[QUOTE=Ken Case;38155]As I [URL="http://forums.omnigroup.com/showpost.php?p=37991&postcount=9"]recently mentioned[/URL] in the [URL="http://forums.omnigroup.com/showthread.php?t=8169"]Tags[/URL] thread, our plan [URL="http://forums.omnigroup.com/showpost.php?p=13360&postcount=51"]all along[/URL] has been to allow people to create their own columns of metadata, which they can use however they want: with generic tags, or with specific columns for priority, people, etc. (We have this capability in OmniPlan, OmniOutliner, and OmniGraffle.) We just didn't have time to do it for 1.0, and we won't for 1.1 (which has to focus on synchronization so it can be ready to synchronize with the iPhone).

Hopefully in 1.6.[/QUOTE]

Looks like we are going to have to wait for 2.0 for this feature since the 1.6 sneak peak doesn't include this feature. One thing that puzzles me is that OO already has this feature; so, I assume most of the codes can be reused for OF; so, I'm not sure what's the hold up on this feature.

Thanks.

[QUOTE=ksrhee;54936] One thing that puzzles me is that OO already has this feature; so, I assume most of the codes can be reused for OF; so, I'm not sure what's the hold up on this feature.[/QUOTE]

I think this could be one of those situations where it looks a lot simpler on the outside than it actually is on the inside. It's probably not a simple matter of copying code from OmniOutliner. OmniFocus has it's own features, dependencies, interactions, etc. that probably need to be accounted for. And, of course, there's the whole question of how to deal with it on the iPhone. For us to make any kind of predictions on this is pure speculation, since we don't have the source code nor access to Omni Group's longer-term design decisions.

Who knows when we'll see these metadata columns. But I haven't heard Omni Group say anything about the 1.6 version being feature-complete yet. So maybe it's still coming. ;-)

-Dennis

[QUOTE=ksrhee;54936]Looks like we are going to have to wait for 2.0 for this feature since the 1.6 sneak peak doesn't include this feature.
[/quote]

1.6 sneaky peeks have been out for only a few days. I'm not sure I would jump to the conclusion that if your favorite feature can't be seen, it isn't coming, or that 1.6 is the only release vehicle left before 2.0. Remember, there was no Bonjour sync when the 1.1/1.5 sneaky peek came on the scene. You might be pleasantly surprised.
[quote]
One thing that puzzles me is that OO already has this feature; so, I assume most of the codes can be reused for OF; so, I'm not sure what's the hold up on this feature.
[/QUOTE]
No offense intended, but are you an upper-level manager, by any chance? :-)

Even if it was a simple matter of hauling the code for "this feature" over from OmniOutliner (and personally, I don't think OmniOutliner has "this feature" in a form that I would want for OmniFocus) there is still quite a bit of work to be done in integrating that user-customizable column with all of the OmniFocus tools. This is a bit more complex than simply adding the ability to show the completion date or context columns. I expect this feature will be a reasonably rich bit of work in the usual Omni fashion, and worth the wait. I could be wrong, but I hope not :-)

Tagging could solve this problem, too
 

Sorry, I did not read all the messages in this 20+ pages thread. Therefore just a short suggestion:

If you could add a tag like "Priority" which could have values like "high", "medium" and "low" or 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or whatever you like and you could simply select all tasks with Priority="high", would this solve your problem?

Someone called this “the mother of all threads” and I have to say that I love the intensity and commitment of the OF community. Many voices joining together to make a great product even better. As I posted elsewhere (and felt compelled to repeat here on the MOATs ) I have say that this isn’t an resolved issue and it isn’t a dead liquified horse. It is an easy to solve problem in OF that would make it conform with real GTD.

There is today an implicit priority sorting in every context view. It is almost guaranteed to be wrong. When you put one item above or below another there is an implicit prioritization (row one comes before two and is therefor more important etc) Those of you who believe you are defending GTD by banning prioritization are actually defending a failed prioritization in OF’s context view.

On the other hand, the suggestions for a prioritization field are actually rather clumsy solutions to this problem, as is the hacked idea of using duration (which is what I do now) The simple, only GTD pure, solution is to allow manual sorts on actions in the context view. This function is a hallmark of the Omni products (It is the core of OmniOutliner) and its absence in OF is somewhat shocking.

If we could use Cntl Cmd Up / Down arrow to sort in context as we can do in project this rancorous debate would end and OF would really match GTD theory.

[QUOTE=Douger;56699]If we could use Cntl Cmd Up / Down arrow to sort in context as we can do in project this rancorous debate would end and OF would really match GTD theory.[/QUOTE]

Why not just applescript this?

[QUOTE=Lucas;56707]Why not just applescript this?[/QUOTE]

Ummm, because the function is disabled. In Project Views you can move projects groups or actions up or down, indent or un indent them with Cmd Cntrl Arrow keys, utlizing the similar fuctionality as in OmniOutliner. In Context views these function are visible (not greyed out) but do not function

Edit>Outlining>Move>Move Down or Move Up are not functional in Context views.

[QUOTE=Douger;56718]Ummm, because the function is disabled. In Project Views you can move projects groups or actions up or down, indent or un indent them with Cmd Cntrl Arrow keys, utlizing the similar fuctionality as in OmniOutliner. In Context views these function are visible (not greyed out) but do not function

Edit>Outlining>Move>Move Down or Move Up are not functional in Context views.[/QUOTE]

That's not what I mean. If you look on the Extras board there are a set of applescripts called "MoveToTop" and "MoveToBottom" that, in either planning or context mode, will move the selected action to the top or bottom of its project and change the context view accordingly. That script seems to be a good start along what you are looking for; why not just modify it to get at what you're missing from true GTD religion or whatever?

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look at the scripts, but if they also change to sorting in Projects then that really isn't the solution.

I believe the conversation, and the solution was well defined (recently, since it seems to keep coming up) here:

[url]http://forums.omnigroup.com/showthread.php?t=11529[/url]

Thanks again for all your help and suggestion Lucas.

[QUOTE=Douger;56805]Thanks for the suggestion. I'll look at the scripts, but if they also change to sorting in Projects then that really isn't the solution.

I believe the conversation, and the solution was well defined (recently, since it seems to keep coming up) here:

[url]http://forums.omnigroup.com/showthread.php?t=11529[/url]

Thanks again for all your help and suggestion Lucas.[/QUOTE]

I'm glad to help with modifying those scripts if you decide you want to.

[QUOTE=BwanaZulia;38169]1. Priority IS in GTD
2. Priority is too FLUID to capture in tool
3. Brain can do priority FASTER than tool.[/QUOTE]

I know I’m dredging up this old thread, but I have heard this repeated time and time again (while reading all 21 pages), and I have to respectfully disagree. Let me give you an example of how I use priorities in Life Balance, and how the tool calculates priorities faster than my brain can:

I have tasks to do around the house. Some are daily, some are weekly, some are monthly, and some are yearly. I have them all assigned to a House context. They all have their own recurrences, and appropriate lead times (i.e. hours for a daily task, a month for a yearly task).

The nice thing about Life Balance is that priorities for repeating tasks are adjusted dynamically, based on the time until the task is due. So with this system, I can look at my list and quickly see which items are red (past due), which ones are orange (less than one lead time until they are due), and which are green (more than one lead time until they are due). And they are all sorted accordingly.

Furthermore, Life Balance can handle those fluid priorities. Which is more important: doing a monthly task that was done three weeks ago, or doing a weekly task that was done six days ago? I don’t have to worry about it, because LB does all the calculations on the fly, and sorts the list.

I can hear the protests now: “But that is not GTD! You should just have a list of tasks and browse through them to pick the ones that are the highest priority!” That’s true, I could do that…and with this method, I still can. Nothing says I HAVE to do the top item on the list; but if I absolutely want to do the task that has been done the least recently, I know exactly where to look.

And note also that I did not set a SINGLE priority for a SINGLE one of these items! The priorities are adjusted dynamically based on due date and lead time, which I set once and forget about. If (for example) I wanted to prioritize “Wash windows” as more important than “Clean garage,”*I could do that too. And the amazing part is, if both items are due, “Wash windows” will show up first, but if I have washed the windows recently, then “Clean garage” will show up first. It does the work for you, and adjusts priorities dynamically on the fly!

Now, can you tell me that you can look at a list of repeating tasks and completion dates and repeat periods, and tell me on the fly which one was done the least recently?

[QUOTE=abates17;57700]Now, can you tell me that you can look at a list of repeating tasks and completion dates and repeat periods, and tell me on the fly which one was done the least recently?[/QUOTE]

You probably could if you sorted the actions by date added or date changed in OmniFocus.

But yeah, the priority implementation you describe in Life Balance sounds pretty sophisticated and a real boon for those who like explicit priorities. But my question is, if Life Balance is so good at this sort of planning, why not just use Life Balance instead of OmniFocus?

-Dennis

[QUOTE=Toadling;57703]You probably could if you sorted the actions by date added or date changed in OmniFocus.[/QUOTE]

But not of some tasks need to be done every week, and some need to be done every year. For example, a yearly task completed two weeks ago would have a lower priority than a weekly task completed three days ago.

[QUOTE=Toadling;57703]But yeah, the priority implementation you describe in Life Balance sounds pretty sophisticated and a real boon for those who like explicit priorities. But my question is, if Life Balance is so good at this sort of planning, why not just use Life Balance instead of OmniFocus?[/QUOTE]

Let’s see, where to begin? Life Balance doesn’t have an easy and ubiquitous way to capture new tasks; the UI of their desktop application is, frankly, horrible (they basically mimicked most of the UI from the Palm version, resulting in atrocities like a tab that contains a single slider); synchronization with the iPhone is not up to the standards I would expect; there isn’t an integrated review process that is easy to use; their development team don’t seem very responsive to product changes…I could go on and on.

However, they do have some things that OmniFocus doesn’t: Hierarchical priorities which are very easy to use but very powerful; priorities that smoothly change depending on the due date; Contexts which can be arbitrarily nested, so you don’t have to make custom Perspectives just to see, for example, everything you want to do at work.

I’m currently on the fence between the two apps, but OF is winning just because task capture is so much easier. But I keep running into roadblocks in my workflow, which are the areas I would like to see OmniFocus improve in. If those tweaks were made, OF would easily blow Life Balance away.

High, Medium, Low
 

Thank, abates17, for calling my attention to this ancient thread. It touched a hot button for me (and my clients).

I use OmniFocus to capture every request from each of my consulting clients. When a to-do list gets to be more than a handful, I review the list with the client, asking her to identify the most import tasks. I note these with the red flag.

Often during these reviews, the client will mention that a task is "pretty important" (the next level down from most important).

If I had one more flag color/symbol (that exports to HTML), I think I'd be all set. Red for high priority; blue for medium; no flag for low. Or 1 flag and 2 flags.

Of course, there are Critical tasks (higher than high). I handle these with a flag + a start and/or due date.

-- Ward

[SIZE="1"][submitted as formal feedback][/SIZE]

[QUOTE=abates17;57705] For example, a yearly task completed two weeks ago would have a lower priority than a weekly task completed three days ago.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but why would a yearly task completed two weeks ago be even available to do? To me, personally, the real example would be a yearly task completed 35 weeks ago vs. this weekly task. And then the software, it seems, makes a judgment about which is more important. To me, that seems like a pretty close call. You might as well just have the software flip a coin. So a good workaround might be to hold on to some change.

[QUOTE=abates17;57700]Now, can you tell me that you can look at a list of repeating tasks and completion dates and repeat periods, and tell me on the fly which one was done the least recently?[/QUOTE]Using GTD, I don't have the need to know which tasks were done the least recently - so this [Life Balance] priority system doesn't provide any value for me.

My intuition, which is calculated through my goals (as defined in my horizons of focus) and active weekly reviews, tells me instantly what I want to do. My hard landscape is on my calendar, so those hard deadlines can supersede as needed.

To be frank, I wouldn't trust a automated system to tell me the priorities of cleaning my windows versus cleaning my garage. Unless Life Balance comes with sensors that detect dirt, my intuition (with data gathered through observation) will always give me better results in choosing what should be done first. If I see dirt on my windows, and that the garage is not in need of maintenance - Life Balance's "dynamic" system isn't helpful - it becomes misleading.

We are the executives of our lives, of our decisions. We need to be in control, vetted with perspective, rather than hoping that a automated system can maintain control of our decisions, and magically choose our priorities as accurately as we, ourselves, can.

•••

In terms of development that meets variable concerns, I am keeping my hopes open regarding [URL="http://forums.omnigroup.com/showpost.php?p=38155&postcount=155"]Ken's post[/URL]. That way, the priority zealots will have a tool that GTD'ers can hide and not be (overtly) affected by. And this dead horse can be buried without further dismemberment. :)

[QUOTE=Lucas;57713]To me, personally, the real example would be a yearly task completed 35 weeks ago vs. this weekly task. And then the software, it seems, makes a judgment about which is more important. To me, that seems like a pretty close call.[/QUOTE]

Yes, that is a pretty close call. What about a yearly task completed 42 weeks ago? 46 weeks ago? 51 weeks ago? The point is, the software can easily calculate relative priorities on the fly, much easier and more quickly than I can. Of course, I am still free to pick from any item on the list, but this just tells me which ones are closest to being due again. THAT is what software should do for you: take care of mundane calculations so you don’t have to.

[QUOTE=Lecter;57714]Using GTD, I don't have the need to know which tasks were done the least recently - so this [Life Balance] priority system doesn't provide any value for me.[/QUOTE]

I am also using GTD, and knowing which tasks were done the least recently does provide value for me, as I explained. And using GTD, it doesn’t matter to you how a list is sorted, so even if you had a system like this set up, it wouldn’t get in your way at all. Right?

[QUOTE=Lecter;57714]My intuition, which is calculated through my goals (as defined in my horizons of focus) and active weekly reviews, tells me instantly what I want to do.[/QUOTE]

And I’m more concerned about what I NEED to do, not what I WANT to do. When I know which tasks have been done the least recently, those bubble up to the top, so I am aware of them.

[QUOTE=Lecter;57714]To be frank, I wouldn't trust a automated system to tell me the priorities of cleaning my windows versus cleaning my garage. Unless Life Balance comes with sensors that detect dirt, my intuition (with data gathered through observation) will always give me better results in choosing what should be done first. If I see dirt on my windows, and that the garage is not in need of maintenance - Life Balance's "dynamic" system isn't helpful - it becomes misleading.[/QUOTE]

I don’t want to bother with walking around and examining every window and floor and counter in my house before deciding what needs to be done! I want to vacuum my floors on a weekly basis. I want to clean my windows monthly. I want to clean my counters daily. I do not have the time nor the inclination to walk through my house every day and say, “Do the floors need vacuuming? Should I wipe down the counters?” Using a system like I described, the items that have been done least recently (according to MY priorities when I set them up) will automatically bubble up to the top.

[QUOTE=Lecter;57714]We are the executives of our lives, of our decisions. We need to be in control, vetted with perspective, rather than hoping that a automated system can maintain control of our decisions, and magically choose our priorities as accurately as we, ourselves, can.[/QUOTE]

When did I ever say, or even imply, that I was not in control of my own decisions? Having a list sorted by priority does not require me to do the top item on the list, any more than if the list were sorted alphabetically. It just gives me more information (more perspective, if you will) that I can use to help make my decisions. I am using GTD as well, WITH priorities, and there is NOTHING about having priorities that contradicts using GTD. Priorities do not keep me from reviewing my list of tasks and finding something to do; they do not keep me from reviewing my projects on a weekly basis. They merely provide one more piece of information that I can use. And frankly, I am surprised at how many people complain that a prioritization system means that we want our systems to “magically choose our priorities” for us.

[QUOTE=Lecter;57714]That way, the priority zealots will have a tool that GTD'ers can hide and not be (overtly) affected by.[/QUOTE]

Please don’t imply that “priority zealots” and GTD’ers are two separate groups. And again, why would you need to hide a “priority” field? At worst, it is one extra field that you wouldn’t use. And since you are always scanning the list anyway, why would it matter how the list is sorted?

[QUOTE=abates17;57747]Having a list sorted by priority does not require me to do the top item on the list, any more than if the list were sorted alphabetically. It just gives me more information (more perspective, if you will) that I can use to help make my decisions. I am using GTD as well, WITH priorities, and there is NOTHING about having priorities that contradicts using GTD. Priorities do not keep me from reviewing my list of tasks and finding something to do; they do not keep me from reviewing my projects on a weekly basis. They merely provide one more piece of information that I can use. And frankly, I am surprised at how many people complain that a prioritization system means that we want our systems to “magically choose our priorities” for us.[/QUOTE]

I agree completely; but to my view OF does now use priority in its own way, although certainly not as obvious as in lifebalance. As has been said by others, I think that the developers are aware (probably!) of an interest by some in priority being done differently in OF. Although such a change might happen someday, it might be useful to use this user forum to ask the advice of other users who are using OF as it is now to handle prioritization issues.

