[Lecter]

Originally Posted by abates17

I understand. I just wanted to clarify the misconception that priorities are “not GTD,”*or that the brain can always determine priorities more quickly and easily than an automated system. I think the brain determines urgency, but a system can track priority reasonably well.

Hi Abates,

I think there is a misconception about your interpretation of priorities, vis-a-vis this discussion. GTD certainly allows for priorities (with intuition filtered through observation), but not in the classical time-management sense of A,B,C,D or High, Medium, Low, etc. Most of the comments pointed against priorities are directed at the A,B,C type of priority systems. As Kelly Forrister (one of DavidCo's top coaches) has said about what makes a good GTD list manager, "It does not force priority codes (really folks, this is GTD 101)".

From your description of Life Balance's automation, it sounds like it will adjust the order of items in the list and change the colors of items. Aside from being a visual distraction/nuisance, I would not trust any automation to have the ability of making priority calls at all, even if then are just for informational purposes. My windows and garage (etc.) do not get dirty on any predictable schedule, so Life Balance's hints/suggestions would not be accurate, nor helpful (meaning that it would get in my way). The variables involved with those tasks negate any benefits from calculations that lead time could provide. Sometimes my garage needs weekly cleanings, and sometimes it doesn't need cleaning for months. How would Life Balance's system deal with that variable? On the other hand, my intuition and observation handle these variables without any stress at all.

One of GTD's benefits is reduction of stress. Automated reminders, suggestions and/or alterations can create stress. Even simple ones. After reading a Merlin Mann article, I turned off new e-mail notifications. Without those automated interruptions, I now approach e-mail proactively, with vigor. Before, the new e-mail notifications made me feel like the proverbial Pavlov's dog.

Having a automated system attempt to bubble particular items to the top removes some of your active involvement in that decision chain. In my experience, distancing oneself from a decision ultimately results in weakening the overall decision-making process. Any isolation (however small) removes a bit of you from the focus of the moment.

Do you walk around your home with your eyes closed? Maybe you live in a mansion. For me, I immediately know when my areas need cleaning. It doesn't take any bother to observe one's surroundings.

GTD does work with priorities (I'm not sure where you disconnected on that topic). I am just against Life Balance's automated [bubbling hint/suggestion coloration] system (at least as described in your posts). Before this triggers another misinterpretation, I am not against automation in general. Automation is fantastic for some things. GTD priorities is just not one of them.

Being able to customize the fields in OmniFocus is one of the reasons that I licensed the software. As has been stated time and time again (particularly in the previous pages), if a priority field of any type is ever implemented, it would be best that those of us who choose not to be hindered with it can hide it completely. Unused fields are unnecessary and are distractions. Giving users the choice to view only used fields makes both camps happy. Do you seriously not understand why one (who doesn't want a particular field) would not want the ability to completely hide it?

One of the other concerns I have is that the OmniGroup have limited engineering resources. Aside from some of their original products taking a backseat, Ken has posted that they are spread a little thin. I've been waiting a while for the Omni code-ninjas to fix a basic AppleScript issue. Given that, I'd hate to see engineering time and code expended on features that don't add core value to the GTD user-base at large. OmniFocus is already gaining a reputation for being too complicated. A day doesn't go by where I don't notice a post, message or tweet about users choosing Things or the Hit List over OmniFocus. Adding a feature from Life Balance isn't likely to win over users who want less fields and less complication.

To close, here are some seminar comments from David Allen that I felt are pertinent:

"How do I decide what to do? Has that thought ever occurred to any of you? How would you like to feel, absolutely 100% confident, that the choice you are making is absolutely the best choice from a moment to moment basis for the rest of your life? Well, you can get there, but it is not free. Its a eternal, vigilant process. Nobody is going to take your intuition away from you. Every thing you decide to do is intuitive. Deciding to come to this seminar was intuitive. Deciding to listen to this seminar is an intuitive judgment call. There is a lot of other things that all of you could be doing right now. So what made you decide to do this? You didn't wake up and say 'A plus B to the third power...oh! I've got to go to the seminar!' Nobody is going to manage your life but you. So that little thing is the individual unique part of you — and you are not going to systemize that. But the reason to do all the rest of this is to free yourself up so that you really listen to who you are and what you really want to do. And you are able to keep your focus 100% toward where you put your choices and not feel like you've got distracted energy. Thats where the doing comes in."

