The Omni Group
These forums are now read-only. Please visit our new forums to participate in discussion. A new account will be required to post in the new forums. For more info on the switch, see this post. Thank you!

Go Back   The Omni Group Forums > OmniFocus > OmniFocus 1 for Mac
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 
I really need a third category... Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
From what I've gathered from the forum, I have only two options. I can view my tasks either via projects or via contexts. But I need a third category, status. Status could encompass categories such as delegated, pending/waiting for, scheduled, ASAP, reference, prospective/someday/maybe. The idea of creating contexts @delegated or @reference seems silly given the GTD meaning of context (environment(s) and/or resource(s) required to execute the task). And if I use a context to assign a status, I then can't assign a true context. For example, if my follow-up of a delegated task requires a phone call, I'm forced to make a choice as to whether I'll see it under @phone or under @delegated. Frustrating.

The other alternative is to create projects with status categories. But again, ultimately, I'm relegated to a similar compromise. I can (a) see a bunch tasks, unrelated, but for having a simiar status of, for example, delegated, in a "project" that is counter to the GTD definition. Or, (b) see the related tasks in the project to which these tasks belong. But I can't do both. Frustrating.

Thinking Rock is the only app I've seen that allows for one to filter according to status, context and project, simulateously. Unfortunately, it's UI is impossibly cluttered (especially in comparison to the clean UI of OmniFocus).

And so, I continue to live with hope that one day, an upcoming screencasts will have a third view mode next to projects and contexts that will read status.

Am I the only one?

I'd be interested to hear from the Omni Ninjas what the road map is to address issues re status...
 
Well,

In the case you describe I decide on what the next action will be when I enter the the task that I have delegate. Then, if I need to call it becomes e.g.: call John to check that car is ordered. When I need to discuss this with the person I choose for two alternatives: either I file a task in @John, or in a @PurchaseMeeting.

Can also just simply be that I delegated something to someone I am only occasionally working with or a foreign person. Then I define a next action and file it in @WF (Wating For). This is not a real context, but the only one I use like that. For me this is not a problem.

Personally, I think that it is important to decide on the next action for me to be done, when I delegate something. the context where to file it is then clearly identified.

Using an additional thing like status will make it in my opinion more complex to enter taks and to follow them up.

Cheers

Mario
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario.Batz@cern.ch
Well,

In the case you describe I decide on what the next action will be when I enter the the task that I have delegate. Then, if I need to call it becomes e.g.: call John to check that car is ordered. When I need to discuss this with the person I choose for two alternatives: either I file a task in @John, or in a @PurchaseMeeting.

Can also just simply be that I delegated something to someone I am only occasionally working with or a foreign person. Then I define a next action and file it in @WF (Wating For). This is not a real context, but the only one I use like that. For me this is not a problem.

Personally, I think that it is important to decide on the next action for me to be done, when I delegate something. the context where to file it is then clearly identified.

Using an additional thing like status will make it in my opinion more complex to enter taks and to follow them up.

Cheers

Mario
What do you do when you've delegated several tasks to several different persons (some occasional, some not), and you want to review all of your delegated tasks in one glance?
 
Everyone say ... tags ...
 
Allen wrote about separate piles for "waiting for" and "pending" and "reference" (that one's not really a pile but a filing system) and "someday/maybe" and there have been comments on these boards that at least "waiting for" should be a special box like Inbox but some are using Context for this. That might be "Waiting for...
---John
---Purchase Meeting
---etc as the dependencies arise"

which would allow you to Focus on that list.

Tags such as Flags, ASAP, priorities, interest are considered impediments to GTD. Janice lumped a few of these piles and tags together.

If it's scheduled, it's off your task list and into your calendar (processed).
If it's reference it's off your task list and in your file system (processed).
If it's delegated that's the same as pending/waiting on someone.
If it's ASAP then you've given yourself a stumbling block that's bound to create conflict and unhappiness (as Allen would say, as I understand him).

So we're back to having a special category for "Waiting for..." and processing everything else to either an un-prioritized action you are going to do or sending it off the task list altogether. You might send it to a tickler in the calendar to remind you to pester the person you're waiting for on some future date. "Waiting for..." can be an active task but one that doesn't allow next actions (I was tipped off to this approach elsewhere in the forum).