[QUOTE=Lucas;57763]Although such a change might happen someday, it might be useful to use this user forum to ask the advice of other users who are using OF as it is now to handle prioritization issues.[/QUOTE]

I understand. I just wanted to clarify the misconception that priorities are “not GTD,”*or that the brain can always determine priorities more quickly and easily than an automated system. I think the brain determines urgency, but a system can track priority reasonably well.

[QUOTE=abates17;57865]I understand. I just wanted to clarify the misconception that priorities are “not GTD,”*or that the brain can always determine priorities more quickly and easily than an automated system. I think the brain determines urgency, but a system can track priority reasonably well.[/QUOTE]Hi Abates,

I think there is a misconception about your interpretation of priorities, vis-a-vis this discussion. GTD certainly allows for priorities (with intuition filtered through observation), but not in the classical time-management sense of A,B,C,D or High, Medium, Low, etc. Most of the comments pointed against priorities are directed at the A,B,C type of priority systems. As Kelly Forrister (one of DavidCo's top coaches) has said about what makes a good GTD list manager, "It does not force priority codes (really folks, this is GTD 101)".

From your description of Life Balance's automation, it sounds like it will adjust the order of items in the list and change the colors of items. Aside from being a visual distraction/nuisance, I would not trust any automation to have the ability of making priority calls at all, even if then are just for informational purposes. My windows and garage (etc.) do not get dirty on any predictable schedule, so Life Balance's hints/suggestions would not be accurate, nor helpful (meaning that it [I]would[/I] get in my way). The variables involved with those tasks negate any benefits from calculations that lead time could provide. Sometimes my garage needs weekly cleanings, and sometimes it doesn't need cleaning for months. How would Life Balance's system deal with that variable? On the other hand, my intuition and observation handle these variables without any stress at all.

One of GTD's benefits is reduction of stress. Automated reminders, suggestions and/or alterations can create stress. Even simple ones. After reading a Merlin Mann article, I turned off new e-mail notifications. Without those automated interruptions, I now approach e-mail proactively, with vigor. Before, the new e-mail notifications made me feel like the proverbial Pavlov's dog.

Having a automated system attempt to bubble particular items to the top removes some of your active involvement in that decision chain. In my experience, distancing oneself from a decision ultimately results in weakening the overall decision-making process. Any isolation (however small) removes a bit of you from the focus of the moment.

Do you walk around your home with your eyes closed? Maybe you live in a mansion. For me, I immediately know when my areas need cleaning. It doesn't take any bother to observe one's surroundings.

GTD does work with priorities (I'm not sure where you disconnected on that topic). I am just against Life Balance's automated [bubbling hint/suggestion coloration] system (at least as described in your posts). Before this triggers another misinterpretation, I am not against automation in general. Automation is fantastic for some things. [I]GTD priorities is just not one of them.[/I]

Being able to customize the fields in OmniFocus is one of the reasons that I licensed the software. As has been stated time and time again (particularly in the previous pages), if a priority field of any type is ever implemented, it would be best that those of us who choose not to be hindered with it can hide it [I]completely[/I]. Unused fields are unnecessary and are distractions. Giving users the choice to view only used fields makes both camps happy. Do you seriously not understand why one (who doesn't want a particular field) would not want the ability to completely hide it?

One of the other concerns I have is that the OmniGroup have limited engineering resources. Aside from some of their [URL="http://blog.omnigroup.com/2009/02/25/omniweb-omnidazzle-omnidisksweeper-and-omniobjectmeter-now-freeware/"]original products taking a backseat[/URL], Ken has posted that they [URL="http://twitter.com/kcase/status/1243485782"]are spread a little thin[/URL]. I've been waiting a while for the Omni code-ninjas to fix a [URL="http://twitter.com/kcase/status/1388271400"]basic AppleScript issue[/URL]. Given that, I'd hate to see engineering time and code expended on features that don't add core value to the GTD user-base at large. OmniFocus is already gaining a reputation for being too complicated. A day doesn't go by where I don't notice a post, message or tweet about users choosing Things or the Hit List over OmniFocus. Adding a feature from Life Balance isn't likely to win over users who want less fields and less complication.

To close, here are some seminar comments from David Allen that I felt are pertinent:

"How do I decide what to do? Has that thought ever occurred to any of you? How would you like to feel, absolutely 100% confident, that the choice you are making is absolutely the best choice from a moment to moment basis for the rest of your life? Well, you can get there, but it is not free. Its a eternal, vigilant process. Nobody is going to take your intuition away from you. Every thing you decide to do is intuitive. Deciding to come to this seminar was intuitive. Deciding to listen to this seminar is an intuitive judgment call. There is a lot of other things that all of you could be doing right now. So what made you decide to do this? You didn't wake up and say 'A plus B to the third power...oh! I've got to go to the seminar!' [I]Nobody is going to manage your life but you.[/I] So that little thing is the individual unique part of you — and you are not going to systemize that. But the reason to do all the rest of this is to free yourself up so that you really listen to who you are and what you really want to do. And you are able to keep your focus 100% toward where you put your choices and not feel like you've got distracted energy. Thats where the doing comes in."

[QUOTE=Lecter;57905]Most of the comments pointed against priorities are directed at the A,B,C type of priority systems. As Kelly Forrister (one of DavidCo's top coaches) has said about what makes a good GTD list manager, "It does not force priority codes (really folks, this is GTD 101)".[/QUOTE]

Again, I haven’t seen anyone talking about OmniFocus FORCING priority codes to be used, only that they should be available for people who want to use them. There is a world of difference between having them available, and forcing users to use them.

[QUOTE=Lecter;57905]From your description of Life Balance's automation, it sounds like it will adjust the order of items in the list and change the colors of items. Aside from being a visual distraction/nuisance,[/QUOTE]

OmniFocus already changes the colors of items based on due dates, and filters whether or not items appear on the list; Life Balance does almost the exact same thing, although with a finer amount of granularity.

[QUOTE=Lecter;57905]I would not trust any automation to have the ability of making priority calls at all, even if then are just for informational purposes.[/QUOTE]

And I find that I would rather have more information than less. The software does not make the final call on task priority; it just provide me more information about which recurring tasks have been done the least recently, and which have been done the most recently. Again, this is something that I find beneficial.

[QUOTE=Lecter;57905] My windows and garage (etc.) do not get dirty on any predictable schedule, so Life Balance's hints/suggestions would not be accurate, nor helpful (meaning that it [I]would[/I] get in my way). The variables involved with those tasks negate any benefits from calculations that lead time could provide. Sometimes my garage needs weekly cleanings, and sometimes it doesn't need cleaning for months. How would Life Balance's system deal with that variable?[/QUOTE]

If you have a task that does not recur on a regular schedule, then obviously you would not set it up as a recurring task with a regular schedule. But personally, I find that dust accumulates at a pretty constant rate, dirt accumulates on the windows pretty regularly…these are not things where I need to do a visual inspection every time I decide what needs to be cleaned. I prefer not to wait until something needs to be cleaned so badly that it draws my attention.

[QUOTE=Lecter;57905]Having a automated system attempt to bubble particular items to the top removes some of your active involvement in that decision chain. In my experience, distancing oneself from a decision ultimately results in weakening the overall decision-making process.[/QUOTE]

In my experience, having a large list of tasks can often lead to picking easier tasks first, or ones that you enjoy doing more. I would rather have more information about which areas I am neglecting. The ultimate decision is still mine, of course, but at least I am making an informed decision.

[QUOTE=Lecter;57905]Do you walk around your home with your eyes closed? Maybe you live in a mansion. For me, I immediately know when my areas need cleaning. It doesn't take any bother to observe one's surroundings.[/QUOTE]

I’m glad that works for you. Personally, there are some areas of my house where I spend more time, and others that I don’t pay as much attention to. And no, I can’t visually discern between an area that was dusted three days ago, and one that was dusted five days ago. If you can, that’s great, but I want to set up a regular cleaning schedule for myself, and have software that reminds me about which areas I am neglecting.

[QUOTE=Lecter;57905]GTD does work with priorities (I'm not sure where you disconnected on that topic). I am just against Life Balance's automated [bubbling hint/suggestion coloration] system (at least as described in your posts).[/QUOTE]

And again, OmniFocus already has a bubbling system (albeit a binary one) and a hint/suggestion coloration system.

[QUOTE=Lecter;57905]As has been stated time and time again (particularly in the previous pages), if a priority field of any type is ever implemented, it would be best that those of us who choose not to be hindered with it can hide it [I]completely[/I]. Unused fields are unnecessary and are distractions. Giving users the choice to view only used fields makes both camps happy. Do you seriously not understand why one (who doesn't want a particular field) would not want the ability to completely hide it?[/QUOTE]

It seems unreasonable to say, “I will only accept a new field if it can be hidden COMPLETELY.” There are currently fields in OmniFocus that I don’t use, but they are not able to be completely hidden. However, I understand that many different people use the software, so there will be fields in the interface that I don’t use.

[QUOTE=Lecter;57905]OmniFocus is already gaining a reputation for being too complicated. A day doesn't go by where I don't notice a post, message or tweet about users choosing Things or the Hit List over OmniFocus.[/QUOTE]

Maybe they’re switching to Things or The Hit List because both of those applications offer a Priority field.

[QUOTE=Lecter;57905]Adding a feature from Life Balance isn't likely to win over users who want less fields and less complication.[/QUOTE]

More fields does not imply more complication. Look at iTunes for an example of this. In everything I have read about OmniFocus, it is the user interface and workflow that is cited as being too complicated, not the number of fields.

[QUOTE=Lecter;57905]To close, here are some seminar comments from David Allen that I felt are pertinent:

"Nobody is going to take your intuition away from you. Every thing you decide to do is intuitive.…But the reason to do all the rest of this is to free yourself up so that you really listen to who you are and what you really want to do."[/QUOTE]

Obviously there is a huge continuum between making all of your decisions based on intuition, and having a trusted system make your decisions for you. When it comes right down to it, having your Next Action list sorted by a Priority field is very close to not having it sorted.

[QUOTE=abates17;57923]

[QUOTE=Lester]It seems unreasonable to say, “I will only accept a new field if it can be hidden COMPLETELY.” There are currently fields in OmniFocus that I don’t use, but they are not able to be completely hidden. However, I understand that many different people use the software, so there will be fields in the interface that I don’t use.
[/QUOTE]


Maybe they’re switching to Things or The Hit List because both of those applications offer a Priority field.

[/QUOTE]


And there are just as many users that are returning back to OF because The Hit List and Things doesn't have some of the features that OF has. I was also enamored by Things and the Hit List but I eventually went back to OF.

[QUOTE=wilsonng;57942]And there are just as many users that are returning back to OF because The Hit List and Things doesn't have some of the features that OF has.[/QUOTE]

Oh yeah, I believe it! I’m just saying that it’s not logical to say, “We shouldn’t add feature X, because people are leaving OmniFocus for other applications (all of which have feature X).”

There is also a world of difference between whining about a personal desire for a Life Balance feature, and discussing the merits of features that are beneficial to the GTD user-base. I also believe that there is a fine line between wanting granular information and not being a GTD captain and commander. :) [note the smile!]

One of the cool things about OmniFocus is that I have the ability to turn off the color changes of due dates (Style Preferences offers a plethora of settings!), or I can completely hide due dates. This fits perfectly with my position that unused fields/features should be able to be hidden.

GTD is about being captain and commander of your tasks and decisions. If one lacks the discipline to tackle harder next actions (aka always picking the easier tasks first), then the issue is with the individual, as opposed to the list. If you choose to neglect areas (and you aren't happy about that), then some renegotiation(s) of choice(s) should take place. Maybe addiction to stress leads one to always choose the easy tasks?

I suspect we live in different climates. I rarely get dirt on regular intervals. My cleaning schedule needs to be variable. If your areas need a regular cleaning schedule, then I am wondering how bubbling/colorization adds any genuine benefits. For example, if both your garage and kitchen need cleaning today, does it really matter which one is cleaned first? Does Life Balance's slider and position bubbling and coloration add any tangible value at all? If the value is truly insignificant, why all of the fuss of desiring that LB feature?

I stand behind the premise that all possible fields should be able to be hidden. Due to the core design, I suspect that Folders, Actions and Projects might be hard coded (and might need to be omnipresent). But everything else should be able to be hidden (and luckily, Context, Estimate, Start Date, Due Date and Completion Date [I]can[/I] be hidden — I'm hoping future updates fix the rest). Perhaps you prefer a cluttered interface populated with unused fields. I prefer a clean interface consisting only of fields that I use. Less distraction = superior focus.

Why would one feel that it seems unreasonable to hide (or remove) what one doesn't use? It isn't clear why you have an issue with this. Do you keep things that you don't use? Do you keep unused shrink-wrap, outdated newspapers and expired credit cards? If so, that might explain why you have to clean so often! :)

I just took a look at the current versions of Things. No priority fields. I had to dig into the Hit List to find the priority field. Here is a example of refined software design. The priority field is there for those who want it, yet completely hidden for those that don't want it. Maybe it is this refined and elegant design that users are finding to be better?

Odd that you reference iTunes. iTunes allows the user tremendous versatility in field views, even down to a bare minimum. In View Options, you can hide all of the fields except for the name of the song. You can even customize which fields are visible in each and every playlist. If you want complex views, great. If you want simplicity, fine. You can even have both, if your playlists are disparate. It is entirely up to each user, the way it should be. Ultra-customizable View Options FTW! :)

[QUOTE=wilsonng;57942]And there are just as many users that are returning back to OF because The Hit List and Things doesn't have some of the features that OF has. I was also enamored by Things and the Hit List but I eventually went back to OF.[/QUOTE]Out of curiosity, which OF features drove your decision to return?

[QUOTE=Lecter;58001]Out of curiosity, which OF features drove your decision to return?[/QUOTE]

Before I switched to OF, I was using Now Up-To-Date as a task manager. Failed miserably. Then I tried Daylite. I liked it as a contact manager and calendar program but tasks were still a little iffy.

Then I read Allen's GTD in 2007. started out with pen and paper until I got comfortable with it. Discovered Zen-To-Done in 2008. After getting comfortable with the pen-and-paper route, I explored Mac software solutions. I narrowed the choices down to Things and OF.

The biggest feature was the "review" mode. At the time of decision making, Things didn't really have anything like this. Haven't checked in a while. Or maybe I should just scan everything in Things as part of my weekly review?

I like being able to go into Review mode in OF and look at the things I should reviewing for the next month. I usually look about a month ahead (approximately 4 weeks) so I have an idea of what is coming up. In Things, I would have to scan everything.

I also liked the repeating option of creating a next action based on the completion date. An example would be to repeat a task approximately 1 month after the completion date. I believe Things or THL may have added this feature recently. But it wasn't available in Things at the time of purchase.

Another reason was that OF was feature complete. Things was still in beta during the time I was interested in buying a Mac GTD program. It's finally out as version 1.x but I am comfortable in OF. I don't really see the need to transfer over to Things at this moment. Everything I can do in Things, I can also do in OF. But I can see how someone new would purchase Things.

I liked having three distinctive modes in OF:

1. Planning Mode - go into Projects mode.

2. Do Mode - switch to Contexts mode and get things done.

3. Review Mode - I only look one month ahead. I don't have to review everything in my task list.


The three modes are very distinct in OF. It seems like planning, doing, and reviewing are kinda mixed in Things and THL. But I haven't visited the other competitors in a while. Has it changed?

Maybe some people don't like switching between modes. This may be part of the simplicity of Things. Some newbies may be dizzy from having to switch modes. Thus the confusion and seeming complexity of using OF.





THL is still in beta. I'm just not interested in starting over again.


I had also purchased Daylite a long time ago. I guess those folks are advertising version 3.8 and later as a GTD capable solution.


What piqued my interest once again was the introduction of Daylite Touch during MacWorld 2009.

I see that their web site has a QuickTime movie showing Daylite and GTD in action. They also have a web page addressing Daylite+GTD.

I'm firmly entrenched in OF as my task manager. I guess I'm looking for something else for my CRM functions and calendar now. But Daylite is teasing me as an all-in-one solution for mixing GTD, calendar, and contacts into one program.

