Trying to like OmniFocus, but .....
 

[This is not a flame posting :)]

I'm a big Omni fan. I have OmniGraffle Pro and OmniOutliner Pro. Love them both and use them often.

So, I thought I'd check out Omni Focus.

First impressions (after 3 hours of struggling): Yuck.

The interface in OF is very complicated. In my first few minutes of playing with it each project I added went away after I closed and reopened the program. I had to call support to find out I needed to fiddle with the Perspectives (change it "back" (?) to "All).

Really?

I also think the application is not very attractive, which isn't as big a deal if it's really a productivity booster, which I don't think it is either. Actually, OF sort of reminds me of using Windows. With Windows, it's all about Windows, not your applications. With OF, it was all about using and understanding OF.

Rather than being intuitive, I found myself needing to watch the OF videos again and again and still not being sure I "got it". Something is wrong when software is this complicated and too much of that complexity is lopped on to the user's shoulders.

Doing some Internet searches, I found similar feedback.

In OmniFocus, the whole concept of "context" is strange -- at least to me. Plus, you can only assign one context to a to-do. Really? The way I think of context is it's sort of like metadata. Seems very limiting and confusingly implemented. And again, you really need to understand it.

Then there are the OF views (Command + 1, Command + 2). OK I guess, but why do I need to make (and understand) this distinction? Again, IMHO, this is needless complexity lopped onto the user.

In Things, on the other hand, I can add as many tags as I want. Plus, the interface is beautiful and simple. I didn't find myself stumped trying to use the program instead of having it help me manage my tasks.

I'm sure Things has deficiencies as well and I'm not saying it's "better". I suppose it depends on the user's needs; I'm just passing along my experiences from using both.

So, although I think OmniOutliner and OmniGraffle rank among the best software in class I've used, and knowing no program is ever "perfect", I was totally disappointed with OF.

Perhaps version 1.5 would be improved?

For now, I'll either use Things or just do things in Busy Cal and forget this extra software totally.

:(

- m

It is just possible that you are trying to like the application, without first understanding what it is and what it is for. If you don't first understand what hole it fills, it will be quite difficult to figure out how effectively it fills it.
I don't suppose you are under any obligation to like it, so if you find that Things and Busycal fill your needs, then perhaps you are right in sticking with them.
Omnifocus is a very robust and flexible application that allows for a fairly strict implementation of GTD. You would probably have to buy into the GTD thing first, and then go back to omnifocus. Only then would you see how it shines.

3 hours would not have brought you to this point.

[QUOTE=Declan;110427]It is just possible that you are trying to like the application, without first understanding what it is and what it is for. If you don't first understand what hole it fills, it will be quite difficult to figure out how effectively it fills it.
I don't suppose you are under any obligation to like it, so if you find that Things and Busycal fill your needs, then perhaps you are right in sticking with them.
Omnifocus is a very robust and flexible application that allows for a fairly strict implementation of GTD. You would probably have to buy into the GTD thing first, and then go back to omnifocus. Only then would you see how it shines.

3 hours would not have brought you to this point.[/QUOTE]

I don't doubt what you're saying except to say that I know exactly what my list management/to-do needs are.

I would also say that I don't want to spend a lot of time climbing a learning curve to learn (and adapt to) a strict methodology imposed by the program.

To me, and apparently to others as well, it's just not an intuitive program and if it doesn't start to feel that way after 3 hours, it's very much unlike 99.5% of programs I've used.

OmniGraffle, for example, is way more complex than OF. Yet, it's more logical and I would argue easier to use. OmniOutliner is just plain intuitive. Watch the videos once, maybe, and you're already there. Things, ditto.

I read other similar feelings from people who'd been using FO for years, not hours.

It was interesting that people tend to bounce back and forth between Things and OF. We'll see, I may be back! :)

I appreciate your reply.

Thanks,

- m

P.S. I also thought it was telling when you said in your posting above: "Omnifocus is a very robust and flexible application that allows for a fairly strict implementation of GTD." It almost sounds like a contradiction in terms (flexible and strict). And, that's exactly how the program feels to me...

Much of the considerable power of OmniFocus is found in the concepts you either don't understand or feel that you need. Given that, it probably isn't the right tool for you. Contact Omni support within 30 days of purchase and get a full refund.

You might read the OmniFocus and GTD white paper before throwing in the towel: [url]http://www.omnigroup.com/ftp/pub/software/macosx/Extras/OmniFocus/GTDandOmniFocus.pdf[/url]

Just for what it's worth...
There is no contradiction in terms in my previous message (I don't think).
Much of the flexibility implied in the GTD approach is allowed for in Omnifocus. But I think that using it without some awareness of the GTD approach would be a kind of torture. (I gather that some people try, but I wonder how successfully).

I understand the temptation to try out a new piece of software. I occasionally toy around with the idea of using Tinderbox, before setting it aside on the basis of price and difficulty. But, more basically, the issue seems to be that I don't actually need it. Perhaps you don't need omnifocus.

Good luck with Things and so on. "It it ain't broken... Don't fix it" seems like a good motto.



Declan

[QUOTE=whpalmer4;110432]Much of the considerable power of OmniFocus is found in the concepts you either don't understand or feel that you need. Given that, it probably isn't the right tool for you. Contact Omni support within 30 days of purchase and get a full refund.

You might read the OmniFocus and GTD white paper before throwing in the towel: [url]http://www.omnigroup.com/ftp/pub/software/macosx/Extras/OmniFocus/GTDandOmniFocus.pdf[/url][/QUOTE]

I'll read that. Having downloaded and played with Things a bit, I'm seeing some things I miss already in OF (like custom perspectives -- though they didn't seem to work correctly for me). I wish there were a version that incorporated both products.

Thanks,

-m

[QUOTE=Declan;110435]Just for what it's worth...
There is no contradiction in terms in my previous message (I don't think).
Much of the flexibility implied in the GTD approach is allowed for in Omnifocus. But I think that using it without some awareness of the GTD approach would be a kind of torture. (I gather that some people try, but I wonder how successfully).

I understand the temptation to try out a new piece of software. I occasionally toy around with the idea of using Tinderbox, before setting it aside on the basis of price and difficulty. But, more basically, the issue seems to be that I don't actually need it. Perhaps you don't need omnifocus.

Good luck with Things and so on. "It it ain't broken... Don't fix it" seems like a good motto.


Declan[/QUOTE]

I was sort of kidding anyway and maybe just a wee bit frustrated that Omni didn't hold out (yet) a hat trick for me (me getting three of their products).

As I mentioned in a posting above, I have tried Things, but found that it is missing some "things" I liked a lot in OF.

I appreciate your follow up posting.

thanks.

m

[QUOTE=morkafur;110436]I'll read that. Having downloaded and played with Things a bit, I'm seeing some things I miss already in OF (like custom perspectives -- though they didn't seem to work correctly for me). I wish there were a version that incorporated both products.

Thanks,

-m[/QUOTE]

There sort of is. "The Hit List" by Potion Factory somewhat splits the middle ground. It's simpler and less rigid than OmniFocus (and uses smart folders instead of Perspectives), but it's more flexible than Things (you can have nested tasks, etc.).

If you've been frustrated by the interface and usability and complexity of OmniFocus, while also being frustrated by the poor Wifi synching and limitations of Things, and spent a lot of time vacillating between the two, you wouldn't be the first. These forums and Cultured Code's forums are full of similar threads. Probably in the hundreds, literally.

[QUOTE=morkafur;110428]I don't doubt what you're saying except to say that I know exactly what my list management/to-do needs are.
[/QUOTE]

LOL. Sorry but I had shared this very same idea and then realized I only know what I know and nothing else. My requirements for list management/to-do needs have evolved over the years and I'm sure will change even further depending on the circumstances and and demands that I will be facing in the future.

But to say that I know exactly what I want is often an illusion that I will fall in and out of. I can now confidently say that I will never know what I want because my list management demands will change over time.

Previously, I was a firm believer in the Franklin-Covey Day Planner management system with the ABC Priority system. It worked OK in college but it definitely won't work for me now. Then later I got into GTD, fell off the bandwagon, and then hopped back on the bandwagon when I discovered an offshoot called Zen-To-Done (ZTD). This was a simpler form of GTD emphasizing the use of habits to adopt GTD over a longer period of time.

Even now, I'm still evolving. I've been slowly incorporating parts of the "Master Your Workday Now" program into my existing GTD setup to fill up existing holes.

So it's very hard for me to say "I know what I want in a task management system."

[QUOTE]I would also say that I don't want to spend a lot of time climbing a learning curve to learn (and adapt to) a strict methodology imposed by the program.
[/QUOTE]

But sometimes it is worth it to try something. Nobody ever said dieting and exercising would be easy. Although these fad diets like Adkin's diet or the South Beach diet try to make it look easy, it never really is.

Now, GTD is not for everyone and may be not for you at this point and time in your life. But I've found it has worked well for me now.

If you really want something to work, sometimes you need to put in some blood, sweat, and tears into a system to get it to work. The same concept applies to exercising and dieting.

Sometimes I'll have someone ask me to suggest a to-do program. I'd often suggest starting off with Hit List or Things as a way to start them off. When they've finally outgrown it, I'll scale up and introduce them to OmniFocus.

