Just finished the Survey--How about Wizards??

ps
pseingalt
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 3:14 am
Platform: Mac

Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:53 pm Post

devinganger wrote:
pseingalt wrote:Using Wizards does not add to a program's feature set


This is patently false. Wizards don't just appear out of nowhere -- they take time and effort to program, debug, and maintain. They are features just like any other feature -- simply features aimed at the user, not at the output.


Wizards help users access a program's feature set. Part of my suggestion was creation of an API that would permit 3rd party plug-ins to address the issue. If you want to call them an additional feature, go ahead. No one is saying that they appear out of nowhere; I never suggested that. If you looked at the survey, several of the questions concerned a simplified or dumbed down feature set of Scrivener so as to deal with complexity perceptions. Rather than create a simplified Scrivener, my suggestion is to use Wizards for the most common complexity friction points, such as compile.

The complexity issue was raised by L & L and presumably they had good reason to do so.

User avatar
lunk
Posts: 4274
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 4:24 pm
Platform: Mac + iOS
Location: Sweden 64° N

Fri Oct 16, 2020 9:26 pm Post

pseingalt wrote:Using Wizards does not add to a program's feature set but makes the program more accessible.

There are already several kinds of wizards, like the Placeholders. Adding more of this wouldn’t make it easier but more difficult to find what you want. And trickier for the developers to maintain them.

Running header? In the Mac manual the details are found in section 24.20 of the manual, Åage settings, and header text in 24.20.6, Header and footer text.

The problem with simple wizards is that they have to be made for one kind of output. So there would have to be different compile wizards for creating ebooks, pdf, .docx, etc.
I am a user, writing non-fiction and science, using:
* Mac Scrivener 3 on a Macbook 12”, MacBook Pro 13”, and iMac 27”, running different OS.
* iOS Scrivener 1 on an iPhone 11 Pro, iPad Air 9.7”, and iPad Pro 12.9”, all running the latest iOS

User avatar
kewms
Posts: 6696
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 5:22 pm
Platform: Mac

Sat Oct 17, 2020 12:14 am Post

pseingalt wrote:
So the suggestion is for you to use Wizards to address your complexity concerns. It's not a feature request.


Well yes, it is. Either providing an API to support user-created Wizards or creating them ourselves would require significant development time. Whether you choose to call them a "feature" or an "interface enhancement" or even a form of "documentation," they represent work that *someone* has to do above and beyond maintenance of the status quo.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but that's why it's important to clarify exactly what the request is.

Katherine
Scrivener Support Team

User avatar
kewms
Posts: 6696
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 5:22 pm
Platform: Mac

Sat Oct 17, 2020 12:29 am Post

The fundamental challenge, though, for this or any other attempt to "simplify" the Compile command, is that compiling is an inherently complex task. Every sub-genre of writing, and often every individual publisher within a sub-genre, has its own unique requirements. For the hypothetical "pleading" wizard, for instance, will the same format work for all fifty states and all federal circuits? What about courts in other countries? What about moot courts and other educational settings?

The problem very quickly becomes impossible to handle in an automated way, which is why we've come down on the side of providing tools that allow users to create their own templates and Compile formats, designed for their individual requirements.

Katherine
Scrivener Support Team

ps
pseingalt
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 3:14 am
Platform: Mac

Sat Oct 17, 2020 6:45 am Post

kewms wrote:
pseingalt wrote:
So the suggestion is for you to use Wizards to address your complexity concerns. It's not a feature request.


Well yes, it is. Either providing an API to support user-created Wizards or creating them ourselves would require significant development time. Whether you choose to call them a "feature" or an "interface enhancement" or even a form of "documentation," they represent work that *someone* has to do above and beyond maintenance of the status quo.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but that's why it's important to clarify exactly what the request is.