But as of now, I'm not really interested in restarting my GTD system. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[QUOTE=Lecter;58000]There is also a world of difference between whining about a personal desire for a Life Balance feature, and discussing the merits of features that are beneficial to the GTD user-base.[/QUOTE]

Let’s see: I have been talking about coloring of tasks based on due dates, setting task priorities, and sorting based on priority. Considering that OmniFocus already has all of these on some level, it seems like all of those are considered “beneficial to the GTD user-base.” I am merely asking for a greater detail and control over these, as are many others.

[QUOTE=Lecter;58000]GTD is about being captain and commander of your tasks and decisions. If one lacks the discipline to tackle harder next actions (aka always picking the easier tasks first), then the issue is with the individual, as opposed to the list.[/QUOTE]

Aaaaaaaaand there it is! I am looking for a feature that you find unnecessary, so therefore I must have some personal flaw in how I use the system. It couldn’t possibly be that different people have different ways of working, and find benefits in things that others don’t care about? No, easier to criticize me for “doing it wrong.”

I want tasks that are more urgent to stand out more. Say what you want about “intuition,”*but obviously people care about this, or there wouldn’t be options to set due dates and color items based on those due dates, or to sort by flagged state. I am simply asking for more control over that process.

[QUOTE=Lecter;58000]I suspect we live in different climates. I rarely get dirt on regular intervals. My cleaning schedule needs to be variable.[/QUOTE]

Then obviously this system doesn’t apply to you. Maybe you have shelves that stay magically dust-free for weeks at a time, followed by a freak indoor dust storm that requires an urgent cleaning. Personally, I find that dust falls pretty consistently over time, so I would like to know which areas have been cleaned within the last few weeks, and which have not been cleaned for several months.

[QUOTE=Lecter;58000]If your areas need a regular cleaning schedule, then I am wondering how bubbling/colorization adds any genuine benefits. For example, if both your garage and kitchen need cleaning today, does it really matter which one is cleaned first? Does Life Balance's slider and position bubbling and coloration add any tangible value at all? If the value is truly insignificant, why all of the fuss of desiring that LB feature?[/QUOTE]

Because “needing to be cleaned” is not a binary state. My home—or windows, or car, or whatever—do not go from “not needing to be cleaned” one minute, to “needing to be cleaned” the next. Given a list of cleaning regular tasks that need to be done, I would rather start with the one that has been done the least recently. I could either wash the counters or vacuum the floor, but if the counters were washed last week, and the floor hasn’t been vacuumed in six months, I would rather vacuum the floors first. These are things that an automated system can track easily.

[QUOTE=Lecter;58000]I stand behind the premise that all possible fields should be able to be hidden. Due to the core design, I suspect that Folders, Actions and Projects might be hard coded (and might need to be omnipresent). But everything else should be able to be hidden (and luckily, Context, Estimate, Start Date, Due Date and Completion Date [I]can[/I] be hidden — I'm hoping future updates fix the rest).[/QUOTE]

But those fields can’t be hidden COMPLETELY; they are always present in the Inspector, for example. Are you suggesting that a Priority field should be hidden EVERYWHERE, including in the Inspector? If so, then why is it more important to hide Priority than, say, Estimated Time? And if you aren’t suggesting that, and just want to make sure that Priority isn’t visible in the main interface…well, why would you assume that Priority couldn’t just be hidden like every other optional field? In short, it seems like you are complaining about a problem that doesn’t exist.

[QUOTE=Lecter;58000]Perhaps you prefer a cluttered interface populated with unused fields.
…
Why would one feel that it seems unreasonable to hide (or remove) what one doesn't use? It isn't clear why you have an issue with this. Do you keep things that you don't use? Do you keep unused shrink-wrap, outdated newspapers and expired credit cards? If so, that might explain why you have to clean so often! :)[/QUOTE]

First of all, you can stop with the “maybe you want this because you are so disorganized”*attacks. Secondly, I think it is unreasonable to REMOVE a field that you don’t use. I mean, some people have complained about a hypothetical Priority field, saying that it should only be added if it can be removed completely. That seems unreasonable, given that no other fields can be removed from the interface completely (i.e. they are all visible in the Inspector).

[QUOTE=Lecter;58000]I just took a look at the current versions of Things. No priority fields. I had to dig into the Hit List to find the priority field.[/QUOTE]

Things has tags, which can be used for a priority field.

[QUOTE=Lecter;58000]Here is a example of refined software design. The priority field is there for those who want it, yet completely hidden for those that don't want it.[/QUOTE]

Exactly! So why do you think that OmniFocus wouldn’t have a solution that is just as elegant? Why do you imagine that adding a Priority field to OmniFocus would lead to a “cluttered”*interface (which is why you claimed people were turning to Things and The Hit List), when those other applications include priorities, without being cluttered? It sounds like you just talked yourself out of your biggest complaint: that adding an extra field would make OmniFocus too complicated.

So, we’ve established that users want a Priority field, and we’ve established that a Priority field can be added while still maintaining a refined and elegant software design. So what was your complaint again?

Hey Abates,

You are looking for a feature that is unnecessary for GTD. And OmniFocus is developed and designed with GTD principles, for GTD users. Without GTD, OmniFocus wouldn't exist. Sure, OmniFocus can be shoehorned into other systems and/or productivity processes, but one should expect some personal desires not being met when one tries to shove a square peg into a round hole.

No one is denying you the ability to request the Life Balance feature (and I've given you every opportunity to expand your reasons for the request). You "dredge up" (interesting choice of words for you to use) a thread that has been dormant for quite a while, in which a great amount of passion and thought has been invested by numerous people. By doing this, you are welcoming history and existing opinions along for the ride. Out of curiosity, why jump in the middle of the ocean, when one could have a calmer swim in a less turbulent lake (aka, starting a fresh, clean thread to discuss your ideas)?

Aaaaaaaaand there it is, indeed. When you don't respond to points and counterpoints that serve the needs of your agenda, are you truly surprised that someone disagrees with your position? The last example is the customization of iTunes View Options. I feel that I made great points there. Did you miss them? Or did it just not provide any grist for your agenda? This lack of response on select topics really makes me feel like my points are not worth your time if they don't reinforce your position.

I've invested a lot of time absorbing GTD principles (through seminars, books, audio and Connect). I'm sharing what I've learned when I observe something in processes that I honestly believe could be better than they currently are. These aren't attacks, but suggestions. If you find my suggestions disagreeable, tell me that we should agree to disagree, and I'll drop the specific discussion. Really. However, if you make statements that are misconceptions (or are misleading), expect reciprocal clarifications/discussions.

Speaking of misconceptions, lets try a little experiment. Do you see the little button in the upper left corner of the Inspector palette? Its the one that highlights in red when your mouse cursor is over it. Click that button. Now tell me if you can see the Estimated Time in the Inspector palette. No? That is probably because the Inspector palette is [I]completely[/I] hidden. I've never said that the feature has to be removed — I am talking about hiding them. Since the Inspector palette can be completely hidden, it handles the issue of hiding the unused features that are contained in it.

I do feel that the Inspector palette has its own issues (which have lead me to using keyboard shortcuts instead of the palate), but this is a topic for another thread.

The reason why there is concern over a (potential) priority field always being visible, is exemplified in the existing Flag column. Unlike the Context, Estimate, Start Date, Due Date and Completion Date columns, Flag cannot be hidden. It shows up whenever I move my mouse near it. I'm not sure why the OmniFocus designers & programmers have made this choice, and that is the reason why I am defending the position here (so the Support Ninjas et al can see why they should offer users the choice of which columns are visible).

It is unreasonable to force users to view fields that are unused. If you honestly don't get this, then this is a area where we will need to agree to disagree.

Flexibility is a key way for Omnifocus to grow and evolve. Adding [I]optional[/I] new features is great. [B]Forcing[/B] new features to always be visible (particularly ones that go against OmniFocus' GTD centric design) will result in alienating the existing GTD user-base.

Sure, Things' tags [I]could[/I] be used for priority fields. OmniFocus' contexts and/or flags could be used as priority fields too. This doesn't make them priority fields. When I've seen comments regarding Things or Hit List as the preferred option, priority fields aren't mentioned — complexity and the interface are the motivational factors.

My concern (not complaint) is that OmniGroup may make poor decisions about the planned "metadata" (priority) column. They may make it like the existing Flag column (aka, of limited use and unable to be hidden). By voicing concerns early, users' thoughts can be noted during the designing and planning stages, thus avoiding subsequent recoding and redesign. Its about being proactive versus reactive.

I ran across this article in ATPM:

[url]http://www.atpm.com/15.04/gtd.shtml[/url]

I think it is a fair example of why I've stated my concerns regarding users choosing other applications. Of particular note:

[QUOTE]The problems with OmniFocus are its bells and whistles, the rigidity of its system, and hence the extra time it takes to enter information. As one of the tutorial notes, “[o]nce you have a significant amount of information in your OmniFocus database, it can start to get overwhelming.” That is an understatement.[/QUOTE]

And:
[QUOTE] Like the hero in a Greek tragedy, its greatest strengths are its greatest weaknesses: it has so many features that it is too complicated for most purposes.[/QUOTE]

Read the full article. OmniFocus is given reasonable praise, but the reviewer ends up choosing Things as his final solution.

[QUOTE=wilsonng;58011]The biggest feature was the "review" mode. At the time of decision making, Things didn't really have anything like this. Haven't checked in a while.[/QUOTE]Things still doesn't have a review mode. Their progress seems to have stagnated a bit, but they are hinting that a new version will be released shortly. Unless they have done some major changes, it is unlikely to even be a blip on my personal radar of GTD tools.

I love the three distinctive modes in OmniFocus as well. Things and Hit List feel shallow in that regard. Midnight Inbox has them, but during my evaluation of it (a long time ago — it may have changed), it was excessively rigid in its workflow.

I think if OmniFocus moves towards flexibility and interface customization, the competition will have to step up their efforts several notches. Vibrant competition will benefit us all.

[QUOTE=Lecter;58094]You are looking for a feature that is unnecessary for GTD.[/QUOTE]

David Allen specifically mentions task priorities in Getting Things Done; he does not however mention flags or colorizing tasks based on due dates, yet those features are in OmniFocus. Face it: OmniFocus has numerous features that are not “necessary”*for GTD, but that the people at OmniGroup thought would improve the product. This suggestion is no different.

[QUOTE=Lecter;58094]And OmniFocus is developed and designed with GTD principles, for GTD users.[/QUOTE]

In a word: no. “OmniFocus works great as a Getting Things Done® trusted system but can also be used to fit other task management styles.” It is a task-management system, not just a system “for GTD users.”

[QUOTE=Lecter;58094]Sure, OmniFocus can be shoehorned into other systems and/or productivity processes, but one should expect some personal desires not being met when one tries to shove a square peg into a round hole.[/QUOTE]

Adding one more criterion for list sorting, or added levels of priority is hardly “shoving a square peg into a round hole.” These are features already present in other task-management systems, and OmniFocus could easily include those features without impacting the workflow of GTD users.

[QUOTE=Lecter;58094]Out of curiosity, why jump in the middle of the ocean, when one could have a calmer swim in a less turbulent lake (aka, starting a fresh, clean thread to discuss your ideas)?[/QUOTE]

Because I thought the context of the current thread was important, and I wanted to directly address opinions that others had stated here.

[QUOTE=Lecter;58094]When you don't respond to points and counterpoints that serve the needs of your agenda, are you truly surprised that someone disagrees with your position? The last example is the customization of iTunes View Options. I feel that I made great points there. Did you miss them? Or did it just not provide any grist for your agenda?[/QUOTE]

I didn’t respond to the iTunes example because I brought it up in the first place as a direct response to your claim that adding more fields might make OmniFocus more difficult to use. My point was that iTunes has many more fields than OmniFocus does, and yet it is still easy to use. And you responded by saying…that iTunes is a great example of an application that has many fields and is still easy to use. So, you agreed with my point completely. I’m not sure what kind of response you were looking for there. “Yes, you got my point exactly, and disproved your previous claim. Good job!”

[QUOTE=Lecter;58094]This lack of response on select topics really makes me feel like my points are not worth your time if they don't reinforce your position.[/QUOTE]

I am trying to save everyone time by responding to the salient points and cutting out the extraneous parts. I am not removing parts that “don’t reinforce my position.”

[QUOTE=Lecter;58094]I've invested a lot of time absorbing GTD principles (through seminars, books, audio and Connect). I'm sharing what I've learned when I observe something in processes that I honestly believe could be better than they currently are. These aren't attacks, but suggestions. If you find my suggestions disagreeable, tell me that we should agree to disagree, and I'll drop the specific discussion. Really. However, if you make statements that are misconceptions (or are misleading), expect reciprocal clarifications/discussions.[/QUOTE]

But you’re not making suggestions! For example, I say, “I have certain tasks that I like to do on a regular basis. When I have several of those tasks, I would like to know which one has been done the least recently.”*And what is your response to that? “Oh, those tasks aren’t regular for ME!” “Why do you need to do those on a regular basis?” “Why should you care if one task was done last week, and the other hasn’t been done in a year?” Those aren’t suggestions; those are you saying, “I don’t look at problems the same way that you do, so your way must be wrong.”*It shouldn’t matter what the tasks are: If I want to do X and Y on a regular basis, it would be nice to know which one has been done the least recently. You can’t refute my argument by saying that I shouldn’t want to know that.

[QUOTE=Lecter;58094]Speaking of misconceptions, lets try a little experiment. Do you see the little button in the upper left corner of the Inspector palette? Its the one that highlights in red when your mouse cursor is over it. Click that button. Now tell me if you can see the Estimated Time in the Inspector palette. No? That is probably because the Inspector palette is completely hidden.[/QUOTE]

Ignoring the part where you’re talking down to me…yes, I know that the field is completely hidden when the Inspector palette is closed. But it will be right back there when you open that palette! Is that okay with you? Great, then we have nothing to argue about. Does it bother you? Then I want to know why THAT unnecessary field bothers you, but the OTHER unnecessary fields don’t.


[QUOTE=Lecter;58094]I've never said that the feature has to be removed — I am talking about hiding them.[/QUOTE]

Uh, yes you did. “Why would one feel that it seems unreasonable to hide (or remove) what one doesn’t use?” If you just want the field to be hidden, then I don’t see what the problem is; most of the extra fields in OF can already be hidden, so why would Priority be any different?

[QUOTE=Lecter;58094]The reason why there is concern over a (potential) priority field always being visible,[/QUOTE]

I don’t think anyone has argued or suggested that a Priority field would have to always be visible.

[QUOTE=Lecter;58094]It is unreasonable to force users to view fields that are unused.[/QUOTE]

I agree completely. I have never argued that a Priority field must always be visible in the interface.

[QUOTE=Lecter;58094]Sure, Things' tags could be used for priority fields. OmniFocus' contexts and/or flags could be used as priority fields too. This doesn't make them priority fields.[/QUOTE]

Things already comes pre-loaded with tags for priority. In fact, Things tags can specifically be used for multi-level priority fields, for however many priority levels I want. I could choose to just do tasks with a priority of B22 for example, if I were so inclined. So yes, that DOES make them priority fields. On the other hand, OmniFocus contexts could be used as priority fields…but then you lose the ability to use them as Contexts. And you could use flags as priority fields too…as long as all of your priorities are either 1 or 2, A or B, Vitally Important or It Can Wait. So I guess technically OmniFocus does have a priority field…a half-assed, barely worthwhile priority field. I am simply suggesting that they allow a more flexible priority field.

[QUOTE=Lecter;58094]When I've seen comments regarding Things or Hit List as the preferred option, priority fields aren't mentioned[/QUOTE]

Wow, then you haven’t been looking hard enough. There have been plenty of comparisons between OmniFocus and other task management systems, and many, many of them specifically mention the fact that OmniFocus does not allow explicit setting of priorities.

[QUOTE=Lecter;58094]My concern (not complaint) is that OmniGroup may make poor decisions about the planned "metadata" (priority) column. They may make it like the existing Flag column (aka, of limited use and unable to be hidden).[/QUOTE]

I am suggesting a priority field that will be much less “limited” than the Flag field, but you keep shooting me down! And why would you assume that Priority would always be visible (like the Flag column), instead of easily hideable (like nearly every other column)? It sounds like you are arguing against yourself. “The Flag column is of limited use…but don’t suggest a more flexible replacement!”

[QUOTE=Lecter;58094]I ran across this article in ATPM:

I think it is a fair example of why I've stated my concerns regarding users choosing other applications.[/QUOTE]

And I ran across these articles. I think they are fair examples of why I think OmniFocus should have a Priority field:

[QUOTE]OF has a Flag capability that is binary, it’s flagged or its not. I used this to indicate priority, but invariably too many tasks get Flagged and it begins to lose its meaning without very careful management. The Tag capability lets you implement whatever scheme you like. This is a HUGE benefit of Things for me.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]The thing that gets me, though, is that OmniFocus does not seem to provide any way to prioritize tasks.…From what I can discern, OmniFocus doesn’t provide for any native prioritization of tasks. (It's especially ironic when syncing with iCal's own task list, which does in fact offer prioritization. It's not exactly an obscure feature, is it?) Now of course I could subvert the context feature of the system and use that to establish prioritization instead of work context, but that's not ideal, either.