I hope Things or Hit List works for you. Some might even say to try Toodle-Do. As long as the system works for you, we can only be happy that you can get results that you want.

[QUOTE]To me, and apparently to others as well, it's just not an intuitive program and if it doesn't start to feel that way after 3 hours, it's very much unlike 99.5% of programs I've used.
[/QUOTE]

Powerful programs are almost never intuitive. Photoshop is a prime example of a power user program that requires a bit of work and learning curve to properly utilize its full potential.

Other similar analogies would be:

iPhoto <-> Aperture
iMovie <-> Final Cut Pro X or Adobe Premiere
RapidWeaver <-> Adobe Dreamweaver


I hope you realize that 3 hours is enough time for simpler programs like Hit List of Things. You'll need to spend way more time to just figure out Final Cut Pro X, Aperture, Dreamweaver, or OmniFocus. These programs are on an entirely different level compared to the entry-level programs.

That's why many programs offer a demo period such as 14 days or even 30 days to try out a program. You'll need to spend at least an hour each day learning the nuances and tricks of a program.

Other worthwhile investments would be to hit upon the various OmniFocus resources available online that will help you gain a better understanding of this powerful program.

I can credit the "Creating Flow with OmniFocus" ebook as being a major catalyst to helping me master OmniFocus. It's well worth every penny.

[url]http://www.usingomnifocus.com/[/url]


Another valuable source that I've found is here:

[url]http://www.asianefficiency.com/omnifocus/[/url]


OmniFocus may not be the right program for you if you're not willing to invest time into learning the GTD methodology first. You'll need to have a reasonable grip of GTD before tackling OmniFocus. I think there are examples of folks being able to use other forms of task management systems with OmniFocus with varying levels of success.

You might also want to look at OmniFocus for iPad. I've often found this easier to use than the Mac version. Omni Group is actually taking the user interface cues they've learned from OmniFocus for iPad and will be incorporating these user interface changes into a future version of OmniFocus for Mac.

The iPad version is what actually got me into doing the Weekly Review. Once I figured out the Weekly Review, I was able to translate that into a habit that I can use on the Mac version.

Hey Morkafur,

"Yuck!", I'm afraid is sadly right. I've been using Omni products for longer than I care to remember but OmniFocus has become incredibly dated and it's now an unholy mish-mash even for those poor fundi-GTD'ers chasing the Holy Grail of the perfect GTD system.

If the benchmark for you is how [I]many[/I] things you get [I]done[/I] and the [I]ease[/I] of doing so, rather than how you GTD'd them, then give OF a miss. There have been some fine recommendations above and I've discovered that a variety of apps combined make for the most productive use of my time, rather than desperately trying to shoehorn tasks into this old-fashioned clog.

OF obviously still has its fans but having had it since launch, read the books, used it for years, bought the iPhone and iPad versions and watched release-after-release across platforms, I've come to the conclusion that for me it's a case of watching others applaud the Emperor's New Clothes.

Of course, YMMV!

[QUOTE=endoftheQ;110520]Hey Morkafur,

"Yuck!", I'm afraid is sadly right. I've been using Omni products for a longer than I care to remember but OmniFocus has become incredibly dated and it's now an unholy mish-mash even for those poor fundi-GTD'ers chasing the Holy Grail of the perfect GTD system.

If the benchmark for you is how [I]many[/I] things you get [I]done[/I] and the [I]ease[/I] of doing so, rather than how you GTD'd them, then give OF a miss. There have been some fine recommendations above and I've discovered that a variety of apps combined make for the most productive use of my time, rather than desperately trying to shoehorn tasks into this old-fashioned clog.

OF obviously still has its fans but having had it since launch, read the books, used it for years, bought the iPhone and iPad versions and watched release-after-release across platforms, I've come to the conclusion that for me it's a case of watching others applaud the Emperor's New Clothes.

Of course, YMMV![/QUOTE]

Thanks for your reply!

I posted an apparent bug where OF is not showing a to-do that's "due" today.

I think I'll just remove OF until a happier version comes out.

"Things" isn't as full featured, but it's nice to look at, is VERY easy to use, and doesn't miss any due dates.

- m

I do have to say the OmniFocus can be downright fugly and certainly not the easiest program to use.

But I keep coming back to it because I just can't find some of the unique features in the competitors. Let's compare:

* I would personally love to do away with OmniFocus' inspector window and use an inline editor similar to Things or Hit List.



* I'd like to get more robust repeat features (i.e. Repeat on the first and third Wednesday of the month).

Things doesn't have the robust user interface customization that OmniFocus has. All I can see is the ability to change the size of the font. OmniFocus allows me to tweak and customize the font and color scheme to what I want. Granted, I'm too lazy to figure out color and font schemes and I'm fairly sure that most folks just want to use several built-in themes. You can Google for OmniFocus themes and try out a variety of them so that's nice.

I personally found the Asian Efficiency OmniFocus theme very thoughtful with their color scheme. You can see the download link on this page:

[url]http://www.asianefficiency.com/omnifocus/[/url]

I've personally tweaked it a bit further to help differentiate action groups, project groups, and contexts.

[url]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5383211/Wilson%27s%20Asian%20Efficiency%20theme[/url]

It is certainly amazing what a little change can do when you're able to customize the themes. I actually like "The Emperor's New Clothes" when I can change to a different OmniFocus theme.



* I did like that Things and Hit List have some built-in views for Today, Upcoming (Scheduled), Someday/Maybe. OmniFocus doesn't come with these right of the box. I wished that OmniFocus had these perspectives already preset/created and then allow the user to delete these perspectives if desired.

Creating perspectives can be an intimidating feature and is not obvious to the first time user. However, after getting comfortable with creating perspectives, I feel more comfortable with creating my own views for Today, Someday/Maybe, Active, and Upcoming.

Hopefully OmniFocus 2 will come with some preset perspectives and still allow us to create our own perspectives in a more user friendly way.



* Omni Group finally has their cloud syncing service which is free at the moment. I've seen the Hit List does have an option for monthly and yearly fees for cloud syncing. I wouldn't be surprised if Omni does eventually get around to charging for their syncing service. Or they could just try to utilize iCloud. Of course, doing cloud syncing isn't easy. If Apple couldn't get it right with MobileMe, then Omni and other companies are gonna have a heck of a time getting iCloud syncing just right. Even today, I am slowly seeing a trickle of developers finally get their iCloud syncing down and consistently working after a few attempts at getting it to work.



* The biggest feature that keeps me coming back to OmniFocus is the review function. I just can't function without it. The secret sauce to GTD is doing your weekly review - trimming the hedges, cutting the grass, and weeding out all the projects/tasks that are no longer relevant and just cluttering up your project/task list.

I like the ability to set different review intervals for different projects. Some projects only need to be reviewed once a quarter (every 3 months). Other projects can be done on a bi-weekly or weekly basis. This cuts my weekly review time by a lot. I only have to review projects/tasks when I need to. If I wanted to, I can also just review everything to get an overall picture but I rarely find the need to do that.

Using OmniFocus on the iPad actually helped me kickstart the habit of weekly review because the review function on the iPad is so friendly to use.

In Things and Hit List, I'd still have to review everything. There is no way to set reminders to review everything. This either adds considerable time for me to review or I just end up turning numb and just skimming quickly over a long list of projects/tasks and just wish I could get it over with.



I have been tempted to peek at other programs but the weekly review function has kept me firmly in the OmniFocus camp.

[QUOTE=wilsonng;110524]I do have to say the OmniFocus can be downright fugly and certainly not the easiest program to use.

But I keep coming back to it because I just can't find some of the unique features in the competitors.[/QUOTE]

Wow, lots of good info there. Thanks.

You mentioned Omni Focus 2. Based on the development schedule they seem to have, that may not be out for 10 years. ;)

I love the omni products, OF is an exception.

Since I've already paid for Things and I have OF to-dos that don't even show up in the "Due" perspective (I agree with you about the configurability in OF; I like it), I'll stick with Things and wait and hope that OF 2 (1.5?) is a major face lift and is easier to use.

I'm baffled why a to-do that started yesterday and ends at the end of October with a daily repeat doesn't show up as a to-do in the "Due" perspective.

Who has time for that with hundreds of to-dos? Sort of defeats the purpose, right?

So far, Things hasn't missed a beat.

:(

-m

I think items that have a due date will appear in the Due perspective.

Having a start date as yesterday will allow a task to show up in context mode starting yesterday.

We go into project mode and "plan" our tasks/projects. We go into context mode and start "doing" our tasks/projects.

Only use due dates for items that have a real deadline (i.e. something unsavory happens if a certain date passes).

Things like due dates would be:

Pay Uncle Sam or file tax extension by April 15th
Get wife birthday present before her birthday


I would never put a due date on something like "cut the grass" because no serious consequences will occur. I'll just push the start date further into the future (plus one week). Of course, this is only good if I don't happen to be living in a neighborhood where the community rules states that I must maintain my lawn.

You might be confusing start dates and due dates in OmniFocus. Try Googling for OmniFocus start due date.


I think I saw this here:

[url]http://help.omnigroup.com/ipad/omnifocus/DueDatesStartDatesRepetitionsandCalendars.html[/url]


This is from the OmniFocus for iPad help screen but the core concept of start dates versus due dates is explained here.

