[NB] Overall Impression: I Would Not Upgrade

[kewms]

I notice that several of the posters arguing for release date clarity have a fairly small number of posts to their names. So they may not remember the overly optimistic original release schedule for iOS Scrivener, or the ensuing delays, or the significant number of unhappy users due to those delays.

If you like Windows Scrivener as it is, buy it. You'll be entitled to a free upgrade when Scrivener 3 is released.

If you don't, don't. Our feelings won't be hurt, we promise! And you'll be welcome to come back and evaluate the free trial once Scrivener 3 is released.

Katherine

[lunk]

I can't help but feeling a bit amused by all the ranting from some people in here. I began using computers before MS-DOS became the dominating OS for PC:s and the followed the birth of Windows and tagged along with all new releases until 2013 when I decided to switch to Mac OS X instead. By doing so I had to ditch most of the software I had been using, simply because the programs I was using weren't and aren't available for Mac. They are Windows exclusive. So I had to find replacements. Today, five years later, I have found what I need, or rather - I can make do with what I have found. In some cases the Mac apps I have found are better than similar Windows apps, and sometimes they are not. That's life!

Complaining about software that does not exist or that isn't as advanced as you would like it to be seems a bit childish from my perspective. UN's declaration of Human Rights does not state that every human being is entitled to all the software they want and that every good Mac app must be available in a Windows version too.

I you like an app enough to want to use it, then use it. If not, then don't! If you think that Mac apps are better than Windows apps, then get a Mac! If you don't like OS X but really like Windows, then stick to Windows!

But most of all, you really don't need to tell the rest of us how miserable and disappointed you feel because Scrivener won't do what you want it to do. After all, it's not Scrivener's fault that you can't write The Great Novel.

[StaceyUK]

My general impression from playing with the beta is that I would not upgrade to this new version.

I find the general look and feel much less appealing. Compare these:

Old.jpg

New.jpg

The interface continues to be quirky and non-standard.

Yep, the new version looks ten times better, and we put a lot of time into it. But you don't have to upgrade if you don't want to - you can stay on version 1.

With respect Keith I disagree here. I love the new features of 3 but I find the usability of the 1.x version easier to use as a disabled person. I'd just like the UI to be easier to see please. I know you put a lot of work into it but please make it accessible and usable please, especially for those of us that have disabilities and medical conditions. Please don't tell me not to upgrade because that really does not solve the problem of needing Scriv 3 features with a usable UI. T\here is no other software like Scrivener out there.

I'm just asking for you to bear Scriv user with medical conditions and disabilities in mind please.

[bcasan@gmail.com]

Bravo for your loyalty . . .
I'm unconvinced; I've been through enough Agile scrums to last a lifetime.
And enough S/W budgeting battles to know what I'm looking for from a vendor.

But I'm not going to make an impact here, so I salute you again for your loyalty to L&L,
and now move on..

[JimRac]

Bravo for your loyalty . . .
I'm unconvinced; I've been through enough Agile scrums to last a lifetime.
And enough S/W budgeting battles to know what I'm looking for from a vendor.

But I'm not going to make an impact here, so I salute you again for your loyalty to L&L,
and now move on..

If you don't mind, what Windows software are you moving on to? Asking because I'm curious which one it is that you perceive as superior to 1.9.7 Scrivener.

[garpu]

Question: will the Windows version of Scrivener be able to load themes like the OSX one does? That would go a long way towards alleviating some of the UI concerns.

[pigfender]

Bravo for your loyalty . . .
I'm unconvinced; I've been through enough Agile scrums to last a lifetime.
And enough S/W budgeting battles to know what I'm looking for from a vendor.

But I'm not going to make an impact here, so I salute you again for your loyalty to L&L,
and now move on..

Ha! It's not loyalty, it's just that I also know what I want from software vendors.
(It's software, by the way).

If Scriv1 doesn't give you want right now, then of course you're right... it doesn't make sense for you to use it. I'd hope you'd check back when Scriv3 is live and you can trial it in it's completed form.

[lunk]

Bravo for your loyalty . . .
I'm unconvinced; I've been through enough Agile scrums to last a lifetime.
And enough S/W budgeting battles to know what I'm looking for from a vendor.

But I'm not going to make an impact here, so I salute you again for your loyalty to L&L,
and now move on..

What loyalty? I am a customer, not an investor. I frankly don’t give a shit about L&L’s business plans or budgets. I have bought their software to use, in the same way that I have bought a pan for the kitchen to cook meals in. I don’t buy promises of what will be in the future but only what exists here and now.

Scrivener is not the only app I’ve bought, but it’s one of the apps I actually use a lot. I have a number of apps that I once bought and started using but then dumped because after a while I didn’t see any use for them or some better tool presented itself.

[rwfranz]

My general impression from playing with the beta is that I would not upgrade to this new version.

I find the general look and feel much less appealing. Compare these:

Old.jpg

New.jpg

The interface continues to be quirky and non-standard.

Yep, the new version looks ten times better, and we put a lot of time into it. But you don't have to upgrade if you don't want to - you can stay on version 1.