I'd like to have both! I'd like to look at my tasks by priority, broken down by context ... and then flip over to tasks by context, broken down by priority. Alas this doesn't seem to be in the offing, at least in the first release. With dozens of things to get done, having a big long laundry list of unprioritized tasks could end up being more depressing than empowering.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Two iGTD fields I'd like to see in OmniFocus are "Priority" and "Effort". There are some things I'd like to do today, and some I really need to do today. There's no field for this, and I'm finding I have to just keep this information up in my head. For example getting this review done — I had an item set up for this, but I just kept pushing it forward. I knew it was something I really wanted to get done, but I couldn't really see that because it was in my head. I settled on my own system where I put a number in front of the task and increased it each time I deferred a task. That really seemed to work, but I'd like the system to support this for me.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]So I've been playing with OmniFocus alpha to see if it can work for me as a personal productivity/task manager, but as I noted before, the system lacks a way to prioritize tasks. It seems rather obvious to me that you want to identify the important must-do items before you start filling in your day. I could spend all day answering the phone, reading and writing emails, catching up on my feeds, having meetings, doing conference calls ... and not getting done the things that need to get done.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]Unfortunately OmniFocus offers no real prioritization unless you want to define contexts even further like "Mac : Internet : High Priority". Not sure I want to do that.[/QUOTE]

These did not take very long to find. It is obvious that OmniFocus needs a Priority field, if only because of the various workarounds people have already suggested. But the best argument for OF adding Priority is this one:

[QUOTE=Lecter;58094]I think if OmniFocus moves towards flexibility and interface customization, the competition will have to step up their efforts several notches. Vibrant competition will benefit us all.[/QUOTE]

EXACTLY! This is why OmniFocus should be flexible: so that users can have features that other applications already have, like a Priority field!

Wheeeeee - That's some response!
I agree entirely that OF needs some sort prioritization. I also would like to see some sort of "secondary sort" (OMG did I disturb the PROTECTORS OF GTD?)

I vaguely remember it being mentioned that tags were in the plan down the road- That's great. I also remember, the idea of a "custom column" being mentioned, which could handle many of the requested issues. Please correct me if I am wrong on these! (Somehow I think that will come without asking).
Again, I am like many users here, I have licenses for multiple task managers, always seeking one that really works for ME.
We all want that = What works best for the INDIVIDUAL. "Apple" type programs have always been characterized customization aspects.

I believe Omnifocus is the best task management I've ever used. I love the responsiveness of it's developers. I dropped Things because of the developers lack of response.
I have used Omni Group products for years and trust their development process as well as the depth of the company.

Saying that, there are still features that can make OF better. I mentioned this before, I have great ease and satisfaction in PLANNING" -I would love to see tags and Priorities in OF -but in retrieving info- I think OF is in dire need of improvements.
(Wait, I've got to put on a bullet proof vest and amour before I make the next statement).
I am now trying The Hit List - the kid has got something! I am able to understand what I have to do, I can retrieve information much faster with THL - and dare I say, it is easier on the eyes. In the good old apple spirit - it is more "fun" to use.
Does THL have an iPhone version? No.
Omnifocus has an iphone version that has the most amazing rock solid sync.
I am amazed how good it is. Does the iPhone version need a little work? Yeah. Also I have no idea if the Potion Factory which makes THL with be here 3 years from now.
So what is my only "complaint" - okay call it a whine!
Development on these programs seems to be at a glacial pace.
We have the nightly bug fixes but it seems things have slowed.
Yeah, I realize these guys are probably looking hard at both Snow Leopard and the new 3.0 iPhone software but still........

Wow, good to see the GTD vs. Priortization battle still raging strong!

I can hear Cartman from South Park..."Respect My Priortah!"

Just to reignite the fire =)

Here's another voice for adding some sort of advanced prioritisation feature to OF:

It would be great to have a column to select a high/medium/low priority. At the moment I (and so many other OF users) have to revert to either using 1m, 2m or 3m in 'Duration' of flags (which is a waste of flags) to indicate projects that ought to stand out more. These are both cumbersome methods and only cheap work-arounds. Furthermore they don't all work if you want to find your priorities on the iPhone!

I know you say it's not the pure GTD way of doing things, but one optional column squeezed between due date and duration won't make OF too complex as a piece of software. Also this will give none of those fence sitters a reason to even consider any other to-to-list/GTD software like Things or iGTD (The lack of this feature is often even being ridiculed in many reviews).

It's simple - if it's in such a great demand (this seems like the longest discussion in the forums), just offer the column and everyone will be happy =) For those who don't want it - they can always hide it in "view".

What is the current status on adding this feature anyway? Is it even being considered for 1.x or 2.0?

Robert

Abates:

The advantage of OmniFocus' implementation of task colorization is that if the user doesn't want it, they can be turned off by adjusting the styles preferences. On the other hand, the flags column cannot be hidden, so I feel that it is poorly implemented. Even if you choose to not use flags, their shadowy ghost is present whenever a item is hovered over or is active.

In a word, yes. Kinkless (which OmniFocus was directly designed from) started and evolved as a GTD specific product. I think this focus has lead to its current success. Afterwards, the marketing ninjas at OmniGroup started to advertise it as a more generic task management solution. If OmniFocus starts trying be be a "Jack of All Tasks" and not a "Master of GTD" — then I suspect that it will eventually fade into a bland and generic toy that doesn't serve the real needs of anyone.

I think the context here is that you were reaching for an audience for the LifeBalance feature, and saw this thread a way to pursue that. After all, why not jump on a huge river of posts to take advantage of the built-in momentum.

Regarding iTunes, my point was that with all of the fields visible, it [B]does[/B] present a [I]confusing[/I] interface. Have you tried that? Turning all of the iTunes fields on? I have. Showing more fields makes for a overly busy and cluttered interface. Adding obscure fields that serve limited purposes will add confusion to the interface. Feature creep and refined software design don't mix well.

Regarding the comments about talking down, I suspect this is a misunderstanding due to this discussion being on the internet. I am being jovial with those comments. Should I put a [wink, wink!] or [nudge, nudge!] tag around comments? I suspect that if we were face to face, we would be enjoying some camaraderie and laughing during this discussion. If you don't recognize the smiles with my comments, consider that I am not talking down nor insulting you. This is my way of having a lively discussion—debates, smiles and prods are part of it.

I am sharing my thoughts and my processes as examples. They are things that I have found to work. If you choose to ignore them, that doesn't mean that I am not trying to make suggestions/educate by what I chose to do. When you make a statement that you want to see which item has been done least recently, my responses were meant to show why "least recently" isn't worth tracking when using GTD. If you choose to not learn from or use GTD, that is your personal choice. I'm sharing my personal choices too. I took the time to transcribe the thoughts from David's seminar because I felt they would provide some inspiration in this regard. With his strategies, I feel 100% confident that I am always on track, always doing the best task/next action, and none of it requires tracking which item was done least recently.

I do wish that [B]all[/B] of the fields in OmniFocus were able to be hidden. This could allow for some very interesting perspectives views. Currently, the most annoying one for me is that the Flags column cannot be hidden. I would hate to see the proposed meta-field (or any future additions to OmniFocus) be designed the same way.

Regarding the numerous quotes from the referenced article, I stand by the conclusion, which speaks volumes beyond all the extracted tidbits/musings:

[QUOTE] The problems with OmniFocus are its bells and whistles, the rigidity of its system, and hence the extra time it takes to enter information. As one of the tutorial notes, “[o]nce you have a significant amount of information in your OmniFocus database, it can start to get overwhelming.” That is an understatement.[/QUOTE]The author reaches a pretty serious conclusion there. Sure, there were other thoughts along the way, but the author arrived at this point (one that didn't end up with OmniFocus as the winner). Adding more bells and whistles will increase the user's feeling of being overwhelmed.

If the (current) tool itself makes users feel overwhelmed, adding unnecessary fields, obscure features and complexity will further alienate users. Keep in mind, I am not against progress and improvements. I'm just hoping that conversations such as this forum thread help the OmniFocus code ninjas make their design choices with thorough consideration and great care.

As Einstein said, "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." But what does he know?

•••

To get back to the subject of prioritization, here are some articles that will hopefully add some substance to this thread, rather than just fanning the flames of the fire:

From [URL="http://www.davidco.com/blogs/kelly/archives/2009/04/best_worst_prac_5.html"]Kelly Forrister[/URL]:

[QUOTE] So how do I know my priorities? Ah, the golden question. Only you know your priorities. GTD helps you define where your attention is with the Horizons of Focus. But ultimately, no system will tell you what to do. Only YOU know what to do based on how you have captured what has your attention, made decisions on all that, organized those answers in a place you trust and then reviewed them on some kind of regular basis so you trust they are current based on what's important to you personally and professionally. Then, doing becomes a matter of trusting your hard-wired intuitive judgment. If you do it any other way, it cannot be sustained. If intuition is too fluffy of a word for you, call it something else: your knowing, your heart, your gut, your instinct. It's that part of you that just KNOWS that you're making the best choice and just does it.[/QUOTE]

From [URL="http://www.43folders.com/2009/04/28/priorities"]Merlin Mann[/URL]:

[QUOTE][B]A priority is observed, not manufactured or assigned. Otherwise, it’s necessarily not a priority.[/B]

Got that? You can’t “prioritize” a list of 20 tasks any more than you can “uniqueify” 20 objects by “uniqueness,” or “pregnantitze” 20 women by “pregnantness.” Each of those words means something.

An item is either unique or it is not. A woman is either pregnant or she is not. An item is either the priority or it is not. One-bit. Mutually exclusive. One ring to rule them all.[/QUOTE]

The power of a good piece of software comes from it's flexibility and ease of use. Having many ways of doing certain things will be less frustrating for it's users. Having to be limited by one persons way of thinking when it comes to organizing my life seems a bit dogmatic.

When switching on my computer in the morning and looking at my list of things to do today, I don't want have to make all my phones calls at one time or rely on my intuition to guide me on the next best thing!

My usual way of working is to prioritize all my tasks the night before, so on the next day I can work my way down the list from 'important' to 'less important'. What I don't manage to complete that day then overflows to the next day.

The context system is useful, but it's not something I can rely on.

Also I don't want to have to double entry my tasks into 2 different pieces of software either. The integration with iCal seems clumsy to me.

Why can't a 'planner', 'task management' and 'calender' be integrated into one piece of software?

As it is now, having to spread all information across separate programs just seems too time consuming. I thought the aim was to reduce work hours.



But for an immediate fix: a [B]priority column[/B].

Also a day of the week column, it gets frustrating for me to have no visual representation of the day tasks fall on. Just showing the date and not the day of the week is not enough information for me. Having to cross reference to iCal is annoying.


I am using the trial version of Omnifocus, but I have no desire to buy at this point. Right now using an Excel spread sheet for my tasks seems more appropriate as I can customize the columns.

OmniFocus isn't the tool for everyone, just as GTD isn't the productivity system for everyone. If OmniFocus doesn't suit you, please drop Omni a note at [email]omnifocus@omnigroup.com[/email] (or use Help->Send Feedback) outlining your concerns and suggestions, and you might also thank them for providing a full-function trial version that enabled you to recognize this without spending any of your hard-earned cash.

If the lack of a priority column is the only thing standing between you and being a happy OmniFocus user, it's easy to repurpose the duration/estimate column as a priority column. Omni has promised to deliver a general purpose metadata column which could be used for tagging or priorities, but it's pretty safe to bet that it won't put in an appearance before 2.0, which will be a long wait if you're convinced that you need a built-in priority column.

[QUOTE=whpalmer4;62975] and you might also thank them for providing a full-function trial version that enabled you to recognize this without spending any of your hard-earned cash.[/QUOTE]

It's a standard service these days, and in their best interest to offer this.

But maybe you can thank them for me, and then I'll thank you for thanking them for me.

thanks!

[QUOTE=kinosabi;62977]It's a standard service these days, and in their best interest to offer this.
[/quote]
I agree it is in their best interest to offer it, but it certainly isn't a universal practice! With the exception of the Omni products, none of the purchased software I used today offers a full-function trial.

OmniFocus 2.0.............. a distant dream - but oh my is it going to be like Christmas when the day comes that it is released!!! Let's just hope it doesn't disappoint... but I'm confident it won't. They've made good improvements in the past and I hope all will be in that beloved 2.0!

Gosh if I were a programmer, I'd apply to that open vacancy at OmniGroup straight away, just to get that beautiful piece of software out earlier =)

Go Omnigroup! =)

Not sure I'm going to wait much longer
 

I'm starting to lose interest in OF 2.0, and wonder if there's something else out there. I've been asking for this for YEARS, and it's been said it will come, but it's taking way too long.

[QUOTE=jpathomas;63585]I've been asking for this for YEARS, and it's been said it will come, but it's taking way too long.[/QUOTE]

It sounds like 1.7 will be in public sneaky peek Real Soon Now. I'd expect 2.0 development to move forward more quickly after that. I'm guessing they have 2.0 prototypes in house to experiment with smart folders, custom meta-data, and other goodies. Omni has some amazingly talented/dedicated people, but I'm afraid the complexity of maintaining compatibility and synchronization between desktop and iPhone versions means slower release cycles. There's also the challenge of Apple's App Store approval for each iPhone release.

(And "YEARS"? Really? OF has only [URL="http://forums.omnigroup.com/showthread.php?t=3359"]publicly existed[/URL] for about 27 months, and if [URL="http://forums.omnigroup.com/showthread.php?t=8130"]your first post on this [/URL]is accurate, you've only been using it for just under 14 months.)

Okay, I'm short a bit on "years" lol. Let me rephrase that: I've been waiting for this since I first started using OF, and if you check my first post I think I asked how to do task prioritization then. That being said, I've done my GTD homework, I've been using OF on my mac and my iphone for a significant amount of time now, and I still want my freekin' task prioritization. Yes I know, it's not "pure" GTD, that being said it works for me.

And I want my iPhone to sync faster, but that's another matter.

[QUOTE=jpathomas;63663]
And I want my iPhone to sync faster, but that's another matter.[/QUOTE]
How long does it take, and how long do you think it should take? Have you followed the various steps in the slow sync thread?

[QUOTE=Lecter;62745]Abates:
If OmniFocus starts trying be be a "Jack of All Tasks" and not a "Master of GTD" — then I suspect that it will eventually fade into a bland and generic toy that doesn't serve the real needs of anyone.[/QUOTE]

And I suspect that you are wrong. The software industry is rife with examples of programs that added functionality without becoming homogenized or useless.

[QUOTE=Lecter;62745]Regarding iTunes, my point was that with all of the fields visible, it [B]does[/B] present a [I]confusing[/I] interface. Have you tried that? Turning all of the iTunes fields on? I have. Showing more fields makes for a overly busy and cluttered interface.[/QUOTE]

And yet iTunes continues to add those fields. If they make the interface “busy and cluttered,” then why has Apple added them? Do they not know anything about software design or usability? No, it’s because they know that you can add features without adding complexity. The fields are customizable, and users don’t need to see fields they don’t want. A priority field in Omnifocus is the same.

[QUOTE=Lecter;62745]I am sharing my thoughts and my processes as examples. They are things that I have found to work. If you choose to ignore them, that doesn't mean that I am not trying to make suggestions/educate by what I chose to do.[/QUOTE]

And I could say the same: I have provided examples of why a priority field (or recurring tasks sorted by least recently completed, for example) IS useful to me and DOES help me get things done. Yet you continue to ignore those claims, and argue that I’m “doing it wrong.”

[QUOTE=Lecter;62745]With his strategies, I feel 100% confident that I am always on track, always doing the best task/next action, and none of it requires tracking which item was done least recently.[/QUOTE]

Good for you. I have found it useful to know which recurring tasks have been done recently, and which haven’t been done in a long time. Without information like this, it is easy to fall into the trap of doing the easy tasks first, and avoiding the difficult ones. A priority field helps me with this.

[QUOTE=Lecter;62745]Currently, the most annoying one for me is that the Flags column cannot be hidden. I would hate to see the proposed meta-field (or any future additions to OmniFocus) be designed the same way.[/QUOTE]

No one has suggested that it won’t be hidable. Can you please drop this complaint now?