Well, as for 10 years.... I dunno. Omni has been going for broke and pushing out tons of stuff lately. When the iPad came out, Omni Group and many developers immediately changed their plans and prioritized iPad app development heavily.

Let's see.... We now have OmniGraphSketcher, OmniGraffle, OmniFocus, and OmniOutliner for the iPad. We still have updates to OmniFocus for iPhone. Then they also released OmniPlan 2 for Mac recently with talks about OmniPlan for iPad coming. They are deep in development for OmniOutliner 4 for the Mac and presumably the iPad. A lot of the code work from OmniOutliner 4 will be shared with OmniFocus 2.

So I'm guessing that we will see OmniOutliner 4 first and then OmniFocus 2 a few months later.



This is a February 20, 2012 article with Omni CEO Ken regarding OmniFocus 2.

[url]http://www.macstories.net/stories/interview-the-omni-groups-ken-case/[/url]


So maybe we'll see something by the end of 2012?



As we can see by Omni's OmniFocus, Cultured Code's Things, and Potion Factory's Hit list development, developing a task management program isn't easy. It becomes even harder when you're trying to make a desktop program play nice with an iPad and/or iPhone version as well.



You can set a task that will repeat itself 1 day after completed. When you check off the task today, it will create the same task set to start tomorrow. OmniFocus will not be creating 100 iterations of the same task. It will create the next task when you check it off as done. That should help keep the clutter down.

[QUOTE=wilsonng;110528]I think items that have a due date will appear in the Due perspective.

Having a start date as yesterday will allow a task to show up in context mode starting yesterday.

[/QUOTE]

I have a due date of October 31, 2012 on this to-do with a repeat frequency of every 1 day. I have "Due" set in OF's preferences to show ANYTHING that's due within a week.

Yet, this to-do does not show up in the Due perspective or the Context Mode.

What am I missing?

Thanks,

-m

You're missing a bunch of things :-)

The stock due date views only show things due within your "due soon" interval, or in the past. So, if you've got Due Soon set to 7 days, if you've got something that is due 10 days from now, it will not appear in the stock Due view. You can change that by editing the perspective to show Status Filter: Any Status instead of Due Soon (Due or Flagged and Due and Flagged have the same behavior as Due Soon). I guess the idea is that only showing you the items due in the very short term is less likely to paralyze you, but I wish they had a separate knob for the length of that display, as I'd like to see due items in the next several weeks, but only have the due soon styling applied to items due in the next couple of days.

Setting a start date and a due date on a repeating action does *not* tell OmniFocus you want it to repeat until the due date. It specifies when the first item starts and is due. When that item is completed, the next one will be created by adding the repeat interval according to the repeat policy and setting the new start and due dates to have the same relative position to each other. You haven't specified something that repeats every day until October; you've specified something that needs to be completed by sometime in October, and when you mark it complete, another one will pop up with a similarly wide span between start and due date!

If you do want a repeating action that finishes at some point in the future, add a separate action with both a start date and a due date at the time you want the repeat to end, telling you to remove the repeating task.

[QUOTE=endoftheQ;110520]Hey Morkafur,

"Yuck!", I'm afraid is sadly right. I've been using Omni products for longer than I care to remember but OmniFocus has become incredibly dated and it's now an unholy mish-mash even for those poor fundi-GTD'ers chasing the Holy Grail of the perfect GTD system.

If the benchmark for you is how [I]many[/I] things you get [I]done[/I] and the [I]ease[/I] of doing so, rather than how you GTD'd them, then give OF a miss. There have been some fine recommendations above and I've discovered that a variety of apps combined make for the most productive use of my time, rather than desperately trying to shoehorn tasks into this old-fashioned clog.

OF obviously still has its fans but having had it since launch, read the books, used it for years, bought the iPhone and iPad versions and watched release-after-release across platforms, I've come to the conclusion that for me it's a case of watching others applaud the Emperor's New Clothes.

Of course, YMMV![/QUOTE]

Good info, thank you!

-m

[QUOTE=whpalmer4;110531]If you do want a repeating action that finishes at some point in the future, add a separate action with both a start date and a due date at the time you want the repeat to end, telling you to remove the repeating task.[/QUOTE]

What I would expect (need) from the software (as Things does it) is that if I schedule a task's start date, a tasks end date, and a repeat frequency, that that task will show up in the "Due" prospective when it's within the number of dates from the Due Date (as configured in preferences).

So, for a daily task, there should be a Due task each day for this (daily frequency) task.

From these postings here on the forum, OF doesn't appear to work this way but I'm not about to change my needs to adapt to a methodology or to this software.

I now have enough information to pass on OF.

Thanks,

-m

but if you set the start date, you'll see it in your context perspectives. The start date enables you to see a task in context mode and doesn't necessarily mean that you'll start it on that particular date.

OmniFocus does tend to be rather restrictive in what is defined as "Due Soon." We would have to go into preferences, click on "Data" and select the "Due Soon" popup menu. The furthest you can see out is 1 week.

In another book "Master Your Workday Now", the author discusses that he has generally found in his studies that most people would put higher urgency on anything within the next 7 days. Anything beyond that is still considered "over the horizon" and not quite as urgent.

When you set the repeating task to Due tomorrow, what happens if the deadline has passed? Does anything of grave consequence happen? If it does then it is considered to have a "hard deadline."

We often have good intentions of finishing a task but make the mistake of setting an artificial deadline. We'll put deadlines on things that don't require deadlines. After letting deadlines slip by, I grew numb to the sea of red colored tasks that indicated I was way past due the original I wanted a task to be finished.

After a while, I just ignored the overdue tasks and watched it grow larger. Then I just gave up on everything and watched my task management system fall under the weight of too many overdue items.

One can easily think that assigning arbitrary due dates on tasks will work in any task manager program such as Things, OmniFocus, or Hit List. But this methodology will eventually crumble under its own weight.

I would caution against putting due dates on all tasks. I would use the due date sparingly to enhance its effectiveness. The due perspective should be used only when you really want to see deadline items.

I think the "Master Your Workday Now" book actually opened up my eyes in this regard and helped to break years of trying to assign artificial due dates on everything with the intention that I would get a task done by this artificial date.

[QUOTE=morkafur;110554]What I would expect (need) from the software (as Things does it) is that if I schedule a task's start date, a tasks end date, and a repeat frequency, that that task will show up in the "Due" prospective when it's within the number of dates from the Due Date (as configured in preferences).
[/quote]
But that's *not* what you did. You are reading "due date" and seeing "end date" and it is little surprise that the results don't match your expectations.

"Start date" = first day you can work on this task, or first day you want to see it presented as available
"Due date" = date by which this task should be completed. Not to be confused with the termination of a repeating task! OmniFocus repeating tasks repeat endlessly.

You set up a task with a start date of a few days ago and a due date at the end of October, repeating daily. That means your task is shown as available for action any time after a few days ago, and at the end of October will be marked as overdue if not completed. The daily repeat means that when you mark that task completed, another copy will be made with the start and due dates adjusted by 1 day.

Usually, a repeating task where the time between start and due is ≫ the repeat interval is a mistake, but not always. For example: I want to refill the water fountain used by my cats. It holds water sufficient for 2-3 days, so I put the start date this morning and the due date tomorrow afternoon, with a start again after 1 day. Most of the time I'll do it on the day it appears as a newly started action, but if I don't, the due date the next day will catch it before it runs out. I could just set up a task that repeats every 2 days, but this approach gets me a bigger margin of safety. It's hard to imagine a case where what you specified to OmniFocus (task starting today, due in 5 months, repeating daily) would be desirable, though!
[quote]
So, for a daily task, there should be a Due task each day for this (daily frequency) task.
[/quote]
Each time you complete the task, the new one is created. OmniFocus allows you to decide whether the new one is scheduled based on when the old one was scheduled, or when it was completed. If you are getting the lawn mowed or your hair cut, you want the next one to be based on when you last completed it (start again or due again). In other cases, where it not only matters when, but how many times you do something, you might choose to use repeat every.
[quote]
From these postings here on the forum, OF doesn't appear to work this way but I'm not about to change my needs to adapt to a methodology or to this software.
[/quote]
The Start date in OmniFocus is Things' "show in Today x days before" except that OmniFocus allows you to view those actions conveniently even before that date (by showing Remaining actions) whereas Things appears to make you look through your scheduled actions and work out whether any of them fall in your window of interest.

I'm not attempting to convince you to prefer OmniFocus; if you prefer Things, you should use it. I find it usually works better if I understand my choices, though often the understanding comes only after choosing :-)

I agree with many of the OP's points -- especially the lack of multiple tags. Could you imagine organizing a photo collection without tags? Or a large volume of notes in Evernote? OF is essentially a database for tasks -- why not implement tags for it? Seems like it would solve a lot of issues.