Not to me. I will not upgrade to version 3, if it's simply the Beta with the bugs fixed. Why, you ask?

First. Sharp Corners. I dislike sharp corners. Rounded corners give additional visual cues for separation. For some of us, those are very important. And in the new version, corners are everywhere. Sharp corners lead the eye outside the rectangle (like an arrow); rounded corners lead the eye inside the rectangle (like a circle).

Square corners take more cognitive effort to process. Looking at square corners creates mental fatigue.
http://macknik.neuralcorrelate.com/pdf/ ... hapter.pdf
http://www.basement.org/2005/11/why_do_ ... rners.html
http://uxmovement.com/thinking/why-roun ... -the-eyes/
https://medium.com/@yulianaz/why-rounde ... a1d816903d

The Binder entries have rectangular corners that can't be changed. In 1.9, that rounded-off front end to each entry acts as a visual cue to separate the entries, making the Binder a bit less like a WALL OF TEXT (which is what I see in v3's Binder. To make it less so, I have to add space between the entries, which spreads the text out, but it spreads it off the screen, requiring more time to get to the entries I want to see). The Corkboard entries have rectangular corners by default. And setting those corners to be rounded only rounds off two of them.

The rest of the interface involves a bunch of squared corners, too, but many are ignorable, and there may not be an easy way around some of them.

Might not seem like such a big deal, but it really is a big deal. It's not a matter of taste (though some may like squared-off "in your face" corners). It's a matter of cognitive load and eyestrain. Just like a computer, the brain has limits. Th e more cognitive effort I'm spending negotiating the interface, the less energy I have to actually write creatively.

Second, I don't see great leaps forward in terms of function. In fact, I see certain steps backward (as mentioned above). Yes, you added a few items into the project settings dialog that make a few processes easier.

There are other things that I think need to be changed, like the ability to change the general background colors of the application. Those ALSO cause eyestrain.

So, in summary, those steps forward have a cost: eyestrain and mental fatigue, due to the interface in which they're set.
And that's not a cost I'm willing to pay -- regardless of the monetary price of the upgrade.

[rdale]

My general impression from playing with the beta is that I would not upgrade to this new version.

I find the general look and feel much less appealing. Compare these:

Old.jpg

New.jpg

The interface continues to be quirky and non-standard.

Yep, the new version looks ten times better, and we put a lot of time into it. But you don't have to upgrade if you don't want to - you can stay on version 1.

With respect Keith I disagree here. I love the new features of 3 but I find the usability of the 1.x version easier to use as a disabled person. I'd just like the UI to be easier to see please. I know you put a lot of work into it but please make it accessible and usable please, especially for those of us that have disabilities and medical conditions. Please don't tell me not to upgrade because that really does not solve the problem of needing Scriv 3 features with a usable UI. T\here is no other software like Scrivener out there.

I'm just asking for you to bear Scriv user with medical conditions and disabilities in mind please.

To may ageing eyes, the new beta is easier, not harder to see. Comparing the tutorial project in both, side-by-side, I'm seeing better font rendering for one. The binder entries have a little more space around them, making it easier for me to pick out one from the list (though that might change in later betas).

Given that my eyesight is nowhere near what someone could reasonably call 'disabled', can you explain what it is you're having trouble with? Is it possible that you've tweaked the interface settings in v1 to suite your needs, but are looking at default settings in the v3 beta? As a developer myself, I'm often stymied by requests to make something "better", as with your request to make it easier to see, as I cannot quite figure out what's wrong from my own perspective. Giving more specific guidance might be helpful.

I hope whatever it is that you're having difficulty with will be possible to tweak with future releases, if it's not already possible now.

[StaceyUK]

Yep, the new version looks ten times better, and we put a lot of time into it. But you don't have to upgrade if you don't want to - you can stay on version 1.

With respect Keith I disagree here. I love the new features of 3 but I find the usability of the 1.x version easier to use as a disabled person. I'd just like the UI to be easier to see please. I know you put a lot of work into it but please make it accessible and usable please, especially for those of us that have disabilities and medical conditions. Please don't tell me not to upgrade because that really does not solve the problem of needing Scriv 3 features with a usable UI. T\here is no other software like Scrivener out there.

I'm just asking for you to bear Scriv user with medical conditions and disabilities in mind please.

To may ageing eyes, the new beta is easier, not harder to see. Comparing the tutorial project in both, side-by-side, I'm seeing better font rendering for one. The binder entries have a little more space around them, making it easier for me to pick out one from the list (though that might change in later betas).

Given that my eyesight is nowhere near what someone could reasonably call 'disabled', can you explain what it is you're having trouble with? Is it possible that you've tweaked the interface settings in v1 to suite your needs, but are looking at default settings in the v3 beta? As a developer myself, I'm often stymied by requests to make something "better", as with your request to make it easier to see, as I cannot quite figure out what's wrong from my own perspective. Giving more specific guidance might be helpful.

I hope whatever it is that you're having difficulty with will be possible to tweak with future releases, if it's not already possible now.

