Metal Mick wrote:Well, you can keep your facetiousness - I have no time for such stupidity. I was expecting a backlash, but not one so infantile. I was, after all, expressing my opinion as I am entitled to and I shall continue to do so, regardless of whether you like it or not. I care not if you agree with my opinions.You don't have to. Nor do I have to agree with yours.
Not a backlash at all, nor infantile - and please do try to keep to the forum rules and avoid insults. You touched on a personal pet-hate - the idea that in this age of “apps”, all software has to be dumbed-down and that nothing should ever be deep (or "powerful" if that's your preferred adjective) enough to warrant further written materials. Nothing in the fact that a piece of software has books written about it says that you can't find your way around the software without such books. The existence of such books merely shows that the software is popular enough for it to be profitable for authors to write books about it, and that some people prefer having a printed book they can go through to learn software inside-out rather than learning by experimentation and quick tutorials. My examples, while a little facetious, were entirely apt - just as you have no time for what you find stupid, I have no time for the idea that if software has books written about it there must be something wrong with it - that's an idea that I personally find not only unsupportable but also potentially damaging to the existence of software that is anything more than an "app".
I also don't know of any similar software that has externally-written reference material.
What do you mean by "similar software"? There is heaps of software out there with externally-written reference material. Just because some other software you've tried that aims itself at writers doesn't have any externally-written reference material says nothing about the relative merits of either program. There are many books about Photoshop, but very few about The Gimp - does this mean that the Gimp is easier to use or superior in any way? No, it just means that Photoshop has enough users to make books written about it worth the investment of the publishers, which in itself says nothing about the quality of either program, or their ease of use.
Comparing it to Word or PhotoShop for complexity isn't something that I expect to survive scrutiny.
Scrutinise away - I'm not sure why you would think that, but I take it as a compliment as it presumably means that you think Scrivener isn't as hard to use as you first implied.
Many users have described Scrivener as being "like Photoshop for writers", though, and that is indeed partly what I set out to do with it. Scrivener supports scriptwriting (with full script mode), academic writing (footnotes, comments etc), novel-writing (the ability to set up character sheets, location sheets), and can take any structure of manuscript (providing the user with full flexibility in how he or she organises the binder) and compile it into different formats (e-book, CreateSpace paperback, standard manuscript - or any other format the user decides to set up using the comprehensive Compile options). You can outline, connect outlines with the other editor, refer to research, transcribe material without taking your fingers of the keyboard, view multiple texts as though they were a single text, work on different parts of a manuscript alongside one another, use MultiMarkdown mark-up, export to various scriptwriting formats, and much, much more. In order to support all of this, richness and complexity is required, although we try to keep the advanced features out of your way until you need them as much as possible.
All of which is to say that Scrivener is very open-ended and flexible: it provides a bunch of integrated tools and lets the user work and write however he or she wishes. Such open-endedness necessarily entails complexity because the user at some stage needs to tell the program what to do with everything that has been created.
I don't think it's odd to have a menu item for the Ruler at all - just that it isn't located under the 'View' menu, given the control is a toggle for displaying (or viewing) it. As I wrote earlier, if you'd care to read it.
A point to which I replied, if you'd care to read it!
One thing to bear in mind is that Scrivener started as a Mac program. Having the ruler toggle in the "Format" menu is standard on Macs, perhaps less so on Windows and Linux. With the Windows and Linux versions, we have to strike a balance between putting menu items in the places Windows and Linux uses expect to find them, and keeping things consistent across platforms (because we have many cross-platform users). Do we always get that balance right? Of course not; software is constantly evolving. I have no doubt there are many areas we can still improve on, as I said in my earlier response. But we also aim for some internal consistency, so that commands related to formatting text are in the "Format" menu whereas more general view commands that apply to the entire UI are in the "View" menu (because Scrivener supports so very many types of views - web views, PDF views, image views, outline views, corkboard views and so on). We are continually reviewing the placement of menu items and will strive to improve them as we develop Scrivener further.