[QUOTE=Stargazer;110584]... OF is essentially a database for tasks -- why not implement tags for it? Seems like it would solve a lot of issues.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://forums.omnigroup.com/showthread.php?t=12748&highlight=metatags[/url]

--
JJW

[QUOTE=Stargazer;110584]I agree with many of the OP's points -- especially the lack of multiple tags. Could you imagine organizing a photo collection without tags? Or a large volume of notes in Evernote? OF is essentially a database for tasks -- why not implement tags for it? Seems like it would solve a lot of issues.[/QUOTE]

My experience with tagging photos for retrieval is that unless you spend a lot of time carefully choosing your tags and taxonomy, it's just a guessing game when it comes time to retrieve the images via tags. Otherwise, you have to slap on every tag imaginable, because there are many tags you would recognize as being the same, but the software will not. Possible tags for an image of a sailboat on a lake: boat, sailboat, sailing, <type of sailboat>, lake, <name of lake>, etc. You can't risk doing a retrieval on just one of those tags, because maybe the day you were tagging images you didn't put the tag you're using for retrieval on the image you want. So, for the cost of putting tags on everything, you get a retrieval system you can't really trust to retrieve all the relevant tasks. A heckuva deal, I'll take two! :-)

Now, I agree that for very focused use cases, rather than general purpose retrieval, having a tag facility could be handy. I've got this collection of tasks, and I want to mark all of them with a tag so that I can reassemble the collection at some point in the future. In this light, you could view the flag facility OmniFocus provides as a single tag.

I'm regretfully with the OP. OmniFocus has too much of the database's rigidity, not enough of the pad and pencil's fluidity. I really don't enjoy using it, except that I *do* use it. To paraphrase Winston Churchill on democracy, "It has been said that OmniFocus is the worst form of to-do app except all the others that have been tried."

There's an old saying: "Be careful what you ask for because you might just get it."

I agree with whpalmer4's stance on tagging.

Tagging is a nice feature if you keep the number of tags to a minimum. When a user goes hog wild and puts hundred of tags without really focusing on why you're tagging in the first place.

In Aperture, I only tag photos that I know I'll be wanting. Otherwise, I have rarely used tags on everything.

I'll be spending so much time tagging, I won't be getting anything done.

OmniFocus has a global search function that suits me well enough.

Tagging has somehow become this magical wand that solves a lot of problems. But care should be applied when trying to implementing tagging.

Tagging may solve some problems of organization but not all. If you have carefully crafted your projects and tasks/subtasks, a quick global search should yield your results easily.

I have my tasks organized by folders and projects. I think that should be the first step in organizing one's tasks. Tagging isn't going to cure sloppy project planning.

I'm with Stargazer and bashosfrog on this. I've aways believed in multiple contexts but have [I]understood[/I] the arguments against. Tags? Not so much. Like flags, they are a disposable commodity, enabling those of us in the real world to actually get things done. I don't think I'd even want to be sufficiently psychic so that my life could be project planned with no unexpected eventualities! I don't believe there's any need to go OCGTD about tags, in whpalmer4's (hey Bill!) example, #sail would do me just fine. I recall that the OmniFolk stated many years ago that tags [I]would[/I] be added, although experience has taught me to take such pronouncements with Lot's wife!

[QUOTE=wilsonng;110611]...Tagging isn't going to cure sloppy project planning.[/QUOTE]

OTOH, they can help aleviate the pains of reviewing / preparing activity reports.

So rather than a shot against polio, tags are aspirin for a headache. All caveats against (taking) too many still certainly apply.

--
JJW

As someone who has gone between Things and OmniFocus a few times I feel a need to weigh in here. Both programs have great features, both have features that, well, aren't so good. I actually built a spreadsheet comparing the features of each program based upon my needs (a little OCD I know).

Now that Things has a very nice sync solution, for me, the two critical differences between them are Tags and Nested Actions or Folders. Between the two programs I can have one, or the other, not both (without resorting to elaborate duct taped workarounds). Given the choice between those two features, I choose Tags (and therefore Things). I find being limited to a single context useless.

A month from now I may be complaining about the lack of nested folders in Things and find myself back in the OmniFocus camp, bit I'm not so sure. The complexity of OmniFocus is a turn off and I've been using the program for almost 4 years. If I have a complex project, I don't turn to OmniFocus, I turn to OmniOutliner.

Someone earlier commented about the search feature in OmniFocus. My response is that it's terrible and another reason I like Things. In less you are very careful in your filter settings your search in OF, will not be global, and it's easy to miss stuff. Search in Things is better implemented.

I concur with the OP, I really want to like OF, but this sexy looking Thing(s) keeps walking by which I find easier ;)

[QUOTE=DrJJWMac;110631]All caveats against (taking) too many still certainly apply.[/QUOTE]

This always makes me chuckle, if a few too many tags are a risk, I definitely think contexts should be removed forthwith, so many inexperienced users overdose on them!

[QUOTE=Jay6821;110641]As someone who has gone between Things and OmniFocus a few times ... for me, the two critical differences between them are Tags and Nested Actions or Folders. ... [/QUOTE]

The lack of multiple contexts (or tags) eliminates options to filter for tasks that combine such differences as location + frame-of-mind + priority + ... . The lack of nested folders and actions (as well as settings for sequential versus parallel action groups) essentially flattens all projects to be constructed foremost as parallel sets of tasks.

These two fundamental differences really lead to two different fundamental approaches on how one plans and works. IMO, one (OF) is more about providing a user with different ways to combine tasks to build a project with only limited ways to categorize each part, while the other (Things) is more about giving a user different ways to categorize tasks with only one way to collect them in (containers called) projects.

[QUOTE=DrJJWMac;110631]OTOH, they can help aleviate the pains of reviewing / preparing activity reports.

--
JJW[/QUOTE]

Yes, OF does need improved report features.

[QUOTE=Jay6821;110641]
Now that Things has a very nice sync solution, for me, the two critical differences between them are Tags and Nested Actions or Folders. Between the two programs I can have one, or the other, not both (without resorting to elaborate duct taped workarounds). Given the choice between those two features, I choose Tags (and therefore Things). I find being limited to a single context useless.

A month from now I may be complaining about the lack of nested folders in Things and find myself back in the OmniFocus camp, bit I'm not so sure. The complexity of OmniFocus is a turn off and I've been using the program for almost 4 years. If I have a complex project, I don't turn to OmniFocus, I turn to OmniOutliner.
[/QUOTE]


I've tried to move to Things but keep coming right back. I also missed parallel and sequential projects, review mode (with the ability to set review intervals), folders, and subtasks have kept me here.

But I do pine for Thing's elegance. OF's power can humble a beginner. Grappling the idea of parallel and sequential projects, or figuring out the concept of project mode vs context mode was a great challenge for me in my earlier years.

I actually started using GTD with Things then ran parallel GTD setups in Things and OmniFocus. For a while I was switching back and forth but now I'm just too fatigued and have opted to stay with Things.

I'll open up Things every now and then to see if there is something there to grab me but I just can't see past its skin-deep beauty.

Crossing my fingers for OmniFocus 2. Hopefully it will break away from the strong OmniOutliner roots and incorporate a decent report generator and forecast view.

I'll echo that Things hits the spot for me
 

I'm afraid I don't buy the explanation that once you get your Ph.D. in GTD you'll see why Omnifocus is a better product. All you have to do is look at the screenshots on the website to see that OF gives you too much information.

GTD is about simplifying your process so you can spend your time doing things that move the ball. It relies on your having trust that your system has retained all you've put in it and has categorized in a way that will present you with something when its time has come.

That's why I use Things (and I used OF for quite a while before I changed two years ago). I can trust Things, and I [U]very[/U] rarely revisit my process itself. That happens every 3-6 months, and then I make a minor, happy improvement.

With OF, I didn't trust it, and I found myself tweaking my process almost weekly. That went on for months, and I never got comfortable.

When your life is simple enough, move to Things. When your life starts complicated, move to OmniFocus.

I've done the same thing. I often use Apple iWorks' Pages and Numbers for most of my word processing and spreadsheet needs. Then I'll use Microsoft Word and Excel when the demands of my current project needs something stronger.

I'm fatigued from working through Things' limitations. So I've switched. On a podcast somewhere in my iTunes library, there was one guest who commented that he/she would keep his/her personal life in Things but keep his/her professional life in OmniFocus. He/She was switching between programs based on his/her needs of different parts of his/her life.

If you want to tone down the information overload in OmniFocus, you can control click on the column headers to show or hide the various columns. I've hidden the duration column because I don't use it like other folks do. Some folks even use this column as a way to get priorities into OmniFocus.

By creating and using perspectives, you can also simplify/focus what gets presented.

I have my projects perspectives and the left-hand sidebar lets me focus in on just one project at a time.

I have an Action perspective which shows me all available actions for all my active projects.

I have a Today perspective (a subset of the Action perspective) that lets me focus on only my flagged and due soon/due now tasks (the high priority stuff).


Then I have project perspectives that focus only on the 2-3 projects I have on my plate this week.

These are all perspectives that I emulated from Things. So simplifying and focusing can be done in OmniFocus.


If Things works for you, I'm glad that you've found the sweet spot. But you are free to use OmniFocus for more demanding agendas.

[QUOTE=wilsonng;110840]When your life is simple enough, move to Things. When your life starts complicated, move to OmniFocus....[/QUOTE]

I would say simple versus complicated is too fuzzy. Rather ... When your work is organized around Tasks that could be collected in projects, move to Things. When your life is dominated by Projects that are subsequently built by tasks within them, move to Omnifocus.

