[wayne4]

the 3rd view header In both the planning mode and the context mode allow me to select "available" or "Next action"

What's the difference

changing from one to the other has no effect in series projects (the task at the top of the list is shown)

In parallel projects "next action" shows the top task in the list and "available" lists all the tasks

But what's the use of that for parallel projects?

[jasong]

In a parallel project, there is no difference between an "available" action and "next" action: you can do any of them in any order, thus they're all "available" and "next".

In a sequential project, "available" actions are those that can be done now; "next" actions are the first of the available actions that can be done.

I almost always work in "next action" mode, as I only want to see a single action per project at a time.

[JKT]

From my perspective:

Strictly speaking there isn't a next action in parallel projects. However, it is very likely that you will still have a preferred order of completing the project if you can, in which case the 'next' action is likely to be the one you want to do first by preference. E.g. while you can get bread, cheese and milk at any time and in any order when you go shopping in the supermarket, you are likely to get the cheese and milk at roughly the same time as they are both in the same aisle whereas the bread is on the other side of the store.

[wayne4]

Originally Posted by jasong

In a parallel project, there is no difference between an "available" action and "next" action: you can do any of them in any order, thus they're all "available" and "next".

In a sequential project, "available" actions are those that can be done now; "next" actions are the first of the available actions that can be done.

I almost always work in "next action" mode, as I only want to see a single action per project at a time.

Jasong - thanks for your view on this.
I have just tested your theory & It doesn't really work like that for me.
I've confirmed the following (for me):-

In the context mode a parallel project works as follows:-

Show action with status :-
"next action".
Result = 1 action listed, the top priority action.

"available" = affects parallel projects, reveals more actions, indeed all the actions are listed in parallel projects (sequential projects unaffected)

"remaining" = affects parallel & sequential projects. reveals more actions. all the actions are listed in both sequential and series projects.

What may affect this is my preffered way of headers set up (from the "view" "show toolbar"). they are as follows:- group actions by "context" , sort actions by "project". Show action with status = "??????" (the whole point of this discussion).

P.S. I must thank JKT's posting above, as it was from what you were saying that it started to make sense to me (the result is all the above). I will continue developing your points below

(P.P.S. for those new to omnifocus, Remember that the context mode only considers actions with a context, i.e. any action with "no context" will not appear in the context mode)

[wayne4]

Originally Posted by JKT

From my perspective:

Strictly speaking there isn't a next action in parallel projects. However, it is very likely that you will still have a preferred order of completing the project if you can, in which case the 'next' action is likely to be the one you want to do first by preference. E.g. while you can get bread, cheese and milk at any time and in any order when you go shopping in the supermarket, you are likely to get the cheese and milk at roughly the same time as they are both in the same aisle whereas the bread is on the other side of the store.

Big Thanks JKT. You have opened an understanding of this for me. I never really thought that i could do that i.e see the fact that there is probably a preferred order even in parallel projects. I thought my limitation to this would be omnifocus, but your suggestion opens up new possibilities for me.


This then flooded me with a load of questions
Heres some new avenues of explortion for me:-

Is there any purpose to sequential & parallel projects. As all projects are seen as sequential in the context mode?

Why not just scrap the idea and make all projects function in the way that parallel projects currently operate (as from above i now know that a pararallel projects acts as a sequential project). If you did this then reduce the "Show action with status" to just 2 possibilities "next action" "available"
. There would be no need for "remaining"

I don't know the answers yet, but i'd be open to any further understanding on this.

Thanks again JKT

[JKT]

I think I have probably confused you a bit - my example was more of a personal perspective of what I think about parallel projects rather than a definitive description of what they are intended to be. There are major problems for GTD with forcing all projects to be parallel as some have to be sequential and it is also the 'purist' way of doing GTD (afaik).

However, OmniFocus lets you choose which style is your default for all new projects - if you prefer to use parallel all the time, you can.

[Lizard]

snippet from the documentation:

"...Next actions (just the next thing to do in each eligible project), Available actions (things you can actually do, because they aren’t blocked by earlier actions in a sequential project or a start date in the future), Remaining actions (anything that’s not completed)..."