Restrict the overdue style to the due date solely
 

There are several threads dealing with the sense and the falling rock design of the red numbers indicating the amount of overdue/due soon tasks.

I think not only the red numbers but also the applied task styles (red and orange) are worth to be discussed:

Depending on my filter settings I have to look at a task list with up to 6 different colors. That's too much tawdriness for my eyes.
Furthermore theses styles override other useful informations: I can't see anymore whether a task is a singleton or next or availalbe action cause they all have the same overdue/due soon style.

So, I 'd like to propose to apply the overdue/due soon styles exclusively to the due date itself in the due date column. If a task without an own due date becomes overdue/due soon by inheritance from its superordinated project the project's [I]dimmed[/I] due date should be placed in the due date field (same behavior as flags show).

What do others think of this?

[QUOTE=uku;24465]So, I 'd like to propose to apply the overdue/due soon styles exclusively to the due date itself in the due date column. If a task without an own due date becomes overdue/due soon by inheritance from its superordinated project the project's [I]dimmed[/I] due date should be placed in the due date field (same behavior as flags show).[/QUOTE]

I think that's a great idea. (I'd like to see inherited due dates represented like flags, by dimming the data, anyway.) Maybe the soon or overdue date could also be boldfaced to make it more noticeable?

[QUOTE=brianogilvie;24477]I think that's a great idea. (I'd like to see inherited due dates represented like flags, by dimming the data, anyway.) Maybe the soon or overdue date could also be boldfaced to make it more noticeable?[/QUOTE]

Maybe some work needs to be done on what kind of style features indicate what types of information about a task. The reason I say that is that if we want inherited task dates to be identified (which I definitely do), then it would seem to make sense to indicate as the inherited flags are, by dimming. But then if the date is soon or overdue, it would become boldfaced. Are OF trying to encode too much information in ways that are too similar? Would a dimmed, boldfaced task due date be distinguishable? Would it be recognizable as carrying those two different pieces of information about the task?

There are currently five style characteristics: [LIST=1] [*]color - state with regard to time (overdueness), next-action-ness, singleton-ness, and availability (grey).[*]bold - status as a project or action group[*]italic - availability to be acted upon[*]dimmed - value is inherited, or action is unavailable[*]size - status as banner or outline element[/LIST]Laid out like this, I can see that there is some duplication and ambiguity of function in and among these styles.

Another consideration is that bold, italic, and dimmed are binary, implying that they should be used for binary values. Color and size are not, so they could be used for things that have a range of values.

Thoughts?

[QUOTE=uku;24465]So, I 'd like to propose to apply the overdue/due soon styles exclusively to the due date itself in the due date column. [/QUOTE]

Bear in mind that some users don't have the due date column displayed all the time. (I [B]think[/B] some do - I'm not one of them...)

Excellent thread. Thanks for raising these questions.

I wonder if "dueness" could be indicated by a colored dot before the item's name. (That is, between the checkbox and the name, as if the colored dot was the first character of the item's name.) I think I would like having that important information up front. Having a dot that just represents the dueness would let me scan quickly for soon/due items without having additional information, like actual due date, impinging on my brain at the same time.

[QUOTE=Craig;24483]Bear in mind that some users don't have the due date column displayed all the time. (I [B]think[/B] some do - I'm not one of them...)[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=curt.clifton;24484]...
I wonder if "dueness" could be indicated by a colored dot before the item's name. (That is, between the checkbox and the name, as if the colored dot was the first character of the item's name.) [/QUOTE]

Okay, I'm one of those who have displayed the due date column. My intention was not to upvalue the due date column but to reduce clutter and therefore put the "dueness" only where it belongs to: for me to the due date.
Considering now that many users don't have displayed the due date column I could agree with Curt's idea. However I'd like to propose a little modification: Why not simply coloring the check boxes according to their "dueness" instead of introducing another new marker?

As Craig just mentioned, restricting the overdue style to the due date column won't work well when that column is hidden.

[QUOTE=eronel;24481]There are currently five style characteristics:[/QUOTE]

Great list; another characteristic you could add is the background color. (We currently use this to indicate an item's type, but we also considered using it to indicate whether an item is due.)

[QUOTE=uku;24488]However I'd like to propose a little modification: Why not simply coloring the check boxes according to their "dueness" instead of introducing another new marker?[/QUOTE]

Rendering the checkboxes (and project cards) differently for due items is an interesting idea. We'll give it some thought.

I like eronel's typology – I was thinking along those lines myself, but I'm glad he beat me to it.

I heartily agree with him that establishing that kind of consistency is important. I was bugged by my 'due soon' but still unavailable items changing from light italic to regular orange. At at least thought it should have been orange and italic.

(I hope the ability to customize colors is coming, too...)

[QUOTE=zedboy;24492]

(I hope the ability to customize colors is coming, too...)[/QUOTE]

Agree -- along with a master switch to shut it off when it gets too distracting.