[QUOTE=DrJJWMac;110860]I would say simple versus complicated is too fuzzy. Rather ... When your work is organized around Tasks that could be collected in projects, move to Things. When your life is dominated by Projects that are subsequently built by tasks within them, move to Omnifocus.[/QUOTE]

Thanks Doc!

Really interesting thread with some great links, especially the Asian Efficiency stuff.

Has given me some food for thought and already applied some of the principles to my OF workflows.

OF does take some effort but I'm glad I stuck with it as I really would be lost without it now.

What I'm seeing in this thread is that we're all hoping to find a friendlier interface with OmniFocus. A bit more hand-holding, perhaps? Something more user friendly?

OF's flexibility is what makes it more difficult to grasp. We're all hoping that OF 2.0 would come out sooner rather than later and hoping that it will be easier to use.

Things' interface does provide an easier workflow. if only we could have OF's power with Things' simplicity.... *sigh*

I just saw the Marketcircle finally released their long-awaited Daylite 4. I remembered waiting for 3 years for that program. I had wished for CRM (Contact Relationship Management) features coupled with a calendar and project/task management. Daylite 3.x looked promising but it was just an unpleasant workflow.

I must admit that I do like the new Daylite 4 but I'm too fatigued to try switching over from OmniFocus to Daylite 4.

Daylite has just about everything i wanted when I was a former Now-Up-To-Date/Contact user. But it's been a long time since I last used Daylite. I'm too entrenched in OmniFocus to want to switch back and forth between Daylite 4, Things, and OmniFocus.

I like the new interface. There is one window that breaks away from the typical OmniFocus outline interface showing due soon (in the next 7 days), overdue, and pending tasks.

Perhaps a new paradigm which helps to differentiate projects, contexts, and tasks would help OF?



I've seen the same complaints in the Daylite forums that i see here:

> When is it going to have feature A, B, and C? It should've been a part of it since the beginning.

> What is the staff doing? Why haven't they released product X yet? It shouldn't be that hard! Just release it already!

> Well, I'm not buying it if it doesn't have this or that feature! Good riddance!





So, I'm sure we've seen all the flame wars and we're all tired of waiting. But good things will come surely.


I don't know if we need a PhD in GTD to get things done. But what I do see is that if you put some more elbow grease (AKA effort) into something, you'll be rewarded well.

When my project/task management needs were simple, I didn't really need anything as strong as OmniFocus. I didn't need to put a lot of effort into managing proejcts/tasks. Things was perfect for me. But when my life became more intense and I needed stronger aspirin, i switched to OF. It wasn't easy but I was able to create a better workflow.

It's like working out at the gym - if you don't put the time and effort into it, don't expect big results (if any).


I'm glad you like the Asian Efficiency OmniFocus site. All the resources are available to us. Just reach out and grab it.



Personally, I think I would use a "sync" tag for certain projects/tasks to sync over to iCal instead of using contexts or publishing reminders to iCal. The current method just felt too difficult for beginners to understand.

[QUOTE=wilsonng;110931]I must admit that I do like the new Daylite 4 but I'm too fatigued to try switching over from OmniFocus to Daylite 4.[/QUOTE]

I read recently that switching between Things and OF has been described on CC's forums as GOD!, GTD Oscillation Disorder. :)

LOL. That's among one of many disorders in my system. :-)

I just happened to stumble onto an OmniFocus article from the Simplicity Is Bliss blog. The author talks about how he uses a custom search with saved perspectives to create his own tagging system.

So this might be another way of using the notes section for each task/project as a way to create a "tagging" system.

Enjoy...


[url]http://www.1klb.com/blog/2012/4/15/high-priority-projects-in-omnifocus.html[/url]

[QUOTE=wilsonng;110987]So this might be another way of using the notes section for each task/project as a way to create a "tagging" system.[/QUOTE]

Nice article, the major problem I have with doing such #freeform tagging is that the search function isn't working in the notes field on iDevices .... :(

[QUOTE=endoftheQ;110988]Nice article, the major problem I have with doing such #freeform tagging is that the search function isn't working in the notes field on iDevices .... :([/QUOTE]

Yes, I know. I'm still waiting for the ability to create custom perspectives and to view project perspectives on my iDevice as well. *sigh*

Unfortunately from my opinion there's no software that is even close to the "Fast and easy, computerized GTD". I will never buy OmniFocus, because I agree with the original poster - it's very complicated, not intuitive and lacks a lot of functions. It is being developed very very slow despite the fact that it's extreeemly overpriced. I will never buy such undeveloped product for such a price. I'm not sure where the developers spend their money. On marketing instead of development?

And unfortunately there's no alternative on the market. I tried every GTD available on the market including The Hit List, Firetask, Pagico and many others. They all look like an unfinished product. Things looks very very polished, but it's so limited.

The situation is very very strange. There's a demand, but there is no an adequate product. A good time for a new startup? :) I don't know. I'm very disappointed.

I reread David Allen's book annually, and I'm never struck by an aspect of GTD that seems both desirable and yet impossible to implement in OmniFocus. Perhaps I'm missing out on something really great. How about sharing your list of essential features that OmniFocus lacks?

One of the places the seemingly high price goes is into the excellent support staff. Not many companies offer free phone support and even fewer deliver it with knowledgable staffers. Another is the long development tail that any given release gets. People who bought OmniFocus at the introduction back in January of 2008 have now received almost 4.5 years of free updates and development, and the changes have been extensive. When major upgrades do come out, Omni has typically given owners of any previous version credit for more than half of the purchase price of the new version, even for applications obtained as bundled software for computer purchases, and none of this business where it has to be the most recent version, either. They also offer a money back guarantee, even for software purchased through the App Store, which means they have to pay Apple's cut even though they get nothing. Where do they spend their money? Trying to make the customers happy and productive, it appears. In my experience, every case where I've paid a larger sum for a software product (and quite a few where I've paid less) I've gotten inferior support, much more limited updates, and usually buggier software! Still, if it is the wrong tool for you, you shouldn't buy it!

I think GTD itself is very hard to implement even with pen and paper.

Like many GTD folks, I've fallen off the bandwagon because adopting GTD is a difficult process.

After reading zenhabits.com, the blogger at that site argues that you should view GTD as a series of habits to adopt over time. Master one part of GTD and then move on to the next habit to adopt.

As for overpriced software? I think I have made more than my purchase price with this software. Using OmniFocus for my professional and personal life has made my workflow more efficient. Yes, it did take some elbow grease and some time in the gym to get it done but I did eventually nail it.

I know that Adobe Suite is very expensive and overpriced. But for those who make their living off of that software package, they probably made up all that money and even more.

Of course, for the rest of us, we can decide to buy other software packages that are more on par with our needs. I know that Photoshop is just overkill for me. So I decided to buy Pixelmator. It fits my graphic needs and I don't miss Photoshop at all.

On the other side of software development, Adobe has come out with yearly releases of their Adobe Suite and have charged customers every year for the new update. I know of many customers who have update fatigue and are still on Adobe Suite CS4. They are comfortable working with CS4 even though they know that CS6 is already released.

If we see Omni Group adapt Adobe's sales strategy with an annual update, we would see nothing but posts about "well, I'm sticking with last year's update. I don't see anything I want with this year's update." or "why are they charging us for these small updates?"


Would it be fair to argue that Photoshop itself is difficult to use and expensive? Yet there are users who would swear by it and drank the Kool Aid!

The rest of us are happy with Graphic Converter, Pixelmator, or Acorn - much cheaper and fits our needs adequately.

If OmniFocus isn't for you, there is always Things or The Hit List. There are also the numerous online GTD packages that can be utilized.

[QUOTE=whpalmer4;111047]I reread David Allen's book annually...[/QUOTE] Really? Your going to encourage prospective users to descend into a putrid pit of productivity porn by boasting of your addictions? Yuk!

[QUOTE=wilsonng;111059]I think GTD itself is very hard to implement even with pen and paper. Like many GTD folks, I've fallen off the bandwagon because adopting GTD is a difficult process.[/QUOTE]

I often think that most GTD is more for those interested in the process than actual productivity!

[QUOTE=wilsonng;111059]After reading zenhabits.com, the blogger at that site argues that you should view GTD as a series of habits to adopt over time.[/QUOTE]

I found the two most productive things I learnt and continue to put into daily practice were DA's Two Minute Rule and MR's 4Mular, both easy to adopt and free. It's also a no-brainer that, for example, a shared shopping list is always going to be much more productive in a dedicated app than having it in OF.

[QUOTE=wilsonng;111059]I think I have made more than my purchase price with this software. Using OmniFocus for my professional and personal life has made my workflow more efficient. Yes, it did take some elbow grease and some time in the gym to get it done but I did eventually nail it.[/QUOTE]

Ditto. OF desktop owes me nothing. Hopefully v.2 will simplify the interface and bury the complexity, making it much easier for new users to adopt.

[QUOTE=wilsonng;111059]I know that Adobe Suite is very expensive and overpriced. But for those who make their living off of that software package, they probably made up all that money and even more.[/QUOTE]

Not at the moment! I've noticed a real groundswell of negative opinion in my industry since Adobe issued their "upgrade or else rebuy or rent" dictate. Having evaluated CS6, there wasn't anything compelling enough for us to warrant forking out $3,000 a Mac to upgrade, especially with the strong possibility that Apple will force us over to PCs in the near future. IMHO Adobe may well have shot themselves in the foot!

