane appears on top of the current editor, ready to accept your note’s text.

You can edit the note call’s text, as well as your note’s document name (I usually use a meaningful short name, surround the note call with square brackets, and set the call as superscript). Also, you can select the Notes folder, and use Edit Scrivenings to see all notes in a single window. To include notes in print as endnotes, you can just drag the Notes folder at the end of the Draft folder.

Shame there is something missing to make this function great for footnotes. First, the note pane opens above, and not under the main body document. Then, there is no apparent way to return from the note to the note call. And notes are not actual footnotes (even if the fact that note call’s names, as well as note document’s titles can be included, make it rather easy to rebuild them later in an external wordprocessor).

I think the Scrivener Link could be the basis for a future system of foot/endonotes. I would like to hear from Keith if this is feasible.

Paolo

That’s very interesting – I’ve just tried it out quickly, and it might work, though, as you say, it is a bit clunky at the moment. Thanks very much for the tip.

Best,

Martin.