[QUOTE=Lecter;62745]If the (current) tool itself makes users feel overwhelmed, adding unnecessary fields, obscure features and complexity will further alienate users.[/QUOTE]

Your belief about which are “unnecessary fields” does not match the belief of a large number of users.

[QUOTE=Lecter;62745]To get back to the subject of prioritization, here are some articles that will hopefully add some substance to this thread, rather than just fanning the flames of the fire:[/QUOTE]

Yes, I get it: More quotes by people telling me that I shouldn’t want or need a priority field. Well guess what? I’m a big boy. I can figure out what fields I do or don’t want. I don’t need Merlin Mann to tell me what features I shouldn’t need.

Would those who are interested in such a priority field be interested in some sort of short video about how people have used OF to handle priority information? I'd be willing to work with a couple of people on that if folks would be interested.

In regard to the iphone sync question, yep, I've followed all the advice and tips. I'm syncing on a regular schedule (twice a day), I don't have any files or attachments that are syncing with my database, and I'm archiving old task. Still it seems to take three to 5 minutes to sync. Just for the record I have a 32gig 3GS.

As for a video on how others use OF's current functionality to handle prioritization I'd watch one if it were available. I'm always interested in how other people handle these challenges.

[QUOTE=jpathomas;63796]I'm syncing on a regular schedule (twice a day), I don't have any files or attachments that are syncing with my database, and I'm archiving old task. Still it seems to take three to 5 minutes to sync.[/QUOTE]

I posted this same reply in another thread but thought I'd add it here too. While I don't have an immediate solution for you, here are my results for a point of comparison:

According to OmniFocus on my iPhone 3GS, I've currently got 369 projects and 2290 actions in 19 zip files. I sync over a cable broadband connection to MobileMe, and then to a recent model MacBook Pro.

Doing a sync right now from my iPhone took ~21 seconds and compacted my number of zip files down to 1.

Doing a sync on my MacBook Pro took ~4.5 seconds and also compacted its local database down to 1 zip file.

Additional syncs from the iPhone now take 2 - 4 seconds. Additional syncs from my MacBook Pro now take 1.5 - 2 seconds.

I have no embedded attachments but many, many links and notes.

So something is definitely not right if your sync are taking several [I]minutes[/I] to complete. Have you contacted the Omni ninjas for help? How many zip files do you currently have? Have you checked what clients you have registered for syncing; maybe you have a stale client in there?

-Dennis

[QUOTE=jpathomas;63796]Still it seems to take three to 5 minutes to sync. [/QUOTE]

If there are no stale or duplicate client files when you open sync prefs on your mac and press "Show Clients" then something very unusual is going on here. Email the [EMAIL="omnifocus@omnigroup.com"]support ninjas[/EMAIL] and we can help.

OK: all those in favor of prioritization, line up over here. How dare you? Haven't you read and understood or, if not, at the very least, memorized, Mr. David Allen's book? Line up and get ready for your spankings, to be followed by tar and feathering, excommunication and being cast into outer darkness. By the numbers, march......

[QUOTE=Lucas;63782]Would those who are interested in such a priority field be interested in some sort of short video about how people have used OF to handle priority information? I'd be willing to work with a couple of people on that if folks would be interested.[/QUOTE]

I'd definitely be interested in seeing how others go about working with priority information.

Regards
omniinmo

[QUOTE=abates17;63768]
Your belief about which are “unnecessary fields” does not match the belief of a large number of users.[/quote]

And yours don't match those of an equally large number. Why does that make you right? Would you also complain to Apple that Keynote needs more word processing features, or to a sports car manufacturer that their roadster should be better offroad?

[QUOTE=Flexattend;63939]OK: all those in favor of prioritization, line up over here. How dare you? Haven't you read and understood or, if not, at the very least, memorized, Mr. David Allen's book? Line up and get ready for your spankings, to be followed by tar and feathering, excommunication and being cast into outer darkness. By the numbers, march......[/QUOTE]

Ah, an absurdist. Welcome to our fish.

Abates:

A priority field in Omnifocus isn't the same until we can see how it is implemented. Given that the current field that is closest to a priority field (the flag) cannot be hidden, I feel more than justified in voicing my concerns over how future fields may be implemented.

Just because something purportedly works for you doesn't provide a end-all justification. Are you here to discuss the topics, or just further your personal agenda? We can agree to disagree, or we can provide some substance for this discussion. Thus far, all I am getting from you is a claim that priorities work for you. Exactly how would a priority field improve your process? Have you tried the ideas that have been presented? How do they compare to your current system? Save any time? Make you more efficient? Cause you grief? How exactly did it help or hinder your decision process? Have you read the articles that I've referenced and [I]really[/I] thought about them? Instead of dismissing them, absorb them, find flaws, gather data, bring some vibrant insights and lets have a productive discussion.

After struggling with priorities in previous systems such as my old beloved Franklin-Covery planner, I've found that priorities hinders me.

I used to think that priorities would help me "determine" or "wisely" choose the best next action for me to do. Anything that has a High ranking should be screaming at me to do it.

Yet, I decided that a C1 task is better suited for me. This was based on intuition, current energy levels, my time available, or location.

I remembered reviewing Chapter 9 of David Allen's "Getting Things Done." It's the chapter titled "Doing: Making the Best Action Choices." This should explain to you how to choose your best next action.

David Allen expands further on why priority labels just doesn't seem to really help you choose the best next action. Read his other book "Making It All Work." Pages 189 to 192 has a section labelled "The Priority Challenge." It is a more revealing statement.

Only "you" know what your priorities are at any given time. Not a computer. Often times, your priorities will change day to day or hour to hour. What happens if your A1 project gets cancelled by your boss? Then you'd have to take the time to resort all your priority labels on your task list or OmniFocus database. Sometimes you'll have to bump up a task/project to A1 status and essentially move everything else down one notch.

What David Allen is trying to say is that it is futile to try to track down something so superfluous and can change at any moment's notice.

Instead of choosing your best next action based on "priority" labels, choose the best next action based on:

Context
Time Available
Energy Available


I can have an A1 project screaming at me on my task list but if I have a 15 minute time window between appointments, I'll go ahead and do something small like a series of phone calls that I can wrap up quickly before the next appointment arrives.

Or I may have just finished a huge mind-draining task, I'll choose a lightweight task to do until I can recharge my mental batteries.

Or I might be at the grocery mart and my A1 project can only be done in the office. I'll go ahead and look at my task list to see if there is any tasks I can eliminate while I'm at the grocery mart.

I've been ignoring priority labels for quite a while now and I certainly don't miss it.

WIth that being said, I'd say go ahead and put a priority column in OmniFocus. I will surely hide it from view and never even touch it. That'll keep those priority folks happy. I wish them all the best of luck trying to track their "priorities."

I certainly am on the "priority-less" fence and I'm loving it on this side.

I understand your concern with priorities being a fluid concept and I agree that it would be far too cumbersome to track and change these every time your world changes - which would be constantly.

However we're not talking about a cascading priritization where you have 1000 tasks and 1000 priorities. You want 3 groups: 1) High priority 2) Medium priority 3) Low priority [in a beautifully removable column - tags would do too, lets hope for them in OF 2.0]

Of course you don't always do high priority tasks when you are in a hurry and have little energy etc., but at least they don't slip off your radar. It wouldn't matter if a low priority task slipped away - oh you forgot the milk, guess we'll have toast tomorrow morning... but WOW would it be terrible if you forgot to buy your wife that anniversary present! - I bet you're wishing this task was in your high priority group now...

In a way it's like out of sight - out of mind. Oh gosh, but that's a good thing you may think, that's just what GTD wants to do right? Clear your mind, so you become creative and can think of other things! Ok, fair enough, lovely theory, but now tell me how your mind, which is much better at setting priorities compared to a computer, is going to assign importance to tasks that are 'out of your mind'.

To me GTD is about freeing your mind, knowing you have it all 'right there' if you're looking for it. But you still want to be thinking about these things - they do after all in a big part compose your life. And you want to think more about the more important tasks than the low priority ones, right?

Yes you have reviews, but they are only daily or weekly and are also fairly rigid if you predicted yourself to be in another scenario for the week/day. Sometimes things happen that no review can predict. Suddenly you have a task that comes from nowhere and BAM is there, with the highest priority you can imagine.

Keep your eye on the ball! This is where priorities come in: you can instantly see what you assigned as a 'high priority' in your life if you group them.

It would be lovely to be "priority-less", but I'm sure you are then one of the people who tries to milk the 'dogs' and not the 'cash cows'.

I'm not for rigid prioritization, but priority groupings and aims for the day are a useful structure - that's why so many people desire this feature.

A Priority Grouping and a Today List - I'm not saying they are a pure alternative - but they are a GREAT addition to what we already have. Omnifocus is incredibly versatile, that's why so many love it. Just extend that versatility a wee bit further and you have a dream piece of software!

Yes, I understand that and completely agreed with the idea of just putting a priorities column and let each user deal with OmniFocus as they wish.

Priorities for me is much simpler.

"Low" priority projects/tasks are placed in my Someday/Maybe folder. It has an "on hold" status and incubates in the Someday/Maybe folder in OmniFocus. I can review it at any time. If I want to "upgrade the priority", I put the project/task in active status and move it out of my Someday/Maybe folder. This will show up in my contexts. Otherwise I can let it sit in Someday/Maybe and evaluate it at a later time to determine if this low priority project/task is worth doing at all (my goals/objectives/priorities may change).

When I change a project/task's status from "On Hold" to "Active" and move it out of the Someday/Maybe folder, this becomes a medium priority project/task. It is important but not urgent.

If there is something I really need to get done (buy anniversary present for my wife), I flag this project/task. This project/task is in the high priority status for me.

I've also created different perspectives to handle high, medium, and low priorities.

The High Priority (Urgent and Important) perspective shows all contexts with the flagged status on. All of my high priority tasks/projects are grouped here. This includes buying that anniversary present for my wife.

The Medium Priority (Not Urgent but Important) perspective shows all contexts with available actions. All of my medium priority tasks/projects are grouped here. This includes buying milk.

The Low Priority (Not Urgent and Not Important) perspectives shows all projects in the Someday/Maybe folder. All of my low priority tasks/projects are grouped here. This includes those little tasks that my wife keeps bugging me to do. Low priority items have the "On Hold" status to prevent it from showing up in my context list. No need to clutter up my context view with low priority items. But it does show up in project view for me to review.



That's just me. I'm just showing how I handle "priorities" in my life. So I can neatly see all of my high, medium, and low priorities without needing the priorities column.

Eagerly awaiting OF 2.0 and seeing if this does show up and we can end this thread.

My system works similarly to wilsonng's, so I don't have much use for a priorities column either. That's why I still think Omni's proposed metadata column is the best implementation for the priorities request. It sounds versatile enough that people who really want a priority column can use it for that, and the rest of us still gain something of value as well (use it for tagging, people, locations, weather, moon phase, or whatever you want). Presumably, you could just turn it off and not use it at all too. Everbody wins and we can finally let this thread die in peace.

-Dennis

[QUOTE=Toadling;64180]Everbody wins and we can finally let this thread die in peace.

-Dennis[/QUOTE]

Hear that, Omni Folks? Bring on the sneaky peek with the metadata column! :-)

[QUOTE=wilsonng;64179]When I change a project/task's status from "On Hold" to "Active" and move it out of the Someday/Maybe folder, this becomes a medium priority project/task. It is important but not urgent.[/QUOTE]

I do priorities somewhat similarly to Wilsong and somewhat differently. I do put things on hold that I don't intend to do anytime soon, kind of highly de-prioritizing them, but I don't really use flags to highlight priority items. For me, using flags actually makes it harder to prioritize things.

I really rely on the order of my projects and contexts to indicate priority, though. My projects are ordered from the top down in declining priority. In my contexts, I have one context group of things that really require focus and attention, which I keep near the top. Under that, I have a context group of things that requires less focused attention. After that, I have my calls context. Then I have some other contexts that are really low priority, like things to read and webcasts to watch or listen to, which I de-prioritize because I could really do them at any time.

This arrangement really helps me stay focused on priority tasks with the context view: I select my high-attention context when it's time to focus and group by project; the most important projects are at the top of the list. The best part, is its generally only two to five items in each project. If I knock out only those handful of tasks that require the most work on the project, then it is much easier to follow through and eliminate the project entirely. It's also really important not to neglect your out-of-the-office contexts, but having those important projects at the top really makes it easy for me to judge how important it is to leave and get that stuff done.

The one thing that I would say about this arrangement versus setting numbered priorities is that it seems just as or more accurate and takes less time. For example, if you're like me and you have more than ten projects, and none of them are the same amount as important as the others, even if you weren't distinguishing between the individual tasks, you would run out of numbers. You would be saying that some things are the same importance as other things, which aren't. Then, it seems like you would have to just remember which are more important, despite having the same numerical importance setting.

Said another way, I feel like there isn't anything in priority that isn't because of where its project is situated and what context you have to do it in. Oh, of course, if it has a deadline. I cannot distinguish for myself, though, the difference in information that's going into project, context, and deadline (if dated), and which is going into priority. Furthermore, you have a choice of as many projects and contexts as you like, while on the choices of explicit priorities are one to ten or "unimportant" to "really super important!", which doesn't seem like the same amount of space.

I'm not trying to say people shouldn't have something and I know that people are comfortable with what they're comfortable with. But my view is, I really think you're missing out if you don't give one of the other methods included in this forum a try.

Criteria for Prioritizing and their Order
 

[QUOTE=Ken Case;15403]OmniFocus has a notion of priority already: it's the order in which you arrange your items. If you want something to have a higher priority, simply move it up in the list.

This gives you much finer-grained control than a typical priority system, which typically only has a few levels of priority: OmniFocus effectively has as many priorities as you have items.

Does that make sense?[/QUOTE]
Prioritising is an interesting process in GTD.

Ken Case's point that OmniFocus has its inherent prioritising system built-in invisibly by the order in which the user can arrange their Projects and Tasks works - if the user alone can decide what job is worth doing first. It would still be good if OmniFocus could tell us what to do next, prioritising tasks for us. The question is, how? Without purporting to be prescriptive, the posting below (i) identifies factors involved in prioritising, (ii) proposes a way to set them up in OmniOutliner (until OmniFocus can do this) and (iii) enables the reader to generate a list of tasks in 'what-to-do-next' order.

On the surface (sic.), it would seem that prioritising is a question of balancing just two factors: urgency and priority. Urgency is the apparent immediate importance of a task. E.g. if you have run out of milk for breakfast the following day, it may be 'urgent' for you to buy some now, though you could perfectly well survive without it and it's certainly not going to help you reach your life goals. Urgency is usually seen in terms of deadline, but ignores priority. 'Priority' is the place that task has in the scheme of things to help you to reach your previously-identified life goals. Priorities define your epitaph!

Above, I say 'on the surface', because of course there are several other factors in play in prioritising. They include when the task is due to be done by, how long it takes to do the task, which [U]project[/U] the task belongs to and what Timothy Ferriss in his book 'The Four Hour Work Week' (2008) has called '[B]Eliminate[/B], [B]Automate[/B], [B]Streamline[/B], [B]Delegate[/B]' - EASD. This latter is a process for getting rid of activities you'd rather avoid in your life.

• '[B]eliminate[/B]' means 'don't bother';
• '[B]automate[/B]' means find a way for technology to do this for you, e.g. make an FAQ and an autoresponder email, and ask people to read that rather than to bother you for a repeated answer;
• '[B]streamline[/B]' means find a way to do this yourself, but quickly, and in a way that you set up mechanisms for yourself to be able to do that task more quickly and easily in the future;
• '[B]delegate[/B]' means just that: find someone more specialised and pay them to do this for you.

Below is an approach I have found for prioritising tasks and automatically organising them into 'what-to-do-next' order. Effectively it seems to order tasks automatically so that urgent, important (priority) things are done first, in duration order (i.e. the tasks that can be done quickly are listed first, so that you can get them out of the way and thus become more effective). Lastly, tasks that are in line with your life goals are put first. If this does not make sense, read the final sections of this posting.