As always, just my 2¢. :)

[QUOTE=whpalmer4;111047]One of the places the seemingly high price goes is into the excellent support staff.[/QUOTE]
So development company spends most of their money
on support instead of development? :) I'm not sure if it's good for the product
which is stuck in 90s.

[B]wilsonng[/B] mentioned above that GTD is very complex to adopt even on paper - you know I agree! And computers are here to help us! Not make it more complex or unintuitive. There should be NO learning curve for the productivity software especially on Mac. Macs are here to help us too! That's why I'm so disappointed. I repeat - I tried every GTD software available with no luck. Existing computerized GTD solutions don't make sense until they:
1) adopt simple tools that at least exist in physical lists world - like markers, or paper color
2) have zero-learing curve
3) extend GTD, adding existing concepts like Reminders, Smart Lists (don't say it's OF's Perspective - it's not), Calendar
4) allow sharing and collaboration

Come on! It's web 2.0 century! We have multiuser environment and projects become more and more complex. Even one-man project is now much more complex comparing to 5 years ago. Look at the modern shiny todo apps like Wunderlist! They are "simple" todo lists which have more functions and more convenient and clear than overpriced omnifocus "professional" app.

Omnifocus is stuck in 90s. Even the design is so weak.
I think what is holding Omnifocus from developing is the absence of real competition on the market.
But I'm afraid when they face a real competition that will be too late.

[QUOTE=Jpatrick;111083]... There should be NO learning curve for the productivity software especially on Mac. Macs are here to help us too! [/quote]

Yep. Everything on a Mac should be as easy as "turn it on, tell it what to do, walk away ... (have it wash your car)".

Your statement could apply to computers or teenagers. One could argue the theory that both should require no effort to set in motion. Reality is a closed door in front of a loudly blaring stereo system.

[QUOTE=Jpatrick;111083]... I tried every GTD software available with no luck. Existing computerized GTD solutions don't make sense until they: ...[/quote]

Seems to me, this synopsis is more a testament that your expectations are likely misplaced rather than a testament to the poor state of affairs in GTD software development.

[QUOTE=Jpatrick;111083]... Look at the modern shiny todo apps like Wunderlist! They are "simple" todo lists which have more functions and more convenient and clear than overpriced omnifocus "professional" app. ...[/quote]

Yet, by your own testament, even these "simple" apps still do not work for you. See then my comment above.

What strikes me odd here are the undertones of a zealous rant against working with the best tool(s) that suit(s) your needs right now. One could believe from all this that perfection to your metrics was all that ever was available in the past and is all that should ever be available in the future. Such a standard would for me be a difficult one to live by.

--
JJW

[QUOTE=DrJJWMac;111093]Yep. Everything on a Mac should be as easy as "turn it on, tell it what to do, walk away ... (have it wash your car)".[/QUOTE]

+1, Doc, Siri = [I]total[/I] let-down.

[QUOTE=Jpatrick;111083]So development company spends most of their money
on support instead of development? :) I'm not sure if it's good for the product
which is stuck in 90s.
[/quote]

I wouldn't buy a car unless I knew that there is a very reliable mechanic or garage that can work on my car.

I wouldn't want to buy software and find out that there is little or no tech support to answer my questions or record our feature requests.

Tech support is essential to any product (software or hardware) and is usually included in the price of the software.

If I buy a cheap Made in China mp3 player for $20, I don't expect it to last long and I don't expect the great features that I can find on my iPod touch.


[quote]
There should be NO learning curve for the productivity software especially on Mac. Macs are here to help us too! That's why I'm so disappointed. I repeat - I tried every GTD software available with no luck. Existing computerized GTD solutions don't make sense until they:
1) adopt simple tools that at least exist in physical lists world - like markers, or paper color
2) have zero-learing curve
3) extend GTD, adding existing concepts like Reminders, Smart Lists (don't say it's OF's Perspective - it's not), Calendar
4) allow sharing and collaboration
[/quote]

Wow... I would love productivity software that had zero learning curve. I'd have mastered Adobe Suite in a heartbeat. Or it can telepathically read my mind and tell me what to do. Unfortunately, Siri is still a long way off from that. Telepathy is a whole other 100 years away at this point.

Computers were supposed to make life easy for us and create this utopian "Paperless Office." Unfortunately, the laws of unintended consequences just generated even more paperwork, more glitches (like a banking error or mistyped billing statement). So computers don't necessarily make life easier.


[quote]
Come on! It's web 2.0 century! We have multiuser environment and projects become more and more complex. Even one-man project is now much more complex comparing to 5 years ago. Look at the modern shiny todo apps like Wunderlist! They are "simple" todo lists which have more functions and more convenient and clear than overpriced omnifocus "professional" app.
[/quote]

Yes, it is the web 2.0 and OmniFocus, as it exists today, is missing out on the multi-user environment. At this moment, I'm part of a team that is using Asana to assign tasks for the whole team. I'm not liking it but it works OK for our team. But even Asana seems to pale in comparison to something more full featured like OmniPlan.

From what I gather, it appears that OmniFocus may remain a single-user program for individuals to manage their tasks and OmniPlan would be the heavy duty project manager which can send tasks that are assigned to individual OmniFocus users. Think of OmniFocus as the client program and OmniPlan as the server program. Not all of us needs a server package. So it may be kept separate.

For those of us who don't need the multi-user capabilities, OmniFocus would be fine. But for those of us who need multi-user workgroups, then adding an OmniPlan would be the next option.

Only the flies on the wall at Omni HQ know what is going on. But even the Omni crew are probably adjusting plans, goals, and ideas along the way.

Remember, there was a tremendous shift for many software companies when the iPad first came out. Shortly after Steve Jobs introduced the iPad, many developers had announced new plans to take advantage of the iPad phenomenon. That definitely threw Omni's road map up in the air when they had to allocate resources to iPad versions. Yes, not everybody has unlimited resources and can just do everything and still have time for a slice of pumpkin pie.

The introduction of multiple on-line web apps in the project/task management will probably influence what Omni does. I can't imagine that Omni isn't taking notice of web site likes Asana.

[quote]
Omnifocus is stuck in 90s. Even the design is so weak.
I think what is holding Omnifocus from developing is the absence of real competition on the market.
But I'm afraid when they face a real competition that will be too late.[/QUOTE]

I don't necessarily think OmniFocus is stuck in the 90s. We've had many improvements such as the new Omni Sync Server that allows us to more easily share tasks between computers and iDevices. We've had the introduction of the iPhone and iPad versions of the iPad. This is showing that Omni Group is definitely not keeping still.

Now the design and workflow may have become 90'ish because it has its roots in OmniOutliner. OmniFocus 2 is probably the opportunity to break away from the outliner mode and introduce a different workflow.

But if this happens, I can only imagine the backlash when existing customers have to re-adjust their workflow to fit the new workflow and features in version 2.

I'm sorry, wilsonng, but I think most of Jpatrick's criticisms are valid, IMHO OmniFocus is [I]incredibly[/I] dated. It's possible that a new coat of paint may help, but the OmniGroup do have a tendency to leave bits-and-pieces of unfinished or badly implemented features littered across their apps whilst fixes and updates occur at a glacial pace, if ever. Unless, of course, they're chasing after one of Apple's shiny new toys such as beta-Siri!

OK, a zero-learning curve is somewhat optimistic, but I've just seen another post asking yet again when will the manuals be updated. I recall that it took 6-months last time just to update the in-app user guide on the iPhone after a UI change, which left new users hopelessly confused.

I understand the frustration at the lack of integration and I'm not sure that patching OF to OP is going to do anything but add another layer of complexity. In fact, OP for iPad is probably the first offering from OG that I won't be buying into. That said, OG never stated there would ever be a multiuser version of OF, even though Policarpo, myself and others field-tested it as such. OK, it needed record-locking but it worked. However, making a single-action list shareable shouldn't be beyond the wit of the OmniFolk. I always wondered if OG didn't miss a trick with OmniSync Server, with a paid-for subscription version with added features, a la Evernote et al.

If OG continue to flog OF as a shopping list, to-do, errands app, then they should expect such criticism, even as the only GTD® app that doesn't make it automatically [I]fantastic[/I], as one of my colleagues (whose a former long-term OF user) commented when I mentioned that I was returning to OF for a project: [I] "it's a niche for nerds"[/I]. I sometimes find it hard not to agree with that ringing endorsement.

I've already agreed that there are deficiencies in OmniFocus as it exists today. It has outgrown its roots as an outliner-based program and grown into its own monster. With an ever-evolving world, I'm betting that Omni Group is not standing still. They're taking small steps towards the future. iOS versions of OmniFocus and Omni Sync server were laid out as pieces of the puzzle that will eventually inform us of the bigger picture.




Here is an article with Ken Case with a quote from him about the future direction of OmniFocus and OmniPlan:

[url]http://www.macstories.net/news/omni-groups-huge-2011-omnifocus-2-new-omniplan-omnioutliner-for-ipad/[/url]

[quote]
The new syncing back-end is also designed to work with OmniFocus, which will let individual team members sync tasks assigned to them with either the desktop, iPhone, or iPad versions. “All three versions use the same underlying engine, so once we have that update in place, we’ll be able to roll out OmniPlan syncing to all versions of OmniFocus,” Case told Ars.