Sorry if this comes across as to righteous. I've been listening to the Allen audiobook in the car lately. I'm trying to grok it myself.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janice
Status could encompass categories such as delegated, pending/waiting for, scheduled, ASAP, reference, prospective/someday/maybe. The idea of creating contexts @delegated or @reference seems silly given the GTD meaning of context (environment(s) and/or resource(s) required to execute the task).
OmniFocus does have a notion of project status: a project can be active, on hold, completed, or dropped, and you can filter the project list using these states. You can also set start dates on projects and actions (giving you a "scheduled" state), and you can create different top-level folders for projects and use those to create your own arbitrary groupings of folders (such as a someday/maybe list, which might be a bunch of projects in an inactive folder).

I have to confess to a certain puzzlement over the whole notion of "delegated" as a context or separate state for an action. If I delegate an action, it's off my plate: that action is not really my action any longer. Instead, my action is to check to see if my designated delegate is progressing appropriately on the action, which usually implies adding a new action to an Agenda context (along the lines of "Review Jane's progress on plans for t-shirts") and scheduling it (say, for next week). When I look at my action list, I now see something concrete and specific that I can do at an appropriate time and place to keep that project moving forward.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjb
Tags such as Flags, ASAP, priorities, interest are considered impediments to GTD. Janice lumped a few of these piles and tags together.
They may be impediments to GTD, but that doesn't mean they have to be impediments to OmniFocus.

If you don't want to use tags, don't.

As a sys admin and manager of an IT department, all of my life is on the computer. And much of it is spent delegating tasks, and following up with them to make sure it has actually been done.

There needs to be another way to organize things besides @Computer, @Email, and there need to be a mechanism to follow up with delegated tasks.

And even the piles you reference ARE GTD.

There is a great thread on tagging here:
http://forums.omnigroup.com/showthread.php?t=2546

Last edited by joelande; 2007-06-03 at 08:52 AM..
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Case
I have to confess to a certain puzzlement over the whole notion of "delegated" as a context or separate state for an action. If I delegate an action, it's off my plate: that action is not really my action any longer. Instead, my action is to check to see if my designated delegate is progressing appropriately on the action, which usually implies adding a new action to an Agenda context (along the lines of "Review Jane's progress on plans for t-shirts") and scheduling it (say, for next week). When I look at my action list, I now see something concrete and specific that I can do at an appropriate time and place to keep that project moving forward.
Well, that works, but I think the issue here is you are creating two tasks for the same task
1. the original task, which you "completed" by delegating it
2. the task to follow up with the person you delegated it to

Which one could argue
A. That seems like a lot of busy work
B. It kinda goes against the GTD principal of handling a task only once
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelande
As a sys admin and manager of an IT department, all of my life is on the computer. There needs to be another way to organize things besides @Computer, @Email.
As I understand the idea of a context in GTD, it is the specific situation within which the task can be completed; and although it may be "organisation" in the strict sense, the function of contexts is to filter-out the noise of those tasks which cannot be addressed in any given situation.

If this reading is correct, it follows that each user will have different requirements for the degree of specificity needed to focus meaningfully on their tasks. For one person @computer may be specific enough but someone else might need to use @photoshop to filter-out all their other computer-based tasks; yet another person may want even finer-grained control and use @retouching to separate this field of their attention from others such as @scanning and @resizing. In OmniFocus these contexts can be nested, grouping them together in the list for clarity (e.g. @computer>photoshop>retouching), but in the line item they show as the single specific context. On the other hand, for someone using a computer all day an @computer context may be meaningless and using @photoshop, @internet might be broad enough.

My understanding is that contexts should not be regarded as "categories" as such, but as a means to help you ignore those tasks on which it would be pointless to waste your attention at that particular moment.

Last edited by coconino; 2007-06-03 at 10:00 AM..
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelande
Well, that works, but I think the issue here is you are creating two tasks for the same task
1. the original task, which you "completed" by delegating it
2. the task to follow up with the person you delegated it to
You may be entirely confident in the competence of the person to whom you delegated, so (2) may not be required. On the other hand, the task may be a large one requiring your oversight and therefore additional follow-up tasks.

In the first place, however, I think that when you delegate a task you are then merely awaiting its completion. If it is anything more than that then you still have a project and everything which that entails.
 
 


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Asign Category and Project to Actions skillet OmniFocus Extras 5 2011-07-09 04:12 PM
Actions that don't leave "Overdue" category Faulkner OmniFocus for iPhone 5 2009-09-04 08:14 AM
Organize Projects by Category or Roles dwayneneckles OmniFocus 1 for Mac 6 2008-07-16 06:48 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.