[bluebaltic]

Let me respond, briefly:

Originally Posted by chuckbo

To me, prioritization has two components: criticality and deadline. Some things may have a distant deadline, but they are so critical, that you want to get them out of the way. Some items have low importance, but because they _must_ be completed by some date, as that date approaches, the priority of that item must cause the item to rise on the to-do list. I can't think of a product that has handled this duality well (yet).

chuck

Yes, I heartily agree, but I'm willing to deal with the above manually and let the date be its own indicator of priority. I'm interested to know how due date will be handled by the "next action" window in OmniFocus beta.

[bluebaltic]

Hello Tim:

Ideally, yes to all the top points on prioritization. You understood me correctly (especially in the way the views would handle the user-set priorities). I've been looking at the threads on context and am thrilled with all that. This would be very desireable -- and GTD functional -- frosting.

On your other points, below:

What tiebreaker, if any, should be used when ordering projects (or sub-projects) that have the same priority?

I think that equal value priorities on projects will most likely need to default to whatever comes naturally to the framework of the programming. If I care that much about priority, I'll have to adjust accordingly. I've seen some prioritization systems that allow for an A1, A2 or B1 B2 prioritization scenario, but I think I can easily live with something simpler. I'm still thinking about this one.

Within a project (or sub-project), what determines the order of tasks that have priorities? Manual ordering or priority?

When I recognized in another thread that manual ordering was part of the established OmniFolk paradigm, I came to the realization that I could probably live with a manual ordering for the next action view, but I'd miss an automatic sort on priority in an all actionable view.

What should be done when some tasks or projects have priorities and some do not?

No priority sorts last, of course!

How should ordering of tasks in the Action view work when there are both priorities and due dates (or even do dates)?

Hard due dates (calendar due dates) have to trump user-set priority in a listing. I don't personally need any greater level of automation and I would rather not have my priority settings changed automatically when due date (perhaps with a "lead time" setting) can take care of that angle.

Separation of due dates from other priorities might be interesting, but for my purposes, most of the time, I would be happy having these all displayed together with a due date (modified by lead time) trumping priority. In Life Balance some color coding linked to lead time causes the color band over the due date to change from green --> (before lead time start), to yellow --> (during lead time period), to red --> (Date due reached). Overdue was displayed automatically after a due date had passed without completion of the task. I liked that feature.

Also, what do you think about a fixed set of priority labels versus allowing the user to customize the list of priority labels? kGTD allows the user to customize the list, and I like that feature.

I love being able to set my own priorities. In an alphabetical sort that lets me use things like A1, A2, A3 ... Z1, Z2 etc. if I really want to. But, I'm trying to be flexible here. :-)

[bluebaltic]

Please check out the new thread where there is some discussion of a ranking (prioritizing) system that is essentially automatic through manual dragging of items inside (possibly) a project. If the same were implemented for projects to finalize the prioritization scheme, I think that would be just the ticket. Maybe some implementation of this is what OmniPeople have in mind when they talk about manually positioning tasks inside a Project view?

[Hoff]

My two cents:

While I think it is critical to have some sort of priority marker, I would go with a light, simple approach to this (at least at first). If I could sort tasks and projects by priority, and if I can drag items into whatever order I want in task or project lists - then I would be happy. Many products and systems I have tried that attempt getting fancy with priorities just wind up being kludgy and fiddle-prone.

I'll note though, that the reference to "criticality and deadline" sounds a lot like "importance and urgency" - which is the model used by Stephen Covey, and then by Franklin-Covey. GTD is a very different system (which overall, I like better) but I found the four-block chart in the Covey model very useful.

[duodecad]

Originally Posted by Hoff

While I think it is critical to have some sort of priority marker, I would go with a light, simple approach to this (at least at first). If I could sort tasks and projects by priority, and if I can drag items into whatever order I want in task or project lists - then I would be happy. Many products and systems I have tried that attempt getting fancy with priorities just wind up being kludgy and fiddle-prone.

I'm with Hoff on this one. If you're going to include priority functionality, please do keep it light and simple.

When I first read GTD, one thing I loved about it was David Allen's insistence that prioritizing things ahead of time (A, B, etc, a la Franklin Covey) doesn't work well because your entire pre-ranked priority list can be completely blown away by a single change in your workday or project load or what-have-you. I've definitely found that to be the case in my own work.

As I understand it, that's why priority is the *last* of the four criteria he suggests using to decide what to do at any given time, and even then he's careful to say that intuition and the regular weekly review (as opposed to pre-labeled priority levels) play a large part in deciding what you should be doing at any given moment. The point is to be able to roll with the punches and adjust on the fly as your workload/landscape changes, rather than having to keep redrawing your map, so to speak.

To me, personally, getting heavily into the prioritization issue is just a black hole. I could spend hours ranking projects and tasks by priority; in fact, I've done so in the past, and it usually ends up being a big waste of time. Furthermore, it seems like "fiddling with the system" is a big pitfall for lots of people who set out to practice GTD, and this issue just screams "fiddling" to me. Besides, if something isn't important enough for me to be working on this week, then it shouldn't even be on my Active Projects list in the first place; instead it gets shunted to "On Hold" or "Someday/Maybe" until I'm ready to give it some real attention. Thus the Weekly Review, practiced diligently, makes a lot of this prioritization stuff a non-issue.