The current version of OmniPlan allows syncing via CalDAV, but the new engine will offer much better integration with OmniFocus. For project team members who don’t need to see what all other team members are working on, they’ll be able to see just the tasks assigned to them. When tasks are marked as complete in OmniFocus, the project manager will get a notification of the change in OmniPlan.
[/quote]

This gives a hint at the possible future direction for OmniFocus and OmniPlan.


This is another article:

[url]http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/01/omniplan-for-ipad-to-put-project-management-at-your-fingertips/[/url]

[quote]When OmniPlan for iPad ships, it will complete Case's original 2010 plan to bring five unique apps to the platform. With that line item crossed off of his OmniFocus task list, full attention will go back to Omni's Mac software. Specifically, Omni developers have been hard at work planning OmniFocus 2 and OmniOutline 4. Updating those apps will become the top priority of the development team once OmniPlan for iPad is launched on the App Store, according to Case
[/quote]

I didn't say anything about a multi-user OmniFocus. This is what I have tried to surmise from the two articles:

OmniFocus is a great tool for the single user and will probably remain a single user program. This is the client program and is used by most folks who don't need collaboration facilities. Some of us won't be using the multi-user capabilities. So that would be one layer of complexity that single users won't have to deal with.

OmniPlan will be the server software. It gives everybody an overview of complex projects, timelines, goals, resources, and tasks. This is a whole other ballpark for people who need collaborative facilities. It will probably send tasks to your OmniFocus database and start to appear in your task list as needed. Start Dates will most likely be used for this. Or it might appear in your user account in your copy of OmniPlan.

Ramping up to a multi-user version of a program does take make considerable care than one can imagine. It's not as simple as "record locking." There's a lot more work to be done because Omni Group probably wants to get OmniPlan to play nicely with OmniFocus. That may not be the direction you may want. It is what it is.

Besides, I think people may want to share more than a single-action list.

I personally use OmniFocus on my iOS devices and my Mac. I knew my sister wouldn't want to spend time figuring things out. So I got Things for her and it works for her.

I would love OmniFocus with multi-user project sharing to share tasks with others. But only if the user interface and/or workflow were changed significantly to the point where I can let my sister use it.

I'm not buying OmniPlan for iPad either but I am looking forward to OmniOutliner 4 and OmniFocus when it finally gets finished.

We are all just eager to see the next generation of OmniFocus. But for now, we can all chug along with OmniFocus, The Hit List, Wunderlist, Things, or whatever program we are using.

[QUOTE=endoftheQ;111096]+1, Doc, Siri = [I]total[/I] let-down.[/QUOTE]

Just to be clear, my original statement was to be read as though contained in <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags.

--
JJW

In essence, I agree with you wilsonng, at a GTD® level. However, if OG continue to flog OF as a shopping list or to-do app then they deserve serious criticism from those who find it doesn't compete in that marketplace, UI-, share-, feature-, implementation-wise, hence the plethora of 1-star reviews, most of which appear to accuse OG of running some kind of bait-and-switch scheme.

As far as OmniPlan integration to facilitate multi-user OF goes, it was never on our agenda, as multi-user OF was all we needed. OG didn't provide it, so we abandoned OF, en-masse. I'm sure there's a market for the complexity of OP with OF clients, but it's certainly not us!

[QUOTE=DrJJWMac;111139]Just to be clear, my original statement was to be read as though contained in <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags.[/QUOTE]

From the TV ads, the least I expected was a clean car! :o

[QUOTE=endoftheQ;111132]... I think most of Jpatrick's criticisms are valid, IMHO OmniFocus is [I]incredibly[/I] dated. ...[/QUOTE]

Allow in this consideration that, the pace of OS development from Apple has outstripped many legacy developers efforts to keep up. Consider these changes, just in the Mac OS : sandboxing, updated touch gestures, full-screen support, built-in version support, and dropping carbon support. I can state three apps including OF that are in the process of major revisions just to make use of such advances going from 10.6 to 10.7. In the meantime, their standard products are holding on with, in one case, no updates or bug fixes over the past year. Then, in three months or so, we'll have 10.8 on the doorstep, with its own offerings.

Sooner ... cheaper ... better are the three legs of product design, and the development cycle on OF is running now toward a new curve rather than the existing one. All things considered, it is easy to cry for "signficantly better" while forgetting that this will require us to accept "later" or "more expensive".

--
JJW

[QUOTE=endoftheQ;111141]... As far as OmniPlan integration to facilitate multi-user OF goes, ... I'm sure there's a market for the complexity of OP with OF clients, but it's certainly not us![/QUOTE]

My own brief look around at multi-user project-managment apps gave me the immediate impression that this was a road that OG would likely have difficulty traveling from where they are now. Too many apps are already on the market (Teamwork, Clinked, Basecamp ...) that offer way more features specifically designed for team-work approaches than can be mish-mashed or retro-fitted in to OF. The OP <-> OF link may be the only venture that they will/can allow themselves as a nod in this direction.

I would rather see an app target a specific need well and then integrate outward with companion apps as demanded by its users than to see an app bloat or crumble under its own limitations while trying to become something different.

--
JJW

I appreciate what you're saying, Doc, but many of these issues are of Omni's own making. If I'd only bought OF, why would I would happy that its development gets put on ice every time OG decides to concentrate on their other offerings? There isn't really any excuse for out-of-date documentation or lack of compatible file formats, such as opml or svg, nor missing iOS functions such as copy-and-paste or Document Interchange. If they can find time for beta-Siri, they can find time for these.

In regard to the progression of OSX, many of us are wondering if Apple is preparing to go consumer-only. It wouldn't come as a big surprise to see OSXI being an entirely sandboxed buy-from-the-app-store only offering.

I don't know the project planning market, I bought OmniPlan out of evaluation and curiosity. I can't imagine there's a big consumer demand for it. We're holding off purchasing hardware at the moment, given that it's been over two years since the Mac Pro was last updated. If it does get the heave-ho as some commentators expect, then many of us who use Macs in a professonal environment will be have no option but to migrate to PCs.

I guess Omni will then have to decide whether to follow Apple's lead and port their products to other platforms where necessary or hope that there is sufficient consumer and SOHO demand to support them?

Oh well.... Let's just revisit this thread when OmniFocus 2 comes out. By that time, we'll see if OmniFocus 2 offers enough of a paradigm shift. We can all agree that OmniFocus 1.x was great in the '90s with a single user model. We can also agree that we have high hopes for OmniFocus 2.

However, like Doc said, there are so many web-based project management programs that offers one advantage that OmniFocus doesn't have: it works cross-platformable because it can work in almost every modern web browser.

It appears that OmniFocus will stay in their niche within the Apple ecosystem. It will work only on iOS devices and Macs.

There will always be folks who refuse to kowtow to the Apple world thinking that they're getting the shaft. But then I remind people about other ecosystems such as Google, Android, and Facebook that have also ensnared so many of us.

Perhaps some folks might be more comfortable working with the Asanas and Base Camps of the world. That would offer that collaborative, use anywhere feature set that seems to be highly desirable for those of us who need such features.

There will always be some feature that we missed from one program and would love to add to another program. But that's the nature of life.

OK, make a date, 2013, 2014?!

OmniPlan (for iPad) gets released tomorrow (7 June). I found the commercial hilariously awful, undoubtedly what was intended!

I'll await the reviews with interest. I doubt I'll be splashing the $50 though...

[QUOTE=endoftheQ;111148]... We're holding off purchasing hardware at the moment, given that it's been over two years since the Mac Pro was last updated. [/QUOTE]

[url]http://9to5mac.com/2012/06/05/after-nearly-two-years-without-an-update-apple-to-finally-revamp-mac-pro-next-week/[/url]

--
JJW

Thanks so much for that Doc, appreciate it. I've been gingerly sitting on $200k of budget, waiting to see if I was going to have to splash the cash on Windoze. It's definitely Xmas for my crew!

[QUOTE=endoftheQ;111157]Thanks so much for that Doc, appreciate it ... [/QUOTE]

You can buy me a beer some day should our paths cross. :-)

--
JJW

I'm hoping OmniFocus 2 is released before the end of the Mayan Calendar on Dec 21, 2012.

But now even that calendar is up for debate:

[url]http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/mayan-calendars-2012-doomsday-prophecy-wrong/story?id=11926347[/url]

;-)


After watching the OmniPlan for iPad video, I can't help but shake the feeling that OmniPlan will be used for multi-user collaborative projects and OmniFocus will settle for the single-user niche.

I can see OmniPlan for iPad being the entry point for people who need the collaborative model. I wouldn't say I wouldn't try it. But it is something to think about.

[QUOTE=DrJJWMac;111164]You can buy me a beer some day should our paths cross.[/QUOTE]

It'll be our pleasure! OK, back to wondering what the form factor will be.... ?!

[QUOTE=wilsonng;111176]I'm hoping OmniFocus 2 is released before the end of the Mayan Calendar on Dec 21, 2012.

