Forum Posts Feed
Scrivener 3 is on the way…
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Pages: ‹ First < 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > Last ›
Posted by Franz Grieser
Nov 21, 2017 at 08:16 AM
washere wrote:
>I wish they could charge less for current users.
$25? Others charge more than that for an annual subscription. And I bet we’ll be able to use Scriv3 for years - without subscription.
Posted by Paul Korm
Nov 21, 2017 at 10:42 AM
Along with Scrivener 3 (Mac) there is an updated v1.3 for Scapple (Mac) that has some minor UI tweaks and compatibility fixes for High Sierra.
Interesting one of the release changes is “A “Scapple” folder now appears in iCloud Drive” —and iCloud is now the default save-to destination for new documents.
Perhaps this means eventually a Scapple for iOS will be coming along?
Posted by Dellu
Nov 21, 2017 at 04:06 PM
I rarely used Scrivener before. I never passed a few minutes of playing with it. I didn’t see much advantage over Tinderbox.
Playing a bit with the new version last night, I find the **Bookmark feature** very neat. It is a kind of nice system to collect all the related pdf files of an article there without importing them.
Tinderbox can also link them. But, for 15 relevant articles, I need 15 attributed assigned to that article. It is a kind of weird to assign 15 attributes of URL to a single note. Furthermore, the Bookmark in Scrivener has a nice internal preview: could be used to just have a glimpse (reminder) of the associated note without open it.
Posted by Hugh
Nov 21, 2017 at 05:53 PM
If it’s any help, just to say that I don’t see Tinderbox and Scrivener as being particularly interchangeable. Scrivener originally came on to the market as a tool for drafting “long-form” (i.e. >5,000 words) pieces of writing, with the idea that you’d subsequently prettify the draft in a traditional word processor such as MS Word. Very few, or no, applications existed then (c.2007) specifically for that purpose; Word itself was seen mainly as a tool for writing business letters and reports, and was fairly notorious at that time for corrupting long-form pieces of work. (Its reliability has now probably improved.)
Scrivener has since spread its wings and “moved up the value chain”, as management consultants say, so that you can now pretty much self-publish from the application without actually spending cash on another piece of software, and, as a writing tool with some database-ish characteristics, it can now also be used for several other purposes (ranging from, apparently, game-strategising to journalling). But its USP, or key raison-d’être, and the thing that it’s better at doing than anything else in my view remains being able to securely and reasonably easily handle the writing process of long-form.
In contrast, I wouldn’t want to try to write long-form in Tinderbox - ever! The definitions of what Tinderbox actually is are several and varied. I like to think of it as a sophisticated means of arranging thoughts and ideas and establishing the relationships between them. Of course, outliners and concept maps or mindmaps have similar purposes to those of Tinderbox - and Tinderbox can certainly be used an outliner or concept map, prior to writing long-form. But Tinderbox can do a lot more than that, being versatile, nuanced and “smart”, and capable of helping to identify “emergent structure” (which sounds faintly sinister, but isn’t). Whereas Scrivener, although it too has an outliner as part of its package, certainly does not aspire to what Tinderbox can do in that area.
Posted by Dellu
Nov 21, 2017 at 08:54 PM
Hugh wrote:
>In contrast, I wouldn’t want to try to write long-form in Tinderbox -
>ever! The definitions of what Tinderbox actually is are several and
>varied. I like to think of it as a sophisticated means of arranging
>thoughts and ideas and establishing the relationships between them. Of
>course, outliners and concept maps or mindmaps have similar purposes to
>those of Tinderbox - and Tinderbox can certainly be used an outliner or
>concept map, prior to writing long-form. But Tinderbox can do a lot more
>than that, being versatile, nuanced and “smart”, and capable of helping
>to identify “emergent structure” (which sounds faintly sinister, but
>isn’t). Whereas Scrivener, although it too has an outliner as part of
>its package, certainly does not aspire to what Tinderbox can do in that
>area.
>
I totally agree on your characterization of Tinderbox.
As you said, Scrivener has now spread its area. With the addition of Scapple, they might actually thinking of making the Scrivener environment a full system from mapping ideas to drafting and publishing. There is certain overlap between the two systems (Scrivener+Scapple vs Tinderbox).
For me, one reason I don’t find Scrivener that much attractive is mainly due to my own setup: I have to publish my work using Latex ultimately. I am not going to do all the heading, compiling stuff inside Scrivener. I do the formatting in the Latex (Texstudio). As such, sending some short drafts from Tinderbox to TexStudio has been my main workflow for a long time now.
if you are to publish in a word or similar format, I agree with you, Scrivener is definitely be very useful for formatting.
But, I find the Bookmark feature pretty attractive. I was using Tagging in combination with Smart searches in Devonthink to do a similar collection of project files. The steps in Devonthink are more extended and a bit cumbersome:
a) add project tags on the selected files
b) setup a smart search to collect the files with those tags
c) remove the tags whenever the file finished its task; function; to simply
The bookmark in Scrivener is simple drag and drop.