I won't stop you, but I don't see why you expect non-GTD features to show up in GTD-specific apps when there are dozens if not hundreds of other task management apps out there that don't share OF's GTD-centric strategy.

If it's added as an option, I won't object, but everything else should be done first.

Watchit, by definition, an optional feature is a dilution. If it was a part of the core design, it would not be optional (it would be integral).

Adding optional features drains development resources that could be applied to core features. As I mentioned in my previous post, I would prefer that optional features be added in [B]future[/B] versions, [I]after[/I] version 1.0 is rock solid stable.

I do realize that prioritization is a religious debate. From my perspective, something either is a priority or it isn't (which fits the flag system perfectly). In my experience, granularity of priorities is busy work that prevents the actual work from progressing.

I don't want to get off topic here, but I have to point out that flexibility and customization are (IMHO) some of the lowest points for using a Mac. Stability, interface and reliability are much stronger arguments for me.

And as far as prohibition is concerned, no one is stopping you from drinking your prioritization koolaid. We just prefer our brand of D. Allan's Ojai Blended GTD Whiskey. :)

Earth to Omni Forum...
 

I have to throw my 2 cents in here.

I've just waded through 10 pages of people debating whether to include priorities in OmniFocus. To me, this only proves two things: (1) a lot of people use priorities and (2) a lot of other people do not. Trying to force one group of users to conform to another group's workflow is only going to end up alienating a large portion of your market share (who may end up turning to other solutions).

I would suggest that priorities be included for those who use them. But there should also be a Preferences option to turn these off, for those who don't.

There is nothing wrong with adding features that some users find superfluous. In fact, this fits really well with the whole "shrink to fit" concept that OmniFocus is based on.

The other argument for including priorities is that both iCal, OmniPlan, and the Palm OS already have this technology installed. If you include priorities it means you can access a 3rd dimention (if you so choose) for organizing your lists! If you don't include them, all you've done is hamstring the other components of your system.

I would also say the question of whether priorities fit with canonical GTD is largely irrelevant. David Allen may have argued against using priorities, but he also says that we shouldn't be outlining our task lists (something that, apparently, we find really useful anyway).

[B]Implementation:[/B]

You need to pick a standard and stick with it. iCal defines priorities as: "Very Important", "Important", "Not Important". Similarly, BlackBerry uses "high", "normal", "low" (as does Mail). Yet, MailTags uses "Urgent", "High", "Normal", "Low", "Very Low". And both OmniPlan and Palm OS defines these as: 1 through 5.

All this means is that every time you sync between non-conforming applications, something is going to get corrupted. And if you now throw floating-point numbers into the mix (Curt's slider suggestion), syncing isn't going to have a chance!

Interesting that you mentioned that about " the David " but I've heard the same thing from others on his staff in various arcticles etc .. " nested actions " etc is a no no . They state that what is hidden may come back to bite you .

but I find the outline format very useful. Sooooo I guess omni focus isn't really canonical GTD after all ; )

[QUOTE=Adam Sneller;22873]I would suggest that priorities be included for those who use them. But there should also be a Preferences option to turn these off, for those who don't.[/QUOTE]

I'm opposed to priorities--but what if they could be renamed? Then those who want some way to tag tasks with the amount of energy or concentration required could use them for that, and everyone would be happy. I'd be delighted if I could have OmniFocus show me tasks of X minutes or less that I can do when I'm brain dead, for days when I've had a bout of insomnia.

[QUOTE=brianogilvie;22995]I'm opposed to priorities--but what if they could be renamed? Then those who want some way to tag tasks with the amount of energy or concentration required could use them for that, and everyone would be happy. I'd be delighted if I could have OmniFocus show me tasks of X minutes or less that I can do when I'm brain dead, for days when I've had a bout of insomnia.[/QUOTE]

Brian,

Why don't you use the estimated time field?

Optional "priorities" feature
 

I think the way you make everybody happy is to include Priorities, but make the feature optional. Exactly the way that the "start date" and "due date" columns are optional in the current release. If you don't want them, don't turn them "ON".

The fact is that people are diverse. And one person's "perfect solution" is going to be absolutely useless to person sitting next to them. So you have to build a solution with flexibility - enough to account for different user "Preferences" (hence the term).

I honestly don't see how anybody [I]can[/I] object to this - especially when it has no effect what-so-ever on the people who do not wish to use it!?

[QUOTE=dhm2006;23000]Brian,

Why don't you use the estimated time field?[/QUOTE]

Because I use it for estimated time. :-)

That is, some tasks take a while but don't need much brain power. Others might be quick but I want to be at the top of my game for them. I can figure that out on the fly but I wouldn't object to having a way to note estimated energy required. I think estimated time is more important to my workflow, though.

Estimating time
 

Time estimation sounds useful. Of course, if you take this one step further, you will be re-inventing the Gantt chart... and then you might as well be using OmniPlan.

Which is actually interesting, because I remember reading that Omni is planning to integrate the two apps in the future...

[QUOTE=Adam Sneller;23012]Time estimation sounds useful. Of course, if you take this one step further, you will be re-inventing the Gantt chart... and then you might as well be using OmniPlan.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but one doesn't have to go that far. One important question to answer in deciding what to do next is "How much time do I have available?" If I have a meeting in 20 minutes, OmniFocus lets me filter tasks that I think will take 15 minutes or less. That way I can get a quick email or phone call out of the way and not have to choose between it and something that I've already guessed will take me half an hour.

More abstractly, time estimated for an individual task can be quite useful even if you're not calculating milestones and dependencies. David Allen writes in [I]Getting Things Done[/I] that available time is one of the four factors to consider in deciding what to do next (the others being the context you're in, the task's priority at the moment, and your energy level).