It sounds like including a prioritization option is appealing to a lot of people. But please don't require me to use it if I don't want to. I'd rather spend my time actually getting stuff done :)

[bluebaltic]

I find myself agreeing with everyone, as long as we don't totally dismiss the question of prioritization. I'm pretty confident this is not what OmniPeople have in mind. These things are always an issue in programming, I suspect, one way or another, just to have the system function in an orderly fashion.

The system should be simple. If user-set priority is completely abandoned as a concept, the program still must draw straws from all existing tasks or maybe use a first-in-first-out paradigm based on a time stamp that is connected invisibly to the task entry (I'm guessing) or even be linked to a drag system in projects to create a de facto user-set priority.

A soft-touch, non-user defined approach is appealing (even to priority lovers like myself) because I don't like "black hole" fiddling either. I want two levels of prioritization VERY SIMPLY EXECUTED. BUT PLEASE-- create the same drag-inside-list prioritization for the PROJECTS as well. That creates a type of fuctionality that I will not want to live without and it seems easy to implement without affecting other users negatively or unduly since the creation of a project appears to be optional.

Sooner or later some boss or outside factor is going to step in and make something -- PROJECT or a SINGLE TASK -- more important than other things and the cost of ignoring that (or forgetting about it under pressure) is too high. I need to trust my system at the level of the next up action to keep these things in mind.

Defaulting to a hard Calendar due date for tasks will probably take care of some people facing this reality, but not most when the issue is a broader project. Others have discretion or conflicting priorities and use user-set priorities to channel their activity based on variables like project profitability or importance based on "my wife will divorce me if I don't do THIS even if the boss will fire me if I don't do THAT."

The OmniPeople seem to be saying they will implement a simple prioritization system (possibly through an in-project dragging of tasks from top to bottom by the user). This is plenty if the behind-the-scenes reality is an invisible prioritization by default.

[chuckbo]

In fact, I mostly get along okay with iCal's to-do list as long as I keep it in manual sort order. My main complaint is that it doesn't have a field to specify how far in advance an item should appear on the list. I have some items like renewing a dba license that are to-do items for 5 years in the future, and I'd like to have a setting that that item only appears a month before it's due. But some items that have a hard deadline next month, I don't want them to suddenly pop up that day as due -- I want to specify that they show up on the list a week before they're due. And, of course, anything that isn't complete should stay on the list until I check it off (a problem with either iCal or Palm, I forget which, if I've set the items to only appear in the week that they're scheduled).
chuck

[cwmsmick]

Originally Posted by tacartwright

Will OmniFocus allow me to manage task priorities? kGTD sort of has them (optionally). I do like being able to create my own list of priority labels. But my one beef with kGTD is that it doesn’t sort next actions by priority within a context. For me, priorities are important in ordering next actions across projects.

This resonates with something I wanted to raise anyway.

kGTD does allow users to manage task priorities in a very elegant way and it does sort Next Actions by priority within a Context . . . if the users have make a small change to the settings.

At first, I was frustrated by the fact that kGTD kept listing the main Projects alphabetically even if I dragged them into another order. After a while, I found that by going to 'KGTD Settings/Projects Section Settings/' and setting 'Auto-sort projects by name' to 'False', I was then able to drag the top-level Projects up and down in the list into whatever priority order I want.

The elegant part is that after I've sync'd, the list of Next Actions in the Actions section (which I've renamed 'Actions by Context') will be in the same order as the order into which I've dragged the projects. If I later drag a particular project item to the top of the list, reflecting a change in the way I see its priority, then Sync again, the Next Action(s) for that project will appear at the top of the appropriate context lists.

Before I saw this thread, I'd been wondering whether/how to try to call this feature to Omni's attention and ask that it be brought forward into OmniFocus. It is so simple as to be virtually 'automatic', but I've really come to depend on seeing the items in my various Context lists ranked in the same order I've given their projects. That makes the Context lists much more useful; I can just go down them from top to bottom, knowing that I'm matching the importance I've assigned to the parent Projects.

--Chris

[matthewbate]

I think that the easy way to do this is to approximate priorities, but in a plastic. malleable way.

I would like my contexts listed according to rough priority based on the ordering of my project lists and the tasks within them. You would get something like this:

Project 1 Next Action
Project 2 Next Action
Project 3 Next Action
Project 1 Action 2
Project 2 Action 2
Project 3 Action 2
Project 1 Action 3

And so on...

This isn't a meta-managed system, they don't work as we know but it will put the tasks in an approximate order, and lets face it, we scan the top of the list when we start a context so the approximate order is good enough.

Anyone got an idea of how we can achieve this?

Feature request?

Many thanks

Matthew Bate
Productivity Coach and Trainer
m2b8.com