I think – please correct me if I’m wrong, pseingalt – that the specific request is for a tool to take the items listed in the screenshot and automatically populate a larger template accordingly.
The best way to do something similar in the current version of Scrivener would probably be with a series of Find/Replace commands, replacing template-supplied variables with user-supplied values.
Treating it like a Character Sheet would work if all the required information went into a single document, but if it’s scattered throughout it would be much more difficult.
So, like some kind of project-level custom substitution variables (like “custom metadata,” but not reliant on each document to have them populated)? Or how one can use a project’s Replacements tab (as seen in version 3’s compile window–the one on the right side) to accomplish similar with your own made-up substitution variables?
The thrust, in line with your survey, was to suggest the creation of Wizards to address what you feel, at least as suggested in the survey, is the public’s perception that Scrivener is difficult.
A legal Wizard is just one example of how a Scrivener Wizard might appear and work. A Compile Wizard is an obvious target. “Find and Replace” isn’t helpful because, like in the Novel template, the information to populate the Front Matter is buried.
So the suggestion is for you to use Wizards to address your complexity concerns. It’s not a feature request.
There were many questions concerning perceived complexity in the survey. Often there is more than one way to accomplish a task in a program. Using Wizards does not add to a program’s feature set but makes the program more accessible. Consider them Quick Start devices. Or even training wheels. Since they are written by people who have an in-depth knowledge of the program is supposed to work, they can be very helpful. Browse the forums and look at all the questions concerning Compile. You can say, “they should learn the program” but in many cases these questions are asked by experienced users.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.