On the Issue of Bloatware

[lunk]

Another difference is that craftsmen don't mind if the good tools are a bit expensive, because they are worth it, in the longer perspective, whereas the hobbyist wants something cheap that looks like the real thing, because they don't really use it that much.

[scshrugged]

<snip>

Compile -- the interface is awkward. It almost feels as if it should be a separate app. I hope this will be addressed in v 3. But it's what lets Scrivener be a "compose once -- output to many" system which is one of its major appeals for me.

OTOH, I agree with you about styles. Completely. It will delude yet more noobs (like myself at one time) into thinking that you MUST do formatting while composing. IMHO, Scrivener is best used with minimum formatting while composing, and maximum formatting in compile -- and this should be far more clear both in documentation and in interface.

I'm still fairly new with Compile but I like that it's integrated and not separate. I'm curious as to how you think the documentation could be clearer concerning Compile. (Honestly curious. I'm not disagreeing to disagree.) From the Mac manual, Quick Tour, chap. 5.6 --

...
This name was chosen to reflect the fact that Scrivener is doing quite a bit more than just converting the data from one format to another or moving data to an external location that other programs can access. Scrivener’s compiler can generate documents to a number of different formats, do simple or complex trans- formations on the binder structure, reformat everything to a consistent look, and much more. The philosophy of letting you work the way you want to work is very much sup- ported by the compiler. There is no need to work in Courier, Times New Roman, or whatever your editor or publisher prefers. You can choose an elegant font or one that is easy to read at 3am with sore eyes. In the end Scrivener will generate a document to your required specifications.
...

http://www.literatureandlatte.com/docum ... pdf#page44


On the website under the heading Write, structure, revise --

...
With access to the full power of the OS X text system, you can add tables, bullet points, images and mark up your text with comments and footnotes. Format as you go using the format bar at the top of the page, or use any font you want for the writing and let Scrivener reformat your manuscript after you're done - allowing you to concentrate on the words rather than their presentation.
...

http://www.literatureandlatte.com/scrivener.php

[yosimiti]

In apps like VLC, there are two modes. Simple, and complex. I'm wondering if the future of Scrivener will be headed this way.

[Jordi Mora]

In apps like VLC, there are two modes. Simple, and complex. I'm wondering if the future of Scrivener will be headed this way.

Taking into account the wisdom in most of the above posts, I'm going to take a wild happy guess and say - no, not never ever.

[lunk]

... and adding to Dr Dog's reply, going that way would be like adding a folding screwdriver to a saw...

[yosimiti]

I'm going to take a wild happy guess and say - no, not never ever.

But what happens when Scrivener gets to the point where, because of its 'bloat-free' design philosophy, there no longer becomes any supposed 'need' to add any more? I guess my fears straddle in the fact over whether bloat-free-ism ultimately leads to the stagnation of innovation; to the woebegone tenor of complacency; this is something that, I have certain reservations for, from all that people have been saying.

One thought I had was to make Scrivener have the power for users to create extensions for it much in the same way Google extensions or Safari extensions work....I haven't the faintest idea how this would work, but I think it would be one way to keep the flow of innovation, without making sacrifices to the bloatedness of the source product.

[derick]

Why would you possibly want to do this? If you add extensions, you add all kinds of possibilities for new bugs, security issues, incompatibilities every time scrivener or the OS gets upgraded, and the likelihood that your workflow will become dependent on an extension that the developer abandons. The market will be tiny and there will be little opportunity for monetization and little incentive to keep code updated.

[kewms]

But what happens when Scrivener gets to the point where, because of its 'bloat-free' design philosophy, there no longer becomes any supposed 'need' to add any more? I guess my fears straddle in the fact over whether bloat-free-ism ultimately leads to the stagnation of innovation; to the woebegone tenor of complacency; this is something that, I have certain reservations for, from all that people have been saying.

Hasn't happened yet.

What's the attraction of innovation for its own sake, anyway? The goal is to write, not to admire the new features of your writing tools.

Katherine

[Silverdragon]

Bloatware tend to become like a Swiss army knife. You can do almost anything with it, because it got all kinds of tools, anything you can think of. And still, no real craftsman ever uses one. They all use specialized tools, designed for exactly the task at hand.

If you hired someone to do work in your home, would you be relieved or worried if the only tool was a Swiss army knife? "This is a guy who really know his trade..."

Exactly. A Swiss Army knife is for little urgent jobs that come up, not for continuous hard use, unless of course you're trying to survive in the Swiss Alps...

[devinganger]

A few thoughts.

