[Greg Jones]

I discussed workflow a bit in another thread, but to address more specifically priorities in OmniFocus, I'll say that OmniFocus does not need a dedicated data bucket for priorities. What OmniFocus could benefit from is tagging, and Ken has said that user-defined metadata is coming. Then the user can create tags for priorities or whatever the users believes is valuable. Frankly, the time estimate field in OmniFocus could be consolidated with the tags metadata if there are no future plans to incorporate math functions in OmniFocus (for example, a project's time estimate is automatically calculated from the time values of the individual tasks).

[Finlay Boo]

I'm not really mad keen on priorities as I think they'd change too much after the initial capture of the projects/ actions. However, if they are to be added, I would like then to be separate from the estimated field (rather than 'estimated' becoming part of metadata) as I do use this for time calculations on work in my 'today' and 'completed' lists.

[Greg Jones]

I use time calculations also, but I've stopped trying to do serious work with the time estimate field in OF. You cannot set the task times in a project to auto-sum to the project itself, and times are not used on the iPhone at all. There is an excellent script or two here to calculate the sum of a project's times, but one still needs to manually enter that number into OmniFocus, and it still is not available on the iPhone.

I suppose what I should have said was expand the time estimate function so that it is more useful, or do away with it. For my more 'Project Management' needs, I use OmniOutliner Pro where I can automate calculations and do averages, etc. in addition (pardon the pun) to totals-works very well. It's too bad that the same functionality did not make it into OmniFocus.

[mitchm]

Originally Posted by Greg Jones

I'll say that OmniFocus does not need a dedicated data bucket for priorities. What OmniFocus could benefit from is tagging, and Ken has said that user-defined metadata is coming.

Tags would be great but priority tags would not allow sorting of tasks the way I describe. Even if you have a P1 - P5 tag, you couldn't sort by them without hacking some script. You'd have to look at your P1 tasks, then your P2 tasks, ...

Interesting that everyone complains that priorities change. That might be true in some areas, but definitely not in others. There are tasks that I want to eventually do, and I want recorded, but I do not want showing up at the top of any lists. I believe in many GTD implementations there is the concept of "Someday" and "Urgent." That provides three priorities and it seems rather silly to not call them that - that's what they are. Three priorities is probably enough, but I prefer 5.

For me priorities are more static than time estimates for many things. Taking a bike ride to see the lillies is always going to be low priority. Buying a new razor is always going to be medium priority - I can go a day without shaving. Making a critical doctors appointment is always going to be high priority.

I just don't get the argument that priorities change too much. That position seems to me to be an extreme reaction to the over-use of priorities in older systems, rather than a rational position.

[mitchm]

Ok, I see that Ken is saying user defined columsn are planned, which would solve problem.

That was of course saying it was targeted some time after 1.1, but we are on 1.6 now :(

[Greg Jones]

Originally Posted by mitchm

I believe in many GTD implementations there is the concept of "Someday" and "Urgent." That provides three priorities and it seems rather silly to not call them that - that's what they are. Three priorities is probably enough, but I prefer 5.

Urgent tasks should go directly on your calendar or otherwise flagged to get the attention they deserve. The concept of Someday/Maybe in GTD is a parking space to put ideas that one may want to develop further and move to an active status at some point in time. It is not a means to identify tasks and projects that need to be done, but have a low priority.

What might be really helpful is to pick up a copy of GTD and read it from cover to cover. Not that you need to switch your task management approach to GTD, nor does one need to adopt GTD to get value from OmniFocus. However, it can help you better understand why OmniFocus is designed the way it is, and why some users are resistant to seeing features implemented that are completely counter to the GTD methodology.

[wilsonng]

I would also recommend reading David Allen's follow-up book "Making it al work."

I don't have the book in front of me right now but I recalled David Allen commenting about balancing life and work (or life balancing).

IIRC anything that captures your interest is captured into your brain dump. So everything is a "priority" to you.

I also use the flag to mark tasks that are of higher priority or interest to me. Otherwise everything else is just stuff that I can get done conveniently based on where I'm at (@context).

I guess you're trying to adapt some Life Balance methodologies into OF and/or your OF+GTD setup.

Everybody will have their own personalized GTD system. As for me, I've tried to use priorities when I hate a Franklin-Covey planner. Never got it to work because I basically ignored it when it came down to choosing tasks.

Heck, even Mark Forster doesn't really use priority labels in his AutoFocus system. His methodology tells you to scan your list of tasks until something "pops out" at you. Using your intuition or gut instinct, you'll "know" that something becomes a priority to you and you'll just do it. No sense in labelling a priority on a task when you "feel" it.

In the same way with my OF+GTD setup, I'll scan my list of available actions and "feel" like I should do this task or another based on my current context.

"Oh...... I guess I'm waiting in line at the post office. Maybe I can look at my @phone context to see if I can make a quick phone call....."

Oftentimes priorities change from week to week, day to day, minute to minute. When my boss tells me that there is a last minute rush order and to put aside all my projects and get on top of this emergency immediately, my priorities change immediately.

So, priorities are so dynamic, it would be ultimately futile for me to set priority labels despite best intentions in my OF+GTD setup.

I guess you'll get your wish whenever Omni decides to add a custom data field.

[mitchm]

Originally Posted by Greg Jones

Urgent tasks should go directly on your calendar or otherwise flagged to get the attention they deserve. The concept of Someday/Maybe in GTD is a parking space to put ideas that one may want to develop further and move to an active status at some point in time. It is not a means to identify tasks and projects that need to be done, but have a low priority.

Why this dance around "priority". It's a friggin' priority! It may make you feel more GTD to not call i that, but that's what it is.

1) For high priority tasks, add them to your calendar (even if they have no specific due date(?))
2) For medium priority tasks, leave them as normal
3) For low priority tasks, put them in Maybe. Then when the priority goes up, move them to active, i.e. raise their priority. This is what low priority tasks are! They are things you hardly ever get to unless you raise their priority.

This semantics and usability we are talking about here.

[mitchm]

Originally Posted by wilsonng

anything that captures your interest is captured into your brain dump. So everything is a "priority" to you.

I like a lot of what GTD does, but this is an infuriating position based on wordplay. More 700 Club than Executive Club.

The whole point of a brain dump is to get EVERYTHING out, and then sort through it. Some of the things that come out of my brain are things I want to do some day, like buy a scooter, or climb Mount Tam, or call my ex-girlfriend, but I'm just not ready for it. I need a place to keep those - e.g. a Someday status, equivalent for all purposes with a low priority.

Perhaps the rest of you take everything you are not sure you will ever do off of your lists. Maybe you keep "maybe" lists separately. For me, I'd like to have it all in one place.

[mitchm]

Sorry for the repeated posts, but regarding the "when my boss calls my priorities change" position, that may be true. But it generally wouldn't reorder all of your priorities (e.g. buy a bike and call mom would still be in the same order,) it would just add some tasks that supercede your current tasks. Now if you already have 10 P1 tasks, and 20 P2 tasks and 20 P3 tasks (within a given context), you might now have 12 P1 tasks. That's still a lot better than having 42 tasks and your boss's new tasks thrown in there. When I look at a list of 42 tasks in no particular order, I have a tough time picking the most important one. Picking from 12 is much easier.

Contexts aren't perfect either - some things might change context. Time estimates are also not perfect. Why do priorities have to be perfect to even be considered?