To start with, set up seven columns in OmniOutliner left-to-right as follows:

[B]Task, Due, Priority, Duration, Job, EASD, Delegatee.
[/B]
Next, set up Pop-Up Lists, [U]in the order given[/U] top to bottom, in OmniOutliner's 'Column Type' inspector for the following columns only, viz:

[U]1. Due[/U] (15 items in pop-up list)
[INDENT][COLOR="Navy"]• Today
• Tomorrow
• This Week
• Next Week
• This Month
• 6 Weeks
• Next Month
• 2 months
• 3 months
• 4 months
• 5 months
• This Year
• Next Year
• -ongoing-
• Whenever[/COLOR][/INDENT]

[U]2. Priority[/U] (4 items in pop-up list)
[INDENT][COLOR="Navy"]• Urgent (= do now)
• Must do
• Should do
• Could do[/COLOR][/INDENT]

[U]3. Duration[/U] (open)
[INDENT][COLOR="Navy"]Set this solumn type to 'duration' in the 'Column Type' inspector. The column will take imput such as '1d' (= 1 day), '6h' (= 6 hours), '1w' (= 1 week), '7m' (= 7 months) etc.[/COLOR]
[/INDENT]
[U]4. Job[/U] (custom)
[INDENT][COLOR="Navy"]In the 'Column Type' inspector, make a pop-up list of your fixed life goals (1-2 words per goal). Put your most important life goals at the top of the list and least important ones at the bottom. Remember, this is about what you want to achieve in your life, not necessarily about what you feel you ought to do. - The two may be the same though. You should be very general about these life goals (not too much detail). Have a maximum of 3-5. The job here is a 'category of life goal', e.g. 'Forest' for forest building, and 'Supermarket' for making money for a supermarket corporate account - one of these will take precedence over the other for you.[/COLOR][/INDENT]

[U]5. EASD[/U] (4 items in pop-up list. These will not affect 'what to do next' order)
[INDENT][COLOR="Navy"]In the 'Column Type' inspector, make a pop-up list of Eliminate, Automate, Streamline, Delegate. In that order, 'Eliminate' at the top.[/COLOR]
[/INDENT]

Finally, go to the Reorganize menu and select 'Keep Sorted'. Set it up as follows:

• Check (tick) Due, First to Last
• Check (tick) Priority, First to Last
• Check (tick) Duration, [B]Lowest[/B] to Highest
• Check (tick) Job, First to Last


[CENTER]* * *[/CENTER]

If one completes this file with a list of basic tasks (they could even be general projects but listed as tasks), [U]without making sub-lists of tasks[/U], the list automatically sorts itself conveniently into 'what to do next' order. Yes, urgency is taken into account, so those daft, short, urgent (due soon) things can get done, - but these are tempered by the task's priority. Quick-to-do tasks are presented first so that you become effective.

Once the list is sorted, it's important to know [U]how to read[/U] the list. You will find that, say, a third of the way up the list from the bottom, are tasks that take more time and that are important, while above those will be less important tasks that can be done more quickly. At this point in the list, the user may wish to prioritize higher-priority tasks that take longer, over those that have lower priority but are quicker to do. The clinch factor here is this: [I][COLOR="Green"]how long does a task have to take, before its priority means that you have to prioritise it over a less important task[/COLOR][/I]. The system I have proposed, puts important stuff that can wait, lower down in the list of what to do next. Swapping the 'Due' and the 'Priority' columns around provides an interesting perspective, but presents what I would call an artificially 'selfish' work mode. Priority goals take precedence over everything and important tasks which are less in line with what you want to achieve, get pushed dangerously down the list. I still think that sorting by urgency (due date) and then priority, works better. It's important not to allow [I]into[/I] your 'to do' system, tasks which are not in line with your self-tempered responsibilities.

In judging priorities (what to do next) we thus become aware of the truth that life inevitably involves compromise, as we juggle things we [I]have[/I] to do, with the things we [I]want[/I] to do.

It would be possible to experiment with including a column called 'Acceptability'. This being a column which allows tasks to be ordered according to how much you felt like doing that task! While this may be a revelation to the user, explaining why we procrastinate, it helps one to understand why we often avoid important tasks: simply because we do not fancy doing them. Ultimately, self-discipline comes into play and the 'Acceptability' column can be banished so that one can 'forget oneself' and focus instead on what needs to be done.

It might be good if the OmniFocus team could contemplate the above techniques and consider making them implementable by users of OmniFocus. It can be seen that prioritising is more than a matter of one level of importance. To recap, at least five factors come into play when one is prioritising tasks: 'urgency', 'priority', 'completion time' and 'life goal alignment'. I have deliberately not included the OmniFocus' 'context' parameter in this list as I am writing about priorities. Clearly, if one has a high priority task and a low priority task to complete when out at the post office (say), then OmniFocus' 'context few' comes into useful play to allow tasks appropriately to be grouped and dealt with.

Finally, it's important to state the obvious: that no to-do list is ever definitive; it is always a living, changing work in progress. - All part of the rich tapestry of life.

I would welcome readers' thoughts on the above and hope that these ideas are useful.

Interesting post about prioritizing.

I wonder if this could be implemented with folders?

Because OmniFocus prioritizes based on order, could folders be created to place projects in?

1. Due. This can be set for projects/tasks
2. Priority: This could be set up with folders.
3. Job / life goals: this could also be folders, with the priority folders as subfolders.

Example:
Fly to the Moon - Folder
--Urgent - Folder
--Must Do - Folder
--Should Do - Folder
--Could do - Folder

By placing projects in the folders, the priority will be set for them. Urgent projects will be at the top of the list.

Although in the GTD system, Should Do and Could Do might be placed in the Someday/Maybe list for review later on.

The EASD folders could be placed within the priority folders.
Fly to the Moon
--Urgent
---My Projects
---eliminate
---automate
---streamline
---delegate

An interesting concept. I start to resist the amount of system maintenance this may introduce. It can be difficult to know the resistance until it is tried on a daily basis.

There is an estimated time filter in OmniFocus, this would allow you to only see the actions that take a certain amount of time and focus on those.

If you want to focus on a life goal, a user could select the Fly to the Moon folder, focus on it, and only see projects that move that project forward.

As far as sub-actions. I find they are a terrific way to plan out a project. When I get to an action that cannot be done I ask myself, what steps do I need to do to move this action / project forward. I then list those sub actions under that action / project. If I get to another action that I cannot move forward on, I ask the question again, what steps do I need to do to move this action forward.

Prioritization IS canonical!!! And badly needed
 

I don't know how so many people can have failed to read DA's GTD carefully, and/or form the misimpression that priorities aren't "canonical" (BTW, the theological tone of much of these discussions seems silly & off-putting).

Priority IS 1 of the 4 criteria DA lists as determinants of whether to perform a particular task (p. 49 in my edition):
1. Context
2. Time available
3. Energy available
4. Priority.

IMO, or at least for my business, DA has these criteria in the wrong order.
Priority usually trumps the other criteria, at least to a degree (if it's important enough, I'll work on it even if tired, or put in extra time, etc.). And his order fundamentally misconstrues the context/priority relationship (again, at least for me). Theocratic GTDers treat context as the INdependent variable, when in fact it's usually a DEpendendent one. I.e., a context is a place I go to in order to execute an important task. I'm much more likely to change contexts bec. of priorities than the reverse. Also, in this highly wired age, context has lost much of its discriminating/resolving power in distinguishing tasks. My work's global; there's little I can't do from a hotel in Singapore nearly as well as from my office in Virginia.

Conversely, something DA quite rightly and helpfully warns against but that also seems widely overlooked is using artificial deadlines for what are really ASAP tasks, just to to try to push their accomplishment. My business abounds in fuzzy deadlines, so this admonition is right on target. I suspect, though, that many use the very thing he warns against to compensate for omission of priorities.

BTW flags (which are merely dichotomous) just don't cut it for capturing the range of priorities.

In terms of UI, OF could accommodate priorities just like other selectable columns under the View menu. One of OF's more useful features for me--though I suspect it's probably used by few--is "Estimated time"; I can't grasp why OG includes that, but not priority in the same way.

For me, the lack of priorities is a killer issue. After trying valiantly to use OF, including some of the tortured workarounds suggested for the illogical omission, I've given up on it, although I keep my copy up to date, living in hope that they'll see the light on this fundamental & essentially simple issue.

This is a real shame because of OF good features. At the moment, I'm using ThinkingRock, but haven't decided whether that's really a long-term solution. I wish they'd fix OF. That single change would make a critical difference for me.

[QUOTE=bayard;65343]I wish they'd fix OF. [/QUOTE]
How do you fix something that isn't broken? Yes, agreed, it doesn't have a feature you want. They are on record promising that a general facility which could be used for prioritization will be delivered in a future major release. The best way to make that a priority (sorry) for them is by sending feedback with Help->Send Feedback, not by posting on the forum.

I'm reading DA's latest book at the moment, and while you are welcome to argue that I've misinterpreted it, my reading of the chapter titled "Getting Control: Engaging" suggests that he still doesn't believe that what your tool needs is a priority column. Quoting from p. 179:
[INDENT]Let's examine the variables that have an impact on that decision, which are too numerous and complex to allow you to use a simple priority grading method such as A, B, C or 1, 2, 3 or High, Medium, and Low. You must continually take into acaount the six horizons of your commitments, the three limiting factors for actions, and the three options about what kinds of actions you choose to do.

The unique combinations and configurations of all of these variables can change many hundreds if not thousands of times in a day. As a matter of fact, every time you decide to turn your attention to a new task, you are at least implicitly attempting to match up your reality with the shifts in your unique priority pattern at the moment.[/INDENT]

[QUOTE=bayard;65343]I don't know how so many people can have failed to read DA's GTD carefully, and/or form the misimpression that priorities aren't "canonical" (BTW, the theological tone of much of these discussions seems silly & off-putting).

Priority IS 1 of the 4 criteria DA lists as determinants of whether to perform a particular task (p. 49 in my edition):
1. Context
2. Time available
3. Energy available
4. Priority.

IMO, or at least for my business, DA has these criteria in the wrong order.
Priority usually trumps the other criteria, at least to a degree (if it's important enough, I'll work on it even if tired, or put in extra time, etc.). And his order fundamentally misconstrues the context/priority relationship (again, at least for me). Theocratic GTDers treat context as the INdependent variable, when in fact it's usually a DEpendendent one. I.e., a context is a place I go to in order to execute an important task. I'm much more likely to change contexts bec. of priorities than the reverse. Also, in this highly wired age, context has lost much of its discriminating/resolving power in distinguishing tasks. My work's global; there's little I can't do from a hotel in Singapore nearly as well as from my office in Virginia.

Conversely, something DA quite rightly and helpfully warns against but that also seems widely overlooked is using artificial deadlines for what are really ASAP tasks, just to to try to push their accomplishment. My business abounds in fuzzy deadlines, so this admonition is right on target. I suspect, though, that many use the very thing he warns against to compensate for omission of priorities.

BTW flags (which are merely dichotomous) just don't cut it for capturing the range of priorities.

In terms of UI, OF could accommodate priorities just like other selectable columns under the View menu. One of OF's more useful features for me--though I suspect it's probably used by few--is "Estimated time"; I can't grasp why OG includes that, but not priority in the same way.

For me, the lack of priorities is a killer issue. After trying valiantly to use OF, including some of the tortured workarounds suggested for the illogical omission, I've given up on it, although I keep my copy up to date, living in hope that they'll see the light on this fundamental & essentially simple issue.

This is a real shame because of OF good features. At the moment, I'm using ThinkingRock, but haven't decided whether that's really a long-term solution. I wish they'd fix OF. That single change would make a critical difference for me.[/QUOTE]
Gosh, Bayard. I know you're well meaning. Like me, you just want to co-evolve with what you understand about OF, GTD and all the myriad ideas on the forum for implementing them and DA's ideas/directives. But all these ideas you brazenly bandy about: I'm afraid I have to tell you that you should not have used the word theo-illogical. I have no choice but to inform you that you are guilty of violating the RULES of dissent. You are are now semi-unofficially cast into outer darkness. BTW: what's it like there? I hear it's not so bad!

[QUOTE=brooce;15399]Stay GTD Canonical, at least for the first release.

Prioritization is not canonical.[/QUOTE]
Priorities ARE "canonical"; see p. 49 of GTD: priority is 1 of the 4 criteria DA gives for selecting which task to perform in the moment (although IMO & at least for my business, he has them in the wrong order, partly because priority usually trumps the other criteria & partly bec. contexts exc. lack discriminating power in filtering tasks).

I can't believe how widely people misread GTD and what he says. For another example, he correctly warns against assigning artificial due dates to ASAP tasks (essentially a proxy for priority). Yet all the developers and users of supposedly GTD apps focus excessively on giving the ability to do this.

For me, it makes virtually all GTD-type apps (including OF, which I've tried repeatedly to make work for me) useless.

I cannot believe this conversation is still going on.

I have read all his books (multiple times), listened to hours of his podcasts, his other CDs and recordings and it always comes down to priority being something that is way to flexible to capture in a tool.

Why is this so hard for so many people (or so few) to comprehend?

Priority changes, day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute. To spend all your time, capturing, updating, changing and setting priority would be the total opposite of productive and getting anything done.

There is a system you could look into, GPD (Getting Priority Done).

BZ

Yes, it's a tired subject. I'm also pretty amazed that this thread is still active. I'm guessing it could be attributed to the fact that there are people who are using OmniFocus as a to-do list program for a semi-GTD methodology. As David Allen has stated, we have to adapt GTD to fit our own personality. We adapt the tools we have adopted to fit our needs.
OmniGroup is promoting this on their OmniFocus page:

[quote]OmniFocus is designed to quickly capture your thoughts and allow you to store, manage, and process them into actionable to-do items. Perfect for the Getting Things Done® system, but flexible enough for any task management style, OmniFocus helps you work smarter by giving you powerful tools for staying on top of all the things you need to do.[/quote]

So I guess we can't blame folks for trying to add "priorities" to OmniFocus. There will be folks who view priorities as essential to their "GTD" hybrid system.

If priorities are added to OmniFocus, I hope there's a way to hide the priority column since I'll never use it. I'm assuming that OmniFocus 2.0 will have tags or some other mechanism to handle the priorities desire that some folks are having. So we'll have to take a wait and see approach for now. The OmniFolks did say that they're eager to see OmniFocus 2.0 in 2010. So I guess they'll find a way. They have been logging user requests and forum requests for priorities and are investigating ways on how to add priorities into OmniFocus 2.0.

I agree with BwanaZulia's quote of David Allen that priorities are so fluid that it would be impossible to capture, track, and update in any given moment. But there will be a portion of the OmniFocus users who thinks they can. To them, I say "good luck." If if works for them, more power to them.

[QUOTE=BwanaZulia;70775]I cannot believe this conversation is still going on.

I have read all his books (multiple times), listened to hours of his podcasts, his other CDs and recordings and it always comes down to priority being something that is way to flexible to capture in a tool.

Why is this so hard for so many people (or so few) to comprehend?

Priority changes, day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute. To spend all your time, capturing, updating, changing and setting priority would be the total opposite of productive and getting anything done.

There is a system you could look into, GPD (Getting Priority Done).

BZ[/QUOTE]

+1...

The task is either a crisis and needs to be done NOW before anything else or it isn't. If it's a crisis, don't waste time fiddling with productivity pr0n. Get it done.

Or... Flag it for HIGH, leave it alone for MED, send it to someday/maybe for LOW.

Stay strong Omni Group. Priorities are not needed.

Tagging may be the solution
 

Hi there,

I understand the sighs of those who support David Allen and think that prioritisation is so flexible it would take too much time to manage with a tool.

I've tried DA's methods and they just didn't work for me (as seemingly many - considering this topic is still around). For me there are just too many tasks that slip through my radar when I don't have a proper system to prioritise them. This doesn't have to be filigrane prioritisation. Just 'brackets' of importance would suffice.

But DA supporters, don't worry there is a solution that would make both parties happy without ruining OF and this would simply be 'tagging'. [Similar to how Things does it in fact....] You can add a P1 to P5 tag, a high medium or low tag - you can customise your prioritisation system just as you like and then use OF's fantastic perspectives to work with the tags.

I think OF promised us this for some next release in the future. In fact, 'tagging' could also solve the 'waiting problem' I have: (just tag an action as 'waiting' and you can create a perspective for tasks you are waiting for without disrupting their location or content).

The question is: When, finally, is OF going to release this revolutionary software?! I've been waiting for this ever since I bought OF a year ago... My productivity just seems stifled without the promised functionality. It's 2010 now guys! OF can you please give us some guidelines on when in 2010 the new software is going to be released?! Don't leave us in the dark like this... Is it more like January 2010 or more like December 2010?

[QUOTE=BwanaZulia;70775]I cannot believe this conversation is still going on.[/QUOTE]

I can’t believe that you’re still complaining that people want a feature which, if implemented, will be transparent to you.

[QUOTE=BwanaZulia;70775]I have read all his books (multiple times), listened to hours of his podcasts, his other CDs and recordings and it always comes down to priority being something that is way to flexible to capture in a tool.

