View Single Post
Lucas, the problem with focus embedded in a perspective is two-fold. First, it eventually results in blind-spots. Perspectives save focus in an intentional manner, not an exclusion manner, or to put it another way they only save what was selected when the perspective was created, and do not automatically select new objects based on type or pattern. So over time, as new projects are created and old ones disappear, the perspective would get "out of date". It would not automatically know to focus on the new parallel and sequential projects that have been created since the perspective was created. While I could manually maintain the focus and keep creating snapshots of the perspective, that introduces human error elements; I might forget to do it every time I create a new project (in fact that is very likely). I'd love it if we could set inversion focus, or exclusion focus and save that to a perspective. That would come in handy for more than this particular scenario. Basically "Focus on everything except what was selected".

The second problem, to reiterate from above: if there were one or two single-action style buckets to omit, then that would be one thing, but there are many, and they are nested all over the place in dozens of folders and sub-folders. It would literally take five minutes just to setup the review, every single time (or submit oneself to the blind-spot problem above and hope for the best). Perspectives store just about everything, even search results! But they are not the answer to every problem, especially when it is a problem at the filter level.

whpalmer4, I'm really not sure how to parse your first paragraph. You seem to be saying that neither I nor the program distinguishes between them, and then offer proof of that by parenthetically saying that I'm trying to distinguish between them?

I think we are all talking about different things or something.

There are, conceptually and programmatically speaking, three different sub-classes of Action (two of which are relevant to this discussion). Next Actions, Single Actions, and Action Groups. If you don't believe me, look in the stylesheet setup. Next Actions can be styled one way and Single Actions can be styled another way. Evidently, OF distinguishes between them at *some* level otherwise I wouldn't be seeing two different colours of action with the NA filter turned on.

All I'm asking is: why does the NA filter also let SAs in, especially when the program dumps all 25 of them (or whatever) per project? NA review is supposed to be a quick run-down of all projects and what it takes to move them forward; identifying blocks or inadvertent compounds and so on. SAs by definition fall outside of that remit.

Thanks for the provided script. I had to adjust it slightly to also de-select folders, otherwise any single-action bucket other than root level buckets will remain visible, since the selection of a folder with mixed items in it implicitly focusses all children. Once folder de-selection is turned on in the script, it can fairly quickly assemble a list of only standard project types which can be focussed.

However, even when properly tuned, saving the results of the script to a perspective will still eventually result in blind-spots as new projects are created. It's a pity we cannot attach scripts to perspectives. :) Though given how long it takes for the script to execute (I really do have a lot of projects), I can understand why OmniGroup hasn't yet implemented such a thing!

Basically this line on my weekly review will need to be:
  1. Load NA perspective.
  2. Expand all items in source list.
  3. Select all.
  4. Run AppleScript to de-select folders & buckets.
  5. Focus.
  6. Switch back to context view
  7. Review NAs

Which is why I am trying to avoid "work-arounds" like this. :) Even with the script removing the five minute selection process, that is still a lot of steps for what could just as easily be automatic with a filter that more accurately matches the internal sub-action class model.

Saving the above to a perspective isn't feasible. Too many projects are created during the course of a week, so it needs to always be updated from scratch.

Last edited by AmberV; 2009-07-05 at 10:34 PM..