Katherine


There is no request. I don't care whether you create them or not. Your survey addressed perceived complexity, among other issues. Presumably you had a reason to do so. I suggested one way you could deal with that issue without having to create a "simplified" Scrivener. How you deal with that issue and whether you continue to believe it important is up to you.

ps
pseingalt
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 3:14 am
Platform: Mac

Sat Oct 17, 2020 6:56 am Post

kewms wrote:The fundamental challenge, though, for this or any other attempt to "simplify" the Compile command, is that compiling is an inherently complex task.

Katherine


And assuming that there was a business, and not merely a social, purpose for the survey, the issue of complexity is one that L & L wants to address. I did not raise the issue, but merely suggested a way to deal with the perception other than coming out with a whole new "Scrivener Lite." Perhaps you are correct and Compile can never be simplified and no Wizard could possibly be created. I don't agree with that, but my opinion is merely one of 5000 or so who have answered the survey. Perhaps a multilingual, multinational, multi-regional advertising campaign after Brexit explaining why Scrivener is not really complex is the better way to go. For the copy, try to use alliteration (e.g., SIS! "Scrivener is Simple!") or a rhyme for your advertising to be effective. Consumers enjoy being told that they are wrong and commonly-held notions, when widely believed, are trivial to change.
Last edited by pseingalt on Sat Oct 17, 2020 7:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

ps
pseingalt
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 3:14 am
Platform: Mac

Sat Oct 17, 2020 7:05 am Post

lunk wrote:
pseingalt wrote:Running header? In the Mac manual the details are found in section 24.20 of the manual, Åage (sic)settings, and header text in 24.20.6, Header and footer text.


In other words, buried. Someone who is looking at the screen shot knows intuitively that

--the only way to find running headers is to pull the 500 or so page manual (I printed the 2.xx manual, haven't printed the 3.xx manual yet)
... and search in Section 24.20.

This is what I would call buried.
lunk wrote:The problem with simple wizards is that they have to be made for one kind of output. So there would have to be different compile wizards for creating ebooks, pdf, .docx, etc.


Finally someone admits that there can be "simple" Wizards. Hooray. Ulysses has (basically) five Wizards, but its functionality with respect to long document navigation and outlining is limited. This is merely an example and not an invitation to a Scrivener v. other programs discussion.
Attachments
Screen Shot 2020-10-17 at 10.02.17 AM.png
Screen Shot 2020-10-17 at 10.02.17 AM.png (89.91 KiB) Viewed 426 times

ps
pseingalt
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 3:14 am
Platform: Mac

Sat Oct 17, 2020 4:55 pm Post

Something was missing from the ad hoc GUI.
Attachments
scrivenerbutton.png
scrivenerbutton.png (88.25 KiB) Viewed 393 times

User avatar
devinganger
Posts: 2309
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:55 pm
Platform: Mac, Win + iOS
Location: Monroe, WA 98272
Contact:

Sun Oct 18, 2020 8:23 am Post

pseingalt wrote:I did not raise the issue, but merely suggested a way


Methinks you doth protest too much.
--
Devin L. Ganger
Not a L&L employee; opinions are those of my cat
Life has a way of moving you past wants and hopes

ps
pseingalt
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 3:14 am
Platform: Mac

Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:09 pm Post

I didn't organize the survey. L & L did.

Ra
Rayz
Posts: 558
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:43 pm
Platform: Mac

Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:08 am Post

pseingalt wrote:Something was missing from the ad hoc GUI.


Hi there.

I might be wrong, but I think you can do something like this by using meta-data.

I wrote a piece on it a while back. Maybe it’ll help.

https://domossiah.com/2018/07/10/a-neat ... meta-data/
As if I didn't talk enough: Dom on Writing

ps
pseingalt
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 3:14 am
Platform: Mac

Tue Nov 10, 2020 8:19 pm Post

@Rayz: this might work for pleadings, which thankfully I don't often have to create anymore. But many still do and may find that your method solves this problem. If a lawyer filed pleadings in a single court it would definitely be an improvement to the fake GUI I posted.