Quote:
Originally Posted by zoisite
The main advantage that I see in Things is that it allows you to be more vague in the description of a task without messing up: One task and two tags are sufficient for the Bob problem.
I see it as positive thing to be able to be vague. This allows you to have to think less about how to organize a taks in the system. Vagueness allows you to just write it down. This is only possible because Things provides some infrastructure that supports this.
In OmniFocus you have to describe the action as precisely as possible. You are free to do anything, but you are free in "empty space". You have nothing to build on, no predefined basic structure as in Things. You have to find out how to manage projects, contexts and actions. If you don't know how to organize your tasks in OF you're lost.
|
I just wanted to say that I think this is a really great encapsulation of the different approaches that OmniFocus and Things take to the same underlying task, and that the most important takeaway is that
neither approach is wrong.
I suspect that OmniFocus and Things both reflect the preferred work style of the folks that wrote them. That doesn't make either one more correct; just different.
I know for a fact that there are big chunks of folks that think each app got it totally wrong. For OmniFocus 2, we're going to do our darndest to create an app that gives you as much of the upside of both approaches while exposing you to as little of the downsides. :-)