Context view and Parent/Children Actions Broken
 

I have noticed an issue with "orphaned" child action elements in context view.

Planning View:
I have a folder called 'Org/GTD' which contains a project called 'Digital Organization' which contains an action 'Organize E-mail' that contains three child actions 'gmail', '.mac', & 'work e-mail.' All three child actions are in the 'Office:Computer' context.

Context View:
If I select the 'Office:Computer' context, all I see is 'gmail', '.mac', & 'work e-mail.' Without the Organize E-mail parent action listed, the lone children actions leaves a lot to confusion. Why does context view break the parent/child relationship by omitting the parent entirely? Am I missing something?

Thoughts anyone?

[QUOTE=apeman88;39195]I have a folder called 'Org/GTD' which contains a project called 'Digital Organization' which contains an action 'Organize E-mail' that contains three child actions 'gmail', '.mac', & 'work e-mail.' All three child actions are in the 'Office:Computer' context....

Thoughts anyone?[/QUOTE]

In OmniFocus, anything with a child is not an action. If it's within a project, it is an action group. In your example, "Organize E-mail" is an action group. Action groups do not show up in the context list.

You might think this is the wrong way to handle action groups, especially since an action can be made into an action group by adding a child. If so, send feedback to Omni. I, personally, would prefer that action groups work like the hierarchical tasks in Life Balance: they don't appear until every action within them is completed, at which point the parent appears in the to-do list (Life Balance's equivalent of the Context mode).

But until Omni Group changes OF (which might be never), keep this rule in mind: ANYTHING with a child does not appear in Context mode, whether it is a folder, a project, or an action group.

Brian sums up the current situation nicely. For some background on the design decision, you might find [URL="http://forums.omnigroup.com/showthread.php?t=3642"]this thread[/URL] interesting.