1. You can only do this ordering in Project, not in Context, so it's not useful for actually doing things. And even if can eventually order tasks in context, having to drag things around constantly is annoying.
2. Numerical systems aren't easy to read, but "High" "Medium" "Low" and "None" are reasonably understandable, even if they're not the most granular.
3. Using Flags doesn't work well, because you can only see flagged tasks or all tasks, what prioritizers want is to Sort tasks, not Filter them.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HiramNetherlands
You can drag items up and down the list to assign them priorities. This, to my mind, is much more precise than giving them numeral values for priority. What does priority 3 mean? "Ignore for now"? "Not very urgent, but still deserving attention within the next ten days"? Priorities are, by definition, relative, so dragging them up and down makes a lot of sense. And you can have as much priority levels as you have items (as Ken Case pointed out earlier).
|
To Mr. Curt:
My quote was merely to illustrate that OF is already described not as a GTD-only piece of software, but as a more flexible productivity application. So, I my opinion, arguments about including or excluding features based solely on GTD canonicity is kinda silly. Feature-creep is another argument altogether, but task prioritization is pretty basic.