I came late into this discussion, and now the last posts are all mine ;-)

I'd like draw attention to one thing. GTD is about Getting Things Done. It is not a mantra, nor a religion. It is not about being worlds best DA adept.

When I need a hammer, it is of no use if someone tells me that he does not need a hammer and so shouldn't I.

If somebody gets his work better done with priorisation, then it is OK.
If somebody gets his work better done without priorisation, then it is OK.
There is not the one ideal solution, that fits every situation on the planet.

So - as long as its optional for those who dislike it - could we please have priorisation? And with sync to iCal please. It looks like it would ease the life of some OF users.

TIA

abruenin: I understand what you're saying. And maybe there is room for prioritization in Focus. I'm not the one to make that call.

Can I take off my Omni hat and speak as just another user for a minute?
I'd like to offer an analogy to explain why some people are reluctant to have more features thrown in, even if they can be turned off.
Have you ever needed a screwdriver, and been handed one of those everything-in-one tools? For a quick tightening of one screw, that tool will probably work just fine. But when you spend all day every day tightening screws, you want a screwdriver that was made just to be a screwdriver. Its designer didn't have to shorten the shaft so it would fold back into the handle neatly or make any other compromises. She (or he) could focus on making a device that was optimized for tightening and loosening screws.

Many GTD-ers expect to use the app multiple times per day, so they want it optimized for getting things done the way they work. I welcome the fact that there are many GTD apps being developed and encourage everyone to find the one that fits them best. (Even I might not end up using OmniFocus -- my hipsterPDA is pretty reliable.)

You know, I kind of wish OmniGroup had never said "OmniFocus works great as a Getting Things Done® trusted system but can also be used to fit other task management styles."

If only you guys had said "we're out to make the best damned GTD application in the world!" and sell to those willing to have such an application, a lot of the discussions about which tool to add to the all-in-one might not happen.

Sure, there'd be a bunch of arguments over whether something is or isnt "canonical" GTD, but at least you'd have had something to use as a fallback. "Priorities aren't in GTD, so priorities aren't in OmniFocus".

Oh well.

You guys have managed to do an admirable job building OF.

I think, though, that Ken or Tim should spend more time with Steve Jobs and start demanding (the lack of) certain features!

[QUOTE=jasong;29476]You know, I kind of wish OmniGroup had never said "OmniFocus works great as a Getting Things Done® trusted system but can also be used to fit other task management styles."

If only you guys had said "we're out to make the best damned GTD application in the world!" and sell to those willing to have such an application, a lot of the discussions about which tool to add to the all-in-one might not happen.

Sure, there'd be a bunch of arguments over whether something is or isnt "canonical" GTD, but at least you'd have had something to use as a fallback. "Priorities aren't in GTD, so priorities aren't in OmniFocus".

Oh well.

You guys have managed to do an admirable job building OF.

I think, though, that Ken or Tim should spend more time with Steve Jobs and start demanding (the lack of) certain features![/QUOTE]

I totally agree. Please don't let it become a "jack of all trades, master of none" app (not that I think Omni will!).

I'm new to this discussion and I also haven't read every item in the thread (disclosed for those of you who wish to read no further based on that!).

Actions have various kinds of optional metadata already such as "estimated time", "flag", "repeat every", and three (or five!) date fields. A prioritization field would fit very well into how so many people might use this program to sort and filter actions that it makes a lot of sense to me. WITHIN certain focuses I can afford to specify dates or estimated level of efforts but that doesn't make sense across all of my perspectives.

Priorities can fit smoothly into the existing interface and users can smoothly go back and forth: If the option is turned off you see the flags as they currently stand. If the option is turned on the "flag" gets replaced by priority 1 thru 5 and that same field is sortable instead of the flagged filter. If you turn it back off, all priority 1 or priority 2 items will show up as flagged and all 3-5 will show up as not flagged.

Should OF be pure GTD?
 

Should OF be pure GTD? I hope not, because even out of those who admire and aspire to GTD, only a small fraction have achieved pure implementation. Many people are working their way towards that goal, or have found some happy stopping ground along the way, or even fall off the wagon and get back on repeatedly over time. For instance the [URL="http://www.43folders.com/2007/12/19/missing-iphone-todo-app-not-missed"]great article and feedback[/URL] discussion the past couple of days at 43 Folders shows lots of examples of people in these different states of adherence.

I think Omnigroup are picking the almost perfect focus when they design the product around the GTD concept, but allow for flexibility and variations in needs and work style and orthodoxy.

As someone who's operationally standing somewhere between a more traditional task management method and GTD, I've found this discussion very interesting. Good dialog. :)

Hallelujah, lizard and jasong. Both of you have beautifully articulated something that's been increasingly worrying me lately. I was more involved in early discussions about OF features than I've been lately, simply because the demands for non-GTD features have been putting me off (and making me fear for the future of OF, frankly). I've been waiting a long time for the perfect GTD app to come along, and OF is it-- sans priorities, sans tagging, sans anything else that is more about fiddling and tweaking your lists than actually Getting Things Done.

Right now, OF is looking like the most well-designed specialty screwdriver I've ever seen, and one that I would happily pay handsomely for, just like any other high-quality specialty tool that I know I'm going to be able to rely on for a long time. Please, Omni, don't dilute it in an attempt to woo practitioners of "other systems".

[QUOTE=idea2go;29486]Should OF be pure GTD?[/QUOTE]


I'll admit, I tend to get snobby about being pure GTD, but in reality, the system is one person's take on a task management system (granted, with lots of experience coaching others), and there's always room for improvement. Considering GTD (the book) doesn't really discuss a software system, things that may not work well with a paper system, might actually work very well with a computerized system.

However, there's a fine line between "modernizing" GTD and throwing in way too much.

[QUOTE=jasong;29476]Sure, there'd be a bunch of arguments over whether something is or isnt "canonical" GTD, but at least you'd have had something to use as a fallback. "Priorities aren't in GTD, so priorities aren't in OmniFocus".
[/QUOTE]

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't someone pointed out in this thread, that priorities [B]are[/B] part of GTD, though not discussed in detail?