Wish List for Scrivener for Windows

  1. Make the Screenplay format completely industry standard
  2. Introduce flawless Import from and Export to Screenwriter and Final Draft
  3. Make Scrivener compatible with Dragon dictation software
  4. Improve compile

Thanks for a useful product, which is interesting enough for people to make these suggestions for improvement to it.

Specifics please. Bit difficult for them to ‘improve’ if they don’t know what’s wrong with it. I find compile just fine, so I’m in the ‘don’t touch it’ crowd.

Almost forgot, if you’d looked a couple of lines down in the Wish List board you’d have seen this already asked and answered - Ask Dragon to make their app compatible with Scrivener.

Fair enough.

I guess I made an assumption that the criticisms of the compile feature are well known enough for me to not have to go into them.

I did go through quite a few of the messages and message titles in the Wish List, and saw Dragon mentioned in one or two posts/messages; but given that this is my Wish List, I reserve the right to include my wishes.

Lots of people want the Compile feature “improved,” but there doesn’t seem to be any consensus about what that would mean. At one extreme, you have people who want full WYSIWYG formatting capabilities in the Editor, reducing the Compile command to simply gluing files together. At the other, you have people who want a plain text editor and a Markdown-driven Compile workflow.


Uh, which industry?

Lots of people outside of Hollywood produce screenplays including – remember that we’re UK-based – the BBC. Plus of course all the people who use Scrivener’s script features to write stage plays, documentaries, scripts for graphic novels…


There is a post (I think at the beginning of this thread) , by the developer of Scrivener in which he (I presume he) makes clear that he is not basing the changes he makes to Scrivener based on the number of people who want the particular change(s); rather, he is basing them on what he wants to include.

Therefore, consensus is not necessary for this Wish List.

No, but it helps. Scrivener contains many features that the developer does not personally use. Moreover, since he wrote it he knows how everything works; detailed feedback helps show what non-expert users find obscure.


Well, given that the developer (KB?) was very clear about the number of people requesting a feature not mattering, I am not sure that it is helpful.

Regardless, there are a range of suggestions out there for improvement of the compile feature.

As I become better acquainted with Scrivener and start to use the compile feature, I will probably post back here.

BTW, the person you are discussing this with right now is L&L staff – Katherine is very knowledgeable about the range and quality of feedback, as she is one of the poor souls doomed to wander the forums and put up with people like us as part of her daily duties. :slight_smile:

Speaking to Katherine’s point, while the number of people requesting a feature is not a factor in and of itself, if enough people are asking for a particular change to be made, that may be an indicator that a different change needs to be made that does more closely match to what KB’s vision for the product is. However, if (say) 10 people all asking for “change the Compiler” but all of their requests contradict each other, that’s probably a sign that no change actually needs to be made.

However, the more people who comment and actually provide details about what kind of change they would like to see, the more likely KB and the L&L staff are to be able to synthesize some workable solution out – whether it is using existing functionality or small tweaks to existing functions. There’s even the somewhat rare cases of someone presenting a detailed use case to KB that details a scenario he hadn’t thought of, that changes his mind on a requested feature. Such reversals are not common, and the eventual way he ends up implementing them usually is not exactly the way the requestor thought of, but they are more likely to happen if the requestor has a clear description of what their use case is, why the existing tools are not sufficient, and what they would like their end result to be like. These kind of requests that focus on results rather than specific methods in my experience have a much better chance of being addressed.

I did not know Katherine is L&L staff.

Regardless, the ‘instructions’ for posting say one thing, and Katherine is advising another, so maybe the instructions / guidelines should be edited/amended.

I am sure that I will be more specific about certain things as my use of Scrivener increases.

By the way, after buying Scrivener, I am still getting (inconsistently) the countdown message (in the trial version of Beta 3). - ‘you have X number of days left to use Scrivener’, or something to that effect.

Is this a bug?

It is possible that you have two versions of Scrivener installed on your system, and that one of them is registered but the other isn’t. The last Scrivener 3 beta doesn’t even have a registration engine, but looks like the release version in almost all other respects. So you might also see a situation where an unregistered release version shows the countdown, but the beta does not.


Regarding the wish list forum, the lead post absolutely does NOT say “user requests don’t matter” or anything of the sort. What would be the point of having a wish list then?

As part of that “fantastic user base,” your suggestions are welcome. However, as already noted, “improve the Compile command” and similar statements simply don’t provide much in the way of actionable guidance.