But now even that calendar is up for debate:

[url]http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/mayan-calendars-2012-doomsday-prophecy-wrong/story?id=11926347[/url][/QUOTE]
[INDENT][I]"According to recent research, the mythological update of "OmniFocus" may be off by 50 to 100 years."[/I]
[/INDENT]OK, yup, the truth is out there. :o

[QUOTE=wilsonng;111176]After watching the OmniPlan for iPad video, I can't help but shake the feeling that OmniPlan will be used for multi-user collaborative projects and OmniFocus will settle for the single-user niche.

I can see OmniPlan for iPad being the entry point for people who need the collaborative model. I wouldn't say I wouldn't try it. But it is something to think about.[/QUOTE]

It's interesting, so far I've resisted purchasing now it's available for the iPad, probably because I know I'll just have a play and delete it, plus I'd have to reinstall OmniPlan back on to my desktop!

I think the lack of integration has probably been a factor in my also having deleted OG, OO, & OGS. It's a shame, but I've just got so used to being able to link or exchange data between apps, it seems archaic and disfunctional when apps can't do it, especially when they're from the same developer. :(

Just been reading one of the [URL="http://forums.omnigroup.com/showthread.php?t=24453"][B]launch threads[/B][/URL] over at OmniPlan for iPad. No export. Nada. I'm so glad I didn't splash the cash. The OmniFolk just don't seem to grasp the meaning of integration and collaboration. Ho-hum.

Yes, it is sad that there not even an export to PDF option. This would make life easier for us to share with clients our project plans.

But then again, this is version 1.0. The basic idea was to get OmniPlan for iPad out the door. As always, Omni Group will be release version 1.1 in response to customer feedback. It's not bad for a version 1.0 launch, actually.

I'm sure that export to PDF and Microsoft Project will be tops on that list.

[QUOTE=wilsonng;111241]The basic idea was to get OmniPlan for iPad out the door.[/QUOTE]

Wow, wilsonng, you have far, far more generosity of spirit than I do. If that was my excuse to a client, I'd expect to be fired. I'd certainly look askance at a new car model being delivered sans wheels!

I also don't have your wonderful optimism in the face of experience, so many years have gone by and Omni's other offerings still lack core OS functions, such as import, export, print, Document Interchange, etc. let alone any form of integration with each other.

It's so bad it's funny that their app store blurb for OP has [I]"Collaborate with your colleagues on every detail"[/I], that's up there with promoting [I]"make carrot cake"[/I] as a mis-lead to purchase OF for iPhone.

I also noticed:
[INDENT][I]"The App Store policy and the longstanding Omni Group policy agree: minor updates should be free. Of course, if there is a major overhaul of the application with lots of shiny new features, we may release it as a new product, and that would cost money. But bug fixes, minor features, and miscellaneous polishing come at no cost."[/I][/INDENT]
If OG think they'll see another penny of my (and I think many others) money until basic collaboration, integration and core OS functions are added across all their offerings, they're going to be disappointed. OmniPlan for iPad is the first app from OG that I didn't buy out of the gate and I'm so glad I didn't. I note that the first review in the UK app store has the headline: [B]If you don't own Omni Plan for Mac - DO NOT BUY!!!![/B] Well, I do own OP for the desktop and I still didn't buy.

I felt almost [I]treasonous[/I] when writing two-star reviews of the OF suite, and stated that some people are beginning to feel there's an element of [I]"bait-and-switch"[/I] but the OmniFolk have had a long, long time to drag their products into the 21st century and live-up to that [I]"passionate about productivity"[/I] tagline.

It's beginning to look like they're running scared that if they give users the opportunity to easily exchange data with other products we might be tempted to switch. Well then - newsflash! - some of us have already done that manually. It's now up to Omni if they want to try and win us back.

LOL. Take a deep breath. It's not the end of the world.

Power users will always be frustrated by version 1.0 of any software offering. Omni may have lost some of our emotional investment by ignoring OmniFocus for so long. That's true. But you never know what rabbit might get pulled out of the hat.


[quote]
The App Store policy and the longstanding Omni Group policy agree: minor updates should be free. Of course, if there is a major overhaul of the application with lots of shiny new features, we may release it as a new product, and that would cost money. But bug fixes, minor features, and miscellaneous polishing come at no cost."
[/quote]



I'm pretty sure that Omni will have a strategy to entice people to ugprade with a cheap introductory price to upgrade.

I remember buying EazyDraw 3.x on the Mac App Store because it was offered at a super cheap introductory price of $25.00. Recently, I saw EazyDraw 4 was introduced on the Mac App Store but it is considered a brand new product and selling for $95.00. Luckily, the company offered customers a transition or upgrade price. I just had to show evidence of purchase of their product on the App Store. So I just paid the upgrade price only.



All apps on the Mac App Store will have that same policy where major versions will be considered new products. We will probably have to buy major updates at full price. But I think a lot of developers are offering a very cheap introductory price for a limited time (3 months maybe?) to entice people to upgrade quickly. It's almost like being at the upgrade price.


Heck, I'm not happy with the Adobe subscription service but I can understand that may be how the world is going to drive towards.

i already pay a subscription for the privilege of using my cellphone or cable TV. I also have a maintenance plan for my 4D database development.I fear the new business model might be software developers charging for a subscription instead of paying a flat fee for software.

The Hit list offers a subscription fee for cloud syncing. That's something that some people like and some people are grumbling about. Pick a side...

Microsoft is thinking of the same thing to combat piracy. Sell a subscription service for Microsoft Office. You'll get all the updates within your allotted subscription period.


Another business that has been turned upside down is TV and movies. People have gotten acclimated to paying a subscription fee to watch everything they want on Hulu or Netflix. They don't "own" the disc anymore. But they can watch it on multiple devices and platforms.

The Mac App Store and the iTunes store has changed the business model of how software companies are doing things. I can't blame OmniFocus when they agreed to put Omni products on the Mac App Store. They had to agree to the Terms of Conditions to get in there.

We always have a choice of not buying Omni Product X and buying elsewhere. Hopefully there will be something that will fulfill our needs.

I still haven't found anything that matched OmniFocus and I'm too tired to keep switching back and forth. I got work to do.


I also have to reserve comment on OmniPlan for iPad at the moment. I've never used it and i really can't judge anything until I've actually sat down to play with it.

But here's an interesting review of OmniPlan:

[url]http://www.macstories.net/reviews/hands-on-omniplan-for-ipad/[/url]

[QUOTE=wilsonng;111267]Power users will always be frustrated by version 1.0 of any software offering. [/QUOTE]

Power users? ROFL! The only way to get [I]anything[/I] out of OP is by screenshot, unless you own the Mac-only desktop version!

Omni have heard the same complaints regarding import, export, print, integration and collaboration across all their offerings for years-and-years. It's not a hard stretch for some to think it's deliberate policy.... !

It is version 1.0. It'll get fixed. We all make mistakes.

Sometimes we do something for a customer and it's not exactly as planned. So we work with them again and tell we both get it right.

OmniPlan for iPad isn't set in concrete. They have time to update it. Besides i don't hear Omni Group saying that this is the final version. It is version 1.0.

Yes, they have a history of taking time addressing issues. I understand that.

[QUOTE=wilsonng;111270]They have time to update it.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't tell that to those who've blown $50 on it, and are now calling it [I]"a sick joke"[/I] along with giving it 1-star reviews in the app store!

[QUOTE=wilsonng;111270]It is version 1.0. It'll get fixed. We all make mistakes.[/QUOTE]

It seems that [B]wilsonng[/B] is somehow affiliated with OmniGroup LOL :)

OmniFocus is 1.10. It took them 4 years! It's four years until they made something from v1.0. And this something is still v1.X. And this something is still a toy. Power users? I doubt that.

[QUOTE=Jpatrick;111291]... And this something is still a toy. [/QUOTE]

Many folks really do use OF to be more productive (eg as compared to smashing at pigs with flying birds).

[QUOTE=Jpatrick;111291] ... Power users? I doubt that.[/QUOTE]

Some folks consider the difference between certain other "task management" apps and OF is the level of "power user" you are, (eg in GTD).

--
JJW

[QUOTE=Jpatrick;111291]It seems that [B]wilsonng[/B] is somehow affiliated with OmniGroup LOL :)

OmniFocus is 1.10. It took them 4 years! It's four years until they made something from v1.0. And this something is still v1.X. And this something is still a toy. Power users? I doubt that.[/QUOTE]

Sure, I'd love the extra pay. ;-)

No, not affiliated in any way. I was responding to the notion that Omni Group should've gotten OmniPlan for iPad right in version 1.0. Nobody gets anything right with version 1.0 unless it is a very simple program that does just one thing and does it well. Heck, it took Apple ten years to get Mac OS X right. And Microsoft did take its time to get to Windows 8.

I think I made good on my $70 investment over 4 years. Would we all like to see version 2.0? Sure. The whole task management paradigm has changed since OmniFocus first launched.

Well, I would put Things and The Hit List above OmniFocus in terms of workflow design because they were able to observe what OmniFocus did and provided their own twist to it. But these two programs still lack some of OmniFocus' feature set. These are all version 1.x programs.


So we can also gripe about how Things and The Hit List are also "missing the boat" when we see online web-based task management services with collaborative services. Now this post is "we are bring to like OmniFocus but..."