[mcoad]

Hope it’s ok to start a new thread to pick up on some points which are scattered through others. Several people are confused by the nomenclature in OF, such as “projects”, “contexts”, “library”, etc, and this has led others to ask for extra features which would move the app more towards being a fuller project planner. It seems to me there’s some misconception here, cutting several ways.

I’m not a great GTD adept, but the confusion seems to arise there rather than in OF itself. It sometimes seems to me that GTD can confuse what is basically rather a simple task-planning scheme, overloading it with jargon and sending everyone spinning off into arcane discussions of what it all means, when actually it’s pretty obvious. “Projects” can sound grandiose for getting simple stuff done, and leads to the strange explanation in one of the threads that OF is “a task manager, not a project manager” so we shouldn’t be confused by the use of the term - duh! Obviously, “errands” or “phone” or “urgent” or whatever aren’t strictly speaking “contexts”, either. A list of projects and actions isn’t a “library”. It’s odd to think of a task as “available”. Is “bucket” really the best term for the place to keep single tasks (a bucket is for slops, or washing floors, surely, and its use in computing doesn’t seem the right metaphor here).

There’s probably not much to be done about this, though it would be great of someone could come up with more useful terms. The main thing is to hang onto the fundamental idea: setting objectives, listing the steps necessary to achieve them, setting priorities and seeing where shared “contexts” allow these steps to be carried out more efficiently (buying the stuff you need for several “projects” at the same store, for example - traditionally known in pre-GTD language as killing several birds with one stone). All pretty obvious really, but a huge help once it’s structured and clear, and OF is a great tool to do this - never mind the jargon.

But the terminology thing works the other way, too. To say that OF is only a “task manager” despite the “projects”, and that therefore anyone thinking beyond this needs some much larger-scale planner like OmniPlan sells OF short. Obviously it isn’t for multi-person, highly complex projects in an office or similar environment. But, as Ethan describes it on the new video, it is a “professional level” task management tool. It can be used for much more than planning painting the woodshed. For people like me, professionals who mostly work alone, it is a godsend for planning work projects (yes, folks, projects), and was conceived as such - or am I wrong?

And this is where there is a major lack, IMHO. One aspect to planning this level of projects is listing tasks, assigning dates and contexts and the like, and for this OF is superb. But the other is planning these projects over time, seeing how they fit together organizationally and how time can best be spent on them over a given period. And this requires some calendar/time/Gantt-type visualization. Not on anything like the scale of OmniPlan, but something far simpler that that would still translate the task and action lists into such visual terms. To say that OF is intended as too basic for this isn’t a good answer, as for many users such a visualization is part-and-parcel of task management, not some different sphere requiring the big guns of OmniPlan. Without it, OF, as excellent as it is, is left hopping along on one leg. With it, it would be the true killer app for this level of project planning . As I think it is intended to be.

I understand the dangers of bloating. Some suggestions in posts, such as allowing full-scale inclusion of web archives, etc, do seem to me to imply this. In this sense OF is not a full project planner, and, yes, should be used together with other apps designed for this. What I am suggesting here is not that, but a logical but missing aspect of what is already in OF.

Sorry to go on for so long and mix topics somewhat, but here’s hoping it may jog some response.