Quote:
Originally Posted by brianogilvie
I think there is a good reason for retaining the distinction: it's the distinction between commitments/outcomes/goals that can't be done in one concrete step (projects) and steps toward them (actions).
|
Who ever said that a more flexible UI would be at the expense of that? Why can't I have all options for setting up the views the way I want, but then have built in perspectives or modes to set that up the way you want?
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianogilvie
In another thread you remarked that project and context views are just different ways of looking at actions. I disagree; I consider the action to be a means to accomplishing the project, and the context as a means (in a broad sense) to accomplishing the action.
|
I didn't say that at all! I said that from the point of view of the user, there was no difference between something defined by metadata, and something defined another way. I don't care how the list is created internally, I'm only interested in the list!
At the level of the tool used to organise the actions, just as in DA's book, projects and contexts are no more than lists filtered or arranged by different criteria. The way you
use those lists may well be fundamentally different, but the benefit of the tool being a digital one should be that it is easy to set up the lists any way I want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianogilvie
I find that the distinction between planning mode and context mode brings me a real benefit because it corresponds to how I conceptualize planning and doing.
|
Good, then please explain how you apply that - how does planning mode let you do all of your planning, and how does context view allow you to do all of your doing? Because I can't get a "do" list that doesn't need at least some of what's only available in planning mode, and I can't get a review list that doesn't need contexts in the side bar and other features only available to me in contexts mode.