Priority changes, day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute. To spend all your time, capturing, updating, changing and setting priority would be the total opposite of productive and getting anything done.[/QUOTE]

That is oversimplifying to an extreme. No one spends “all their time”*changing and setting priorities, any more than you spend “all your time”*setting contexts, creating next actions, and reviewing tasks. Priorities do NOT change all the time. This statement is ludicrous on the face of it.

Doing the dishes will always be more important than alphabetizing my DVDs, so I would like to make sure that “Doing the dishes”*bubbles up to the top. And since GTD task lists are not sorted in any particular order, why not allow some extra information to sort by? Sure, I could scan the entire list and see what tickles my fancy at a certain point in time, but why not save myself some time and have more-important tasks near the top?

Personally, I think that David Allen is a little too absolute when it comes to GTD rules. For example, why does OmniFocus show tasks that are overdue? According to GTD, you should only set a due date when the task MUST BE completed by that date, and is worthless after that. So if OF is strict GTD, it should hide overdue tasks. But it doesn’t. Why? Because OF is MORE FLEXIBLE than strict GTD. Adding priorities is another way that OF could be more flexible and more useful to more people.

[QUOTE=abates17;71500]
Personally, I think that David Allen is a little too absolute when it comes to GTD rules. For example, why does OmniFocus show tasks that are overdue? According to GTD, you should only set a due date when the task MUST BE completed by that date, and is worthless after that. [/QUOTE]

You're misreading him, if you're referring to pp. 40-41 of Getting Things Done, the 'No More "Daily To-Do" Lists' block. I quote:
[INDENT]"Second, if there's something on a daily to-do list that doesn't absolutely [i]have[/i] to get done that day, it will dilute the emphasis on the things that truly [i]do.[/i]"[/INDENT]
He's talking about why writing a daily to-do list is a bad thing, not about why due dates in GTD would be bad. He then goes on to state:
[INDENT]"The way I look at it, the [b]calendar[/b] (emphasis mine) should be sacred territory. If you write something there, it must get done that day or not at all. The only rewriting should be for changed appointments."[/INDENT]
Nothing at all about next action lists.

If you have some other reference that suggests he disapproves of due dates on the next action list, I'd be interested to see it.

[QUOTE=abates17;71500]
Doing the dishes will always be more important than alphabetizing my DVDs, so I would like to make sure that “Doing the dishes”*bubbles up to the top. And since GTD task lists are not sorted in any particular order, why not allow some extra information to sort by? Sure, I could scan the entire list and see what tickles my fancy at a certain point in time, but why not save myself some time and have more-important tasks near the top?

Personally, I think that David Allen is a little too absolute when it comes to GTD rules. For example, why does OmniFocus show tasks that are overdue? According to GTD, you should only set a due date when the task MUST BE completed by that date, and is worthless after that. So if OF is strict GTD, it should hide overdue tasks. But it doesn’t. Why? Because OF is MORE FLEXIBLE than strict GTD. Adding priorities is another way that OF could be more flexible and more useful to more people.[/QUOTE]


OmniFocus gives you the ability to drag a task up or down the list. This gives an implied priority status. In sequential projects, I have to do step 1 before proceeding to step 2. In parallel projects, the higher up a project or task, the higher priority it means to me.

But I agree with the post from "A To The B". I place all my low priority projects in my Someday/Maybe folder. Most of my active projects/tasks are taken out of Someday/Maybe Folder, I switch status from "On Hold" to "Active" and it becomes my medium priority projects - not urgent but important. Any Active projects that are urgent and important are immediately flagged. Then I can switch to my "Flagged" perspective to see the flagged tasks/projects.

I have three perspectives:

The first perspective is called "Low Priority". It is a project/planning perspective that shows just the Someday/Maybe folder.

The second perspective is called "Today" (aka Medium priority or all active projects). This shows a context perspective with all my active projects.

The third perspective is called "Urgent". This shows a context perspective with all flagged items.

The Urgent perspective lets me block out all the someday/maybe items and focus in on all the flagged items. These are my urgent things to do.

It took a while for me to break away from the ABC priority or High/Medium/Low priority but I think I have the hang of it now. It takes time to break out of the high/medium/low priority. I know because I've been there with years of working with my old Franklin-Covey Dayplanner. It just never felt right. I had a bunch of A priorities but I always ended up doing B's and C's.

So just sit back, wait for OmniFocus 2.0 with this much-rumored tagging system and be done with it.

[QUOTE=wilsonng;71529]I place all my low priority projects in my Someday/Maybe folder. Most of my active projects/tasks are taken out of Someday/Maybe Folder, I switch status from "On Hold" to "Active" and it becomes my medium priority projects - not urgent but important. Any Active projects that are urgent and important are immediately flagged. Then I can switch to my "Flagged" perspective to see the flagged tasks/projects.

…

It took a while for me to break away from the ABC priority or High/Medium/Low priority but I think I have the hang of it now.[/QUOTE]

You didn’t break out of the ABC priority scale; you just found a complicated, roundabout way to implement it, using folders, statuses, and flags! I don’t see how you can describe your convoluted process of setting what are essentially priorities on one hand, then turn around and say, “See, OmniFocus doesn’t need priorities!” on the other.

I beg to differ. It's just a matter of not using ABC labels or High/Medium/Low labels assigned to tasks. As David Allen says, you will "trust" your system to the point that you won't need ABCs.



I've used the Franklin-Covey A1, A2, B1, C1 priority scheme and it didn't work. It may be simple but it didn't work. So I've been there.

My Someday/Maybe folder holds all my "C" projects. That's not convoluted. We all have someday/maybe projects that aren't urgent nor important. It's a wish list of things we'd like to do. So all of my "C" priority or low priority projects/tasks are stored there. I don't see how complicated, convoluted, or roundabout that can get.

If I want to take something out of the backburner, I put it into my Active folder and set the status to Active. The Active folder holds a list of my Medium priority or "B" priority projects. These are the on-hold projects that I decided to work on this week. That's not convoluted, difficult or roundabout.

If there is something truly urgent, it's a simple matter of flagging a project or task. This becomes the A priority or High priority project/task. Not difficult at all.

I'm suspecting that you're not taking full advantage of perspectives (views).

I have my High priority view showing my flagged (High priority or A priority) tasks.

My default view shows all the next actions of my active projects and tasks. This is the Medium priority or B priority tasks view.

My Low priority or C priority view focuses on my Someday/Maybe folder.


I fail to understand how this becomes convoluted.

But I respect your desires for ABC. I suspect, perhaps, that you want a long list view showing your High, Medium, and Low priorities. But you lose OmniFocus' advantage of focusing in on your overall task management duties.

What is truly boggling is that classic time management/task management systems still teach the ABC priority system. So what many people are arguing about is that there is no need to "label" something as high, medium, low or ABC because if you trust your system, you won't need these labels.


In the beginning, I clung on to my ABC system but I have evolved to the point where I can trust my system and understand what is high, medium, and low priority.

Categorization
 

I do not find arguing or debating about "labeling" very helpful in the discussion thread. Whether you want to call something ABC, H/M/L Priority, Urgent/Important, etc., to me is a really personal preference in terms of individual work flow and system. Who am I to say your ABC is worse then my HML?

One thing I do and it seems like many people need is a way to categorizes tasks, be able to manipulate them and maintain them, and finally be able to view the categories of tasks- whether it be project, context, priority, importance, etc. etc.

Thus, some people might find Life Balance, Things, or OF more helpful based on their needs for categorization.

OF is very close, but I don't think it's quite there yet. I believe 2.0 will address most of the concerns expressed by folks here.

[QUOTE=wilsonng;71535]If I want to take something out of the backburner, I put it into my Active folder and set the status to Active. The Active folder holds a list of my Medium priority or "B" priority projects. These are the on-hold projects that I decided to work on this week. That's not convoluted, difficult or roundabout.[/QUOTE]

Okay, fine, it’s not “convoluted,” but it’s still a priority system. Therefore, you can’t tout your system, yet simultaneously bash those who want explicit priorities.

[QUOTE=wilsonng;71535]But I respect your desires for ABC. I suspect, perhaps, that you want a long list view showing your High, Medium, and Low priorities. But you lose OmniFocus' advantage of focusing in on your overall task management duties.[/QUOTE]

Honestly, I really want something like what Life Balance does, where priorities are based on a sliding scale, and the priority rises as a task approaches (or goes past) its due date. If I have twenty regular tasks that need to get done around the house, I would much rather know which one has been done least recently, so I can focus on that (if I want to).

[QUOTE=wilsonng;71535]In the beginning, I clung on to my ABC system but I have evolved to the point where I can trust my system and understand what is high, medium, and low priority.[/QUOTE]

THAT! THAT is the part that annoys me! When people say, “I used to be like you, clinging to my outdated priority system, but now I am evolved so I don’t need it.” Yes, I understand not basing everything around priorities, but I also understand that they can be used—just like contexts, energy, or next actions—as one aspect of the decision-making process. I’ve been using Life Balance with GTD for quite a while, and it works, even with priorities. I wish people would understand that some of us want priorities, and not because we “just don’t get it.”

[QUOTE=abates17;71555]Okay, fine, it’s not “convoluted,” but it’s still a priority system. Therefore, you can’t tout your system, yet simultaneously bash those who want explicit priorities.
[/quote]

c'est al vie..... I wasn't touting.... I was exploring. By sharing ideas in this thread, we can learn from other people's setup and see if we can incorporate it into our own system. In the discourse of this thread, I'm re-evaluating priorities and wanted to hear other people's setup. So, please don't get fired up. It's just a discussion - not religion or politics.


[quote]
Honestly, I really want something like what Life Balance does, where priorities are based on a sliding scale, and the priority rises as a task approaches (or goes past) its due date. If I have twenty regular tasks that need to get done around the house, I would much rather know which one has been done least recently, so I can focus on that (if I want to).
[/quote]

I thought you would stick with Life Balance if it offers you what you really want?

From my understanding of GTD, we use the Weekly Review to self-edit and review our tasks/projects.

When something is truly due or overdue, you either have to:

1. Light a fire under your butt and get it done.

2. Delegate it to someone else.

3. Re-evaluate the task/project and see if it is still significant and whether you truly want to get it done.

4. Delete the task/project if it is no longer significant.

5. Put the task/project on hold and into Someday/Maybe folder. Let it simmer for a while and come back to it later.


I don't know if a computer scale can tell me that I have to get something done. I use the Weekly Review to evaluate myself and truly define what I want to get done or not get done. If something has been sitting on my task list for a long time without any action being taken, it's definitely time to re-evaluate that task/project. I've found that being hard on myself during the Weekly Review helped me trust my system.

[quote]
THAT! THAT is the part that annoys me! When people say, “I used to be like you, clinging to my outdated priority system, but now I am evolved so I don’t need it.” Yes, I understand not basing everything around priorities, but I also understand that they can be used—just like contexts, energy, or next actions—as one aspect of the decision-making process. I’ve been using Life Balance with GTD for quite a while, and it works, even with priorities. I wish people would understand that some of us want priorities, and not because we “just don’t get it.”[/QUOTE]

OmniFocus 2.0's rumored tagging system will let you have it your way. I've seen some people use the duration field as a way to label priorities. Put the number 1 for High priority, the number 2 for Medium priority, and the number 3 for low priority. It's a workaround but at least it's something until the tagging system comes.


[quote] THAT! THAT...[/quote]
This is why I have entered into this discussion. I (as well as many forum readers) are looking at what other people are doing and seeing if we can take something from this discussion and other discussions. I never said that my system is perfect and I'm bashing other viewpoints. My system (and other people's systems) are constantly evolving. I know my OmniFocus/GTD setup has definitely changed since the time I bought this program.

Please don't get fired up and call the bomb squad. We're all in this together. Like everyone else, we are all holding our breath waiting for OF 2.0.

Moving projects to different order will change the priority of it's actions in the contexts.

[QUOTE=wilsonng;71558]I thought you would stick with Life Balance if it offers you what you really want?[/QUOTE]

Life Balance is really great with priorities: It has a sliding scale for priorities, priorities based on the parent task, priorities that adjust based on the due date…it’s a really elegant system. However, it’s not great at capturing data, the desktop application is abysmal, it doesn’t automatically work with clippings from Mail, it doesn’t have an integrated review system, and so on. Given the two, I would rather see OmniFocus take on those features from Life Balance than the other way around.

[QUOTE=wilsonng;71558]I don't know if a computer scale can tell me that I have to get something done.[/QUOTE]

If you have tasks where the priority changes based on due date (and a list that is sorted by priority), then you can know that tasks that are higher up on the list are more important. If the order of tasks doesn’t matter, then I would rather have a list sorted by priority than an unsorted list.

I use the Weekly Review to evaluate myself and truly define what I want to get done or not get done. If something has been sitting on my task list for a long time without any action being taken, it's definitely time to re-evaluate that task/project. I've found that being hard on myself during the Weekly Review helped me trust my system.

[QUOTE=wilsonng;71558]OmniFocus 2.0's rumored tagging system will let you have it your way.[/QUOTE]

Personally, I would much rather see something like Life Balance’s priority system, which goes far beyond tagging and simple A/B/C priorities. But given how long it has taken to even get tagging implemented (and the pushback on that), I doubt that a more complicated priority system will ever be implemented. Oh well. I guess I’ll have to stick to using two different GTD applications.

[QUOTE=SpiralOcean;71581]Moving projects to different order will change the priority of it's actions in the contexts.[/QUOTE]

I agree. I think people have a difficult time with this idea, though.

Inexplicable Intolerance
 

[QUOTE=Lucas;71644]I agree. I think people have a difficult time with this idea, though.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. Perhaps because, for some of us, this idea is utterly useless.

I have more than seventy projects in OF at the moment. (Not tasks, *projects*.) I have, on occasion, added a project that was already there. In order to minimize this, projects cannot be thrown into some kind of gigantic junk drawer; they have to be sorted. I have, for example, 9 active projects and 6 projects on standby in my "Work" folder. "Work" also contains six subfolders, related to the various different kinds of work I do.

It is not possible to rearrange the projects by priority, since it is not possible to put some of the projects in my "Personal" folder above ones in "Work," but have others below.

I'm very glad that GTD works for some people. However, after spending quite a bit of time with it, I find Mr. Allen's obsession with "open loops" amusing but irrelevant. I do not waste time fretting over ideas I haven't captured, and since I do most of my work at home, and tend to have my phone and laptop with me all the time, "contexts" is helpful, but quite inadequate. I'm almost *always* in/at the contexts that have the most items in them.

There are a lot of "To Do" list programs out there. I've looked at an awful lot of them. Most of them are cute little toys, nice for people who have nicely organized brains, or maybe pleasantly simple lives. LifeBalance came fairly close, but their inability to add scripting for years left me unable to add the extra abilities I needed to make it "good enough" for my life. OmniFocus is the most powerful program I've found to date unless I would be willing to try adapting industrial team-focused project-planning software to my needs. But even OF isn't quite good enough yet.

When some mechanism for prioritizing my tasks and projects finally appears, am I going to spend all my time reprioritizing things? Of course not; how absurd. Instead, I'm going to be able to just look at the top of the list of "next tasks" in my "At my computer" context, instead of wasting time having to scan through all twenty-seven (currently) tasks showing up there, trying to decide which one is the one I should try to do next.

I can only hope Mr. Allen would be embarrassed by people who believe he has found the One True Way, and anybody who uses different tools for organizing their life must therefore be Wrong.

[QUOTE=snarke;71713]Indeed. Perhaps because, for some of us, this idea is utterly useless.

I have more than seventy projects in OF at the moment. (Not tasks, *projects*.) I have, on occasion, added a project that was already there. In order to minimize this, projects cannot be thrown into some kind of gigantic junk drawer; they have to be sorted. I have, for example, 9 active projects and 6 projects on standby in my "Work" folder. "Work" also contains six subfolders, related to the various different kinds of work I do.

It is not possible to rearrange the projects by priority, since it is not possible to put some of the projects in my "Personal" folder above ones in "Work," but have others below.

[…]

When some mechanism for prioritizing my tasks and projects finally appears, am I going to spend all my time reprioritizing things? Of course not; how absurd. Instead, I'm going to be able to just look at the top of the list of "next tasks" in my "At my computer" context, instead of wasting time having to scan through all twenty-seven (currently) tasks showing up there, trying to decide which one is the one I should try to do next.

I can only hope Mr. Allen would be embarrassed by people who believe he has found the One True Way, and anybody who uses different tools for organizing their life must therefore be Wrong.[/QUOTE]

I understand you completely. I’m not trying to say that GTD is the right way and everything else is wrong. I’m also not trying to say that if you’re in the right context the most important thing to do will magically leap out at you. Maybe it does for some people, maybe it doesn’t for others; it doesn’t particularly for me. I’m not making a claim about GTD or David Allen. When it comes to OmniFocus though, my perception is that that the order that projects were put in was intended to make a difference; in particular, it was intended to convey priority. My perception is that people are not used to order mattering and so they miss this. I know that I could be wrong. I have no idea.