There are two main issues for me personally at the moment:

1. Small size of toolbar icons. This makes it harder to see, but also more difficult if you have dexterity issues. Smaller area to press. Keyboard shortcuts are not always appropriate, especially the Windows version.

2. The lack of contrast in the monochrome UI makes it difficult to differentiate between the different UI elements making it harder to use, This means that it consumes more processing power for my brain causing increased fatigue and eye strain.

That's just me. I've seen other problems noted from other users stemming from the change in UI.

[KB]

@rwfranz Three years' worth of refinements and upgrades, including a completely overhauled (and more powerful and flexible) Compile, a Writing History feature, better integration for bookmarks and more ways of viewing different documents at once all went into Scrivener 3. And over the past couple of years Lee and Tiho have been working hard to pack all of that into the Windows version. If those things aren't worth the upgrade to you, then the answer is simple - don't upgrade. If you really feel so strongly against the way Scrivener 3 looks - again, the answer is simple. Don't upgrade. We are not in the habit of pointing guns at anyone's heads. We don't want users using our software who don't like it because they feel they have to. We provide a links page pointing to competitor software is that writers can find the app that best fits them (see "Useful Links" in the footer of the page).

Just to clarify for everyone in this thread, though: what you see in this beta is what you are going to get in terms of UI in the final version. There will be refinements, of course, but these are the icons and colours being used. We put a lot of time into it and worked closely with a designer on the look and feel, but we know from thirteen years' experience that no matter what we do, when we make changes, there will be complaints. It's just human: people are resistant to change. Then, of course, when we change again, there are complaints about the move away from the very things that other users complained about moving *to*.

We make the best software we can with the resources we have. We make software we want to use ourselves. Potential customers have to evaluate what we do and decide whether our tools are best for them. There will be no hard feelings on our part if you don't like the direction we take and decide that other software is better suited for you.

Claims of eyestrain are far-fetched. The Mac version - which uses the same palette - is being used by many thousands of users without issue. I use it for hours every single day myself - and I ensure it is lovely to look at and work in because that is important to me (but we provide plenty of settings for those who want different colours).

@rdale: Indeed, one thing we did for 3.0 was give everything a big more breathing room. Scrivener 1 / 2 was very cramped in all areas of its UI. We also tweaked a number of the icons in response to users with eyesight problems during their initial design. One of the reasons Scrivener on the Mac never moved to the monochrome toolbar look was because I find colours a key way of finding icons, but we also tried to ensure the icons have distinctive shapes for those who have problems with colour. Another aspect, of course, is ensuring that the UI looks like a modern app - which 3 does, despite some silly jibes from someone upthread or somewhere about it looking like a 90s app.

If anyone has any specific feedback about issues they are having problems with, please feel free to post them. But please let's end the complaining about the general direction of the UI because it's not something that is going to change before release.

All the best,
Keith

P.S. Stacey: I believe there are certain scaling issues at the moment which might affect toolbar icon sizes. (On my Zenbook, it's the opposite, and everything is massive.) Jennifer might be able to advise better on that. Also, I'm not sure what you mean about "monochrome UI". Everything still uses colour.

[MimeticMouton]

P.S. Stacey: I believe there are certain scaling issues at the moment which might affect toolbar icon sizes. (On my Zenbook, it's the opposite, and everything is massive.) Jennifer might be able to advise better on that.

Icons and text aren't scaling equally with the Windows display scaling; the icons only resize at increments of 100, and are rounding up or down for scale factors in between. Text scales as expected. Thus if you've set the display scaling to something like 225%, the text will have enlarged to that percentage, but the icons will only be scaled to 200%. This unfortunately is an issue with the framework which we were hoping would be solved by an update, and as yet we don't have a way to work around it.

[StaceyUK]

P.S. Stacey: I believe there are certain scaling issues at the moment which might affect toolbar icon sizes. (On my Zenbook, it's the opposite, and everything is massive.) Jennifer might be able to advise better on that. Also, I'm not sure what you mean about "monochrome UI". Everything still uses colour.

Yes but the colours are very close together in tone. Take the buttons in corkboard mode on the bottom right. It's difficult to see what mode you have selected. Also now the compile icon is just a single colour that is similar to the background of the UI it is harder to pick out. The older compile icon of blue and white is much easier to see in the old UI. I miss having it in the new one.

Having a pared down colour pallette makes it harder to pick out toolbar icons easily. However, the bright red of the Project book marks icon is a lot easier to see in the UI because it uses a contrasting colour. Contrast is good because I'm able to pick out toolbar icons easily, which is a godsend at the current small size. However, the hardest to pick out for me at the moment is the compile icon because no contrasting colour for me to pick out. A work around I have found is putting the project bookmarks icon next to it. The enter composition mode icon is better than compile because it appears darker because of it's design. If you could make the lines of the compile icon darker, or add a second colour that would help.

Hope that answers your question.

[krastev]

[quote="StaceyUK"][/quote]

Are you sure you monitor is working properly?