Wishlist: User font choice in Custom Separators field

As noted in this thread, Scrivener doesn’t currently support user font choice in the custom Separators field during compile.

Why would this be a good idea?

  1. The way that the underlying system renders font substitution is a little confusing for the novice.
  2. The current field appears to use “Helvetica” (or system font?) that is not the same as the compilation font selected for the project, which can lead to inconsistent font representation within completed works.
  3. It’d be funky and appeal to people who’s OCD likes more creative separator glyph options.
  4. It would help maintain or extend feature parity with competition products like Vellum.

The workaround as noted in the thread is to play whack-a-mole with appropriate characters or glyphs that render correctly in that field.

Is “feature parity” actually a selling feature for software? (Honest question.)

I’ve always been of the philosophy that you find the application that does the things you need/want to do, then work backwards from there to determine other apps, platform, and hardware. I can’t imagine paying for features I’m never going to use.

Depends if those features are ones you want to use :slight_smile: In this instance, Vellum vs. Scriv is selling primarily on two points of difference: a) Ease of Use and b) Prettification. I was in a conversation just last week in a FB group with some dudes moving to Vellum and … uh, Storyshop? I think it was, citing that they have a good pipeline of future stuff.

“Features” aren’t just bullet points on a product list. Apple have made themselves famous by making their key features about usability and just works (whether that’s marketeering or reality, you be the judge).

In this instance, to your other point about features you may not use, this is one I actually want to use :slight_smile: It’s one I’ve used previously and has, through what looks like a variety of changes in OS X, stopped working as it previously did. I don’t really know if my suggestion is the best path to fix but by describing what I think good looks like from an outcomes and features perspective it will allow L&L some opportunity to decide if they want to hop on that crazy train or leave it alone.

I quite like the idea of allowing the user to choose the font for custom separators and have add it to the list for the future. However, please note that it will not fix your particular problem with e-books, as I have explained in your original thread (owing to e-books not storing fonts).

I think this is a huuuuuge misunderstanding. Scrivener and Vellum are not even comparable (I mean in terms of function and purpose). Vellum is an e-book generator - that is what it is for. It is not designed for composing your text. Scrivener is a writing app - primarily designed for writing long documents, with myriad planning, structural and research tools to that end. Yes, you can generate e-books from Scrivener, but that is not its primary purpose. I suppose you could also write a book inside Vellum, but that’s not it’s purpose. If someone is choosing Vellum over Scrivener because of ease-of-use and prettification, then they have mistaken Scrivener for an e-book generation app and did not need it in the first place. (On prettification and pipeline, though, Scrivener has a major improved version in the works.)

All the best,

Thanks for looking into it. I also appreciate your team being gentle with me while I learn a lot, lot more about the inner workings of different formats.

I think the “misunderstanding” is right, I think in this case on FB the group of authors were having trouble with a specific component of their workflow (compilation) and then fired all existing things into the sun.

Scriv for life, man.

…FWIW I can’t find the original FB thread but I did find this other one on Storyshop. This may be less useful as I think the group is closed/secret, perhaps to protect the innocent. They were talking about outlining in this one and there’s some good Scrivener advocates there but also people who want a different set of features.