Anyway, I’m sure that I have fewer than 70 active projects and I find it a lot easier to not have to look at or ignore the tasks that I’m not going to reach because of their lack of priority. I personally do that by keeping my folders of projects in rough order of importance, and during weekly reviews look for any projects that are really important to me and move those to the top of the list. The benefit for me is that, just like you point out you would like to do, I only have to look at the top of the list to find the next thing to work on, not scan through a whole bunch of stuff. My personal view is that it is more practical to be able to have important stuff at the top of the list and therefore make it easy to work than to have a very well-organized folder structure that never has a project outside of its appropriate folder.

It is possible to have both an organized set of projects/folders and use the method Lucas described. Build your structure. During your periodic reviews, take any projects that are on the front burner and shuffle them to the top of the sidebar, both giving them higher priority in the lists and putting them out "in the cache" for faster/easier access. When they are complete or no longer on the bubble, they go back to the long-term location. This is analogous to leaving the file folders for the three projects you are working on today on your desk next to you instead of refiling and refetching them each time you turn around. You can drag a folder instead of a project if you've got a group of related items that need such a bump.

I've currently got a total of just over 600 projects and single action lists, about 200 of which are on hold, completed, or dropped. I imagine it might still work with only 70 :-)

[QUOTE=whpalmer4;71725]During your periodic reviews, take any projects that are on the front burner and shuffle them to the top of the sidebar, both giving them higher priority in the lists and putting them out "in the cache" for faster/easier access.[/QUOTE]

Clever. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in order to make something "high priority" and get it to the top, I'm removing it from the hierarchical structure. Either I need to complete it soon, or I need to put it back again, or let my out-of-structure high-priority stack do exactly what my regular desk does; have piles that just keep getting larger and larger. {sigh}

I think the fact that you have to have two different containers, one where they're organized by subject, and another where they're ordered by priority, and you have to move things from one to the other because OF doesn't currently allow a project to have both properties, is a very clear case for the missing functionality of an actual priority value.

Even with my current structure, I know that the time and mental effort required to decide where a new project should go is not insignificant. *Anything* boring that I have to do repeatedly is effectively impossible. I don't have periodic reviews: they're boring boring boring. I have aperiodic ones. Re-filing projects that have fallen below the "high priority" cutoff is a non-functional solution for me.

Only the fact that OF is actually incredibly streamlined lets it work for me at all, and it still teeters on the edge of being too unwieldy. I am, to be sure, in many ways an outlier user. But it seems fairly clear to me that priorities would save YOU time and effort as well.

Hopefully we'll see that functionality appear sometime soon.

[QUOTE=snarke;71817]Clever. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in order to make something "high priority" and get it to the top, I'm removing it from the hierarchical structure. Either I need to complete it soon, or I need to put it back again, or let my out-of-structure high-priority stack do exactly what my regular desk does; have piles that just keep getting larger and larger. {sigh}
[/quote]
Well, you could look at it as "high priority" or alternatively "what I'm working on right now". I find that it is a bit self-correcting, because after I stash too many projects there, they don't all appear on the screen at once and the off-screen ones might as well be buried in the hierarchy at that point.
[quote]
I think the fact that you have to have two different containers, one where they're organized by subject, and another where they're ordered by priority, and you have to move things from one to the other because OF doesn't currently allow a project to have both properties, is a very clear case for the missing functionality of an actual priority value.
[/quote]
Again, you can look it that way if that fits your philosophy and setup. In my case, I've got hundreds of projects, many of them buried several levels deep, and OmniFocus is a bit sluggish to respond, so it really makes it more of a convenience issue for me. I would always be fooling around with the priority value to get stuff in the places that I want, and that is likely to mean that the "Last Changed" attribute of the action/project is getting updated which I really would not want. And the stuff I drag to the top portion of the sidebar is not necessarily the highest priority stuff on my plate, though sometimes it will be. If something is truly a high priority project, I'm likely to just focus on that project and work it out of a project mode window until it is done or it doesn't make sense to do more.
[quote]
Even with my current structure, I know that the time and mental effort required to decide where a new project should go is not insignificant. *Anything* boring that I have to do repeatedly is effectively impossible. I don't have periodic reviews: they're boring boring boring. I have aperiodic ones. Re-filing projects that have fallen below the "high priority" cutoff is a non-functional solution for me.
[/quote]
Certainly the re-filing would be a bit easier if OF had something like the pre-OS X Finder's "Put Away" function. My projects tend to be small (which is part of why there are so many), so I really do try to just finish them when they get to be a "priority item" rather than having to put them back, and most such projects stay that way until they are complete.

I do like my incremental review setup, described elsewhere (search for "prime number review"), though I won't claim that I always get all the reviewing in that I should. Doing a higher-quality review of some stuff each day is more feasible for me than trying to review everything at once.
[quote]
Only the fact that OF is actually incredibly streamlined lets it work for me at all, and it still teeters on the edge of being too unwieldy. I am, to be sure, in many ways an outlier user. But it seems fairly clear to me that priorities would save YOU time and effort as well.
[/quote]
And equally clear to me that it probably wouldn't :-) I've used systems with priorities in the past, and really didn't find it helpful on a consistent basis. I'll certainly play with the features when they ship, but I don't see myself as a likely long-term user.

What I like to do is is to create two major folders. One folder is called "Active". The other folder is labelled "Someday/Maybe"

Inside the Active folder, I have placed subfolders featuring an Area of Responsibility such as Health, Work, Professional Development, Personal Development, Kids, Marriage, etc. I also have this same folder setup in my Someday/Maybe folder.

Whenever I think of a new project, it is automatically placed in Someday/Maybe's folder and the status is set to "On Hold". I already have enough things in my Active folder to keep me busy.

During my weekly review, I will look at my current Active folder and see if I need to put some projects back on hold or delete it. I would then either delete it if it is no longer significant or change the status from Active to "On Hold" and move it back to Someday/Maybe. This places projects on the backburner. It's still there but my focus goes to other projects now.

I will keep some projects in the Active folder from last week. Then I'll go through my Someday/Maybe folder and look for any projects that I want to bring to the forefront. I'll drag it from Someday/Maybe into its respective Active folder and change the status from "On Hold" to Active.

I've learned to use the Big Rocks rule. Choose three to five big rocks or projects that I want to focus on for this upcoming week. Then put them into Active status, drag them to the Active folder and get to work on them. I know that if I keep my focus on these big rock projects, I can finish them. I don't necessarily like to multi-task (do a little bit of this project and a little bit of that project). I've found that if I can focus on these big rocks, I'll complete them faster. If I feast and graze on too many projects, I'll end up with little forward progress. I would rather focus on the big rock projects so that I can complete and clear them out of my OmniFocus list. If you do a little of this and a little of that, you'll still have unfinished projects and not get anything done.

Prioroity or not ...
 

To have priorities for serious project management is a MUST.
I see here many different user levels of managing daily task, so that for the needs are also different. We will never find a common opinion between these groups. We are not talking about priority change because some breaks a leg. 40% of the day are anyway not to be planned ahead of time. But we also have the other 60%.
And for that part I would very much appreciate to have a clear priority column. And for all those folks that are not so particular about recourse leveling according to priorities, they just don't use it, deactivate it.
I do not think it would be that big of a sacrifice for pure GTD users.

Hmmm....... I've been grappling with this priority without much success. I've been able to do without priorities currently but am always curious at the need for priorities as reported by many folks in this thread.

I was in the GTD Virtual Study Group Google e-mail list and there was a discussion about a new book that was just released called "Master Your Workday Now!: Proven Strategies to Control Chaos, Create Outcomes, & Connect Your Work to Who You Really Are"
by Michael Linenberger.

I guess Amazon doesn't have a Kindle version yet so I guess I'll have to wait for it in the mail.

In the reviews, it purports to handle the sense of priorities that traditional GTD doesn't really handle. I think Mr. Linenberger's priority models are based more on time horizons. He has:

Critical Now - tasks that are urgent and must be completed today.

Opportunity Now - tasks that are approaching within the next one to two weeks but don't absolutely have to be done today.

Over the Horizon list - All other tasks beyond two weeks.

But I'm guessing that I do it a little differently with OmniFocus. Put the Over the Horizon list on someday/maybe or make the project/task available later in the future by setting the start date. My Critical Now tasks are flagged. My Opportunity Now tasks are all available tasks that are not flagged.

The interesting thing is that Opportunity Now (tasks that are important in the next one to two weeks) are limited to 20 tasks at most.

But that's similar to how I put everything (especially new projects/tasks) in Someday/Maybe. Then I do my weekly review and put some current active/available tasks back to Someday/Maybe. Then I look at my Someday/Maybe (projects/tasks on hold) and then active just a handful. I know that if I set too many projects/tasks as available, my context list just gets so large that I just won't look at it. But if I keep a manageable handful of available tasks in my context list, then it's easier for me to deal with.

I'm gonna look forward to reading this book when it comes in and see a different perspective on this task prioritization monster.

Tags??
 

[QUOTE=Ken Case;38155]As I [URL="http://forums.omnigroup.com/showpost.php?p=37991&postcount=9"]recently mentioned[/URL] in the [URL="http://forums.omnigroup.com/showthread.php?t=8169"]Tags[/URL] thread, our plan [URL="http://forums.omnigroup.com/showpost.php?p=13360&postcount=51"]all along[/URL] has been to allow people to create their own columns of metadata, which they can use however they want: with generic tags, or with specific columns for priority, people, etc. (We have this capability in OmniPlan, OmniOutliner, and OmniGraffle.) We just didn't have time to do it for 1.0, and we won't for 1.5 (which has to focus on synchronization so it can be ready to synchronize with the iPhone).

Hopefully in 1.7.[/QUOTE]

Maybe in 1.8? ;-)

Flag a lot!
 

[QUOTE=Ken Case;17657]Exiting lurk mode for a moment. I've been following this thread closely, and I'm really sympathetic to the request for separate priorities.

I'm just also trying to avoid adding yet another built-in dimension to actions (on top of project, context, flagged, next action, start and due dates, time estimate, etc.), since the more options we add the easier it is to get lost spending time thinking about the system rather than about the actions themselves. (But if you're used to setting priorities and your new system doesn't support it, then you're probably going to spend a lot of time thinking about the system...)



Oh! Would it help reduce the need for a separate priority attribute if we restored the ability to sort actions by whether they're flagged?

(Alternatively, what did you think of the prefix hack suggested above where you include the priority as part of the action's name?)[/QUOTE]

Hey there!

I think priorities would not be separately needed if there was a possibility to sort flagged actions manually, like you say.
Another approach would be to have three differently colored flags so, you would be able to mark with one color: things that must be done, with another, things that should be done and with the third, things that would be nice to do. So one could see the tasks that have to be done that day / within the week without thinking about what are the things that matter most.

kind regards

I want to prioritise projects not tasks
 

I see this is a hot issue. I really want to prioritise my projects rather than my tasks. Any way I can do this?

I also find I am distracted by the urgent and loose sight of the important in my current use of OF.

Any help here would be awesome

You can reorder your projects in the sidebar, with projects nearer the top having their actions shown before those nearer the bottom.

Hi Ken,

Can you tell me what's latest with tag functionality?

[QUOTE=Ken Case;38155]our plan has been to allow people to create their own columns of metadata, which they can use however they want: with generic tags, or with specific columns for priority, people, etc. (We have this capability in OmniPlan, OmniOutliner, and OmniGraffle.) We just didn't have time to do it for 1.0, and we won't for 1.5 (which has to focus on synchronization so it can be ready to synchronize with the iPhone).

Hopefully in 1.7.[/QUOTE]

Thanks

There's no butter in a sponge cake
 

Now I appreciate that everybody's needs are different and that [B]a lot[/B] of people like to work with priorities, but if I can add my own personal opinion: OmniFocus was conceived specifically for GTD and priorities are not part of GTD. Moreover, it's the very lack of them that makes the GTD paradigm what it is. GTD is not a general term for task management (as I used to believe and I suspect many other people still do), it's a specific implementation of task management - an implementation that purposefully avoids the use of priorities. Priorities simply add a counter productive administration overhead. Put bluntly (but not meant offensively), if you think you need priorities then either your GTD workflow is not in tune, in which case you need to think on a more fundamental level about how to organise your tasks and projects, or you're confusing GTD with classic task management and trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Drawing an analogy; Classic cake recipe... Butter, eggs, flour and sugar. Sponge cake recipe... Eggs, flour and sugar. Why is there no butter in a sponge cake? Because it's a sponge cake.

And now ask again, why are there no priorities in OmniFocus? Because it's GTD software.

But as I said at the beginning each to their own and I'm not trying to tell anybody that they don't need priorities. As others have pointed out perhaps GTD (and therefore by implication OmniFocus) is just not for you. My message is simply ask yourself what type of cake you're trying to bake? Classic or sponge? Classic or GTD? ;-)

[QUOTE=rjmayer;107727]

And now ask again, why are there no priorities in OmniFocus? Because it's GTD software.

[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Good software has an identity and a purpose, and while I may not agree with all the design decisions around OmniFocus (I'd rather have tags than context, for example) OF does stick to its principles and I can't fault the OG for that.

Marking things with some label (priority is a name, for that; colouring or flags another) is actually VERY GTD: just like context, location, energy level, duration, availability, fun-level, etc. custom markings are just a way to slice the way too many todos (1000+ in my case).

Missing this possibility to add MY markings to each todo is one of the reasons why I consider other todo list managers. Many have for example 'tags' which would solve this problem sufficiently for me.

[QUOTE=NickHibma;107769]Marking things with some label (priority is a name, for that; colouring or flags another) is actually VERY GTD: ... [/QUOTE]

Hey Nick, I do agree with you on that. Perhaps it is indeed a tags/label feature that OF is missing, which would certainly be a more flexible solution than explicit priorities.

That said, I'm not personally a big fan of labels. But that's just me, I know. Others are probably more disciplined than me; my problem is that with tags I tend to descend into micro-management. Before I know it, it takes me 5 minutes just to add a new item. And that's actually one of my main reasons for not using other apps.

That's definitely true (one of the reasons why I do not use the duration field at all, to time consuming to fill in). I suggest an enumeration of strings in which the user can provide his or her up to 10(?) enum entries.

Examples:

Red (must do), Blue (should do), Green (best effort), Yellow (tinker)
1, 2, 3 or A, B, C (priorities)
Today, Tomorrow, End of week, Next week, This month (horizon)

(prefix digits to make sorting work).

Group by enum entry; sort by enum alphabetically; add another filter to select enum entry.

That would be a natural fit and make my life a lot easier.

(but having multiple coloured flags would do the same (for me)).

[QUOTE=Ken Case;38155]As I [URL="http://forums.omnigroup.com/showpost.php?p=37991&postcount=9"]recently mentioned[/URL] in the [URL="http://forums.omnigroup.com/showthread.php?t=8169"]Tags[/URL] thread, our plan [URL="http://forums.omnigroup.com/showpost.php?p=13360&postcount=51"]all along[/URL] has been to allow people to create their own columns of metadata, which they can use however they want: with generic tags, or with specific columns for priority, people, etc. (We have this capability in OmniPlan, OmniOutliner, and OmniGraffle.) We just didn't have time to do it for 1.0, and we won't for 1.5 (which has to focus on synchronization so it can be ready to synchronize with the iPhone).

Hopefully in 1.7.[/QUOTE]

OmniFocus is on 1.10 now so when do we finally get custom columns? As you said you have them on many of your other products. I have been waiting for OmniPlan to add filtering/perspectives or OmniFocus to add custom columns for many years. I find both unusable without it for task management and many other use cases. Sigh.

d

Yes, when!?

It feels like the Apple syndrome has hit OmniGroup: We provide great software and the customer should be happy with this feature we just implemented. I paid a *lot* of money for the OF tools (plural), invested a lot of time in them (hello, ninja's) so I expect a decent response to required features like this.


As to the implementation of this 'tagging' feature request:

Adding multiple coloured flags would be a nice first step and trivial to implement. Second step would be a new column for free-form text. Third a column with tags (similar to the project column, but with multiple entries possible). The last step in providing more flexibility could be adding free-form columns.

I am sure that most people would be very happy with step 1. I would be in any case. The last step sounds like way to complicated to me for the bulk of users.


So when, dear Omnigroup, will we get this feature? (YYYY-MM-DD) ____-__-__