[abates17]

Originally Posted by Lecter

Most of the comments pointed against priorities are directed at the A,B,C type of priority systems. As Kelly Forrister (one of DavidCo's top coaches) has said about what makes a good GTD list manager, "It does not force priority codes (really folks, this is GTD 101)".

Again, I haven’t seen anyone talking about OmniFocus FORCING priority codes to be used, only that they should be available for people who want to use them. There is a world of difference between having them available, and forcing users to use them.

Originally Posted by Lecter

From your description of Life Balance's automation, it sounds like it will adjust the order of items in the list and change the colors of items. Aside from being a visual distraction/nuisance,

OmniFocus already changes the colors of items based on due dates, and filters whether or not items appear on the list; Life Balance does almost the exact same thing, although with a finer amount of granularity.

Originally Posted by Lecter

I would not trust any automation to have the ability of making priority calls at all, even if then are just for informational purposes.

And I find that I would rather have more information than less. The software does not make the final call on task priority; it just provide me more information about which recurring tasks have been done the least recently, and which have been done the most recently. Again, this is something that I find beneficial.

Originally Posted by Lecter

My windows and garage (etc.) do not get dirty on any predictable schedule, so Life Balance's hints/suggestions would not be accurate, nor helpful (meaning that it would get in my way). The variables involved with those tasks negate any benefits from calculations that lead time could provide. Sometimes my garage needs weekly cleanings, and sometimes it doesn't need cleaning for months. How would Life Balance's system deal with that variable?

If you have a task that does not recur on a regular schedule, then obviously you would not set it up as a recurring task with a regular schedule. But personally, I find that dust accumulates at a pretty constant rate, dirt accumulates on the windows pretty regularly…these are not things where I need to do a visual inspection every time I decide what needs to be cleaned. I prefer not to wait until something needs to be cleaned so badly that it draws my attention.

Originally Posted by Lecter

Having a automated system attempt to bubble particular items to the top removes some of your active involvement in that decision chain. In my experience, distancing oneself from a decision ultimately results in weakening the overall decision-making process.

In my experience, having a large list of tasks can often lead to picking easier tasks first, or ones that you enjoy doing more. I would rather have more information about which areas I am neglecting. The ultimate decision is still mine, of course, but at least I am making an informed decision.

Originally Posted by Lecter

Do you walk around your home with your eyes closed? Maybe you live in a mansion. For me, I immediately know when my areas need cleaning. It doesn't take any bother to observe one's surroundings.

I’m glad that works for you. Personally, there are some areas of my house where I spend more time, and others that I don’t pay as much attention to. And no, I can’t visually discern between an area that was dusted three days ago, and one that was dusted five days ago. If you can, that’s great, but I want to set up a regular cleaning schedule for myself, and have software that reminds me about which areas I am neglecting.

Originally Posted by Lecter

GTD does work with priorities (I'm not sure where you disconnected on that topic). I am just against Life Balance's automated [bubbling hint/suggestion coloration] system (at least as described in your posts).

And again, OmniFocus already has a bubbling system (albeit a binary one) and a hint/suggestion coloration system.

Originally Posted by Lecter

As has been stated time and time again (particularly in the previous pages), if a priority field of any type is ever implemented, it would be best that those of us who choose not to be hindered with it can hide it completely. Unused fields are unnecessary and are distractions. Giving users the choice to view only used fields makes both camps happy. Do you seriously not understand why one (who doesn't want a particular field) would not want the ability to completely hide it?

It seems unreasonable to say, “I will only accept a new field if it can be hidden COMPLETELY.” There are currently fields in OmniFocus that I don’t use, but they are not able to be completely hidden. However, I understand that many different people use the software, so there will be fields in the interface that I don’t use