I think it's interesting that folks are looking to the future of Scrivener and what it's going to add (styles -- which is going to be a HUGE labor savor for L&L if nobody else, look at all the posts in the forums from people who are trying to update existing text by updating existing presets) but are forgetting WHY Keith is adding many of these features...to help simplify Scrivener's code, usability, and feature offerings. Keith isn't the kind of guy to just bolt code on to the application and move on to the next feature request. We already know that 3.x is going to be revamping and re-integrating a lot of code under the hood as a side effect of having to rewrite it all anyway (32 to 64-bit shift, switch to modern APIs, etc.). There will be new ways of doing old things in order to reunify and reuse code all over the place.

I think there is going to be a bit of shake-up, and some old-time users are going to have some grumbles. Some will adapt and say, 'Hey, this works better," some will say, "This doesn't work as well for me anymore," and us newbies are going to be saying the same things as well.

As for the whole Swiss army knife thing, guys, that's a strawman. The Swiss army knife's purpose isn't to replace all the tools it emulates. It's to give you *just enough* functionality for when you're AWAY from those tools. Do you want to drive three dozen screws with one? Heck no! Can you? Yes, if you have to -- it will take a lot more time and your hand will be sore, but you can get the job done if you don't have a better tool to do it. All of those features that people like to rag on in Word and Office -- they are there because business around the world use them and rely on them. Casual home users haven't been the target audience for Office for a long time, but Microsoft's not dumb enough to ignore that market because hey, that's what people know. Just because you don't understand or need to use a particular feature set doesn't mean it's a bad feature set -- it just means you're not in that use case.

Master craftsmen have their preferred tools, but they can make it work with just about anything. And usually, they're too busy just getting it done to waste a lot of hot air bemoaning their fate.

All of this is to say that I, for one, welcome our new 3.x overlords.

[devinganger]

What's the attraction of innovation for its own sake, anyway? The goal is to write, not to admire the new features of your writing tools.

Because sometimes innovation can help you streamline your process, or give you a new way of doing something you couldn't do before, or make you rethink a particular problem from a different point of view. Nobody is so efficient that they can't use some help along the way.

[xiamenese]

What's the attraction of innovation for its own sake, anyway? The goal is to write, not to admire the new features of your writing tools.

Because sometimes innovation can help you streamline your process, or give you a new way of doing something you couldn't do before, or make you rethink a particular problem from a different point of view. Nobody is so efficient that they can't use some help along the way.

But that isn't innovation "for its own sake", and Scrivener has not suffered from lack of innovation, as those of us who have been using it since v. 1 for Mac back in 2007 know. I personally like that kind of slow and purposeful innovation, and I'm really looking forward to v. 3. I'm sure it will streamline my working, even though I know I'll have to learn some new ways of achieving my ends.

I am confident that whatever changes KB is making to the UI and workflow will be well thought out and implemented … just look at the tour de force that is Scrivener for iOS!

Mark

[Silverdragon]

...

What's the attraction of innovation for its own sake, anyway? The goal is to write, not to admire the new features of your writing tools.

Katherine

Sorry, technology junkie here... Yes, I do find innovation attractive for its own sake or I wouldn't have followed the career path I did. My house, Mac hard drive, and iOS app list are littered with stuff that was at one time new, innovative, seemed to address a percieved need, but which ultimately failed. So when I sit down to write (or rather, stand up -- early standing desk adopter ) I use Scrivener because it's the best tool for the job that I've found yet. Keith has so far kept it honed and on top of an (aspiring) pro's needs. I don't find it perfect, but everything else I've looked at so far is less so.

And of course I'll keep looking, because it's what I do.

[devinganger]

What's the attraction of innovation for its own sake, anyway? The goal is to write, not to admire the new features of your writing tools.

Because sometimes innovation can help you streamline your process, or give you a new way of doing something you couldn't do before, or make you rethink a particular problem from a different point of view. Nobody is so efficient that they can't use some help along the way.

But that isn't innovation "for its own sake"

I think this is a matter of viewpoint where "for its own sake" is going to parse differently for different people. To me, it seems to be speaking to whether innovation is a key principle of the project (aligned with the other key principles) or only something you do when dragged kicking and screaming into it because you're going to lose customers. But definitely agreed that Keith and L&L are managing this balancing act very well.

There's also a difference between "innovation" and "adding new stuff" which might be helping increase the disconnect.

[kewms]

Please see the post I was responding to, where the user was lamenting some hypothetical future in which Scrivener has 'no need' to add anything more, presumably because Perfection had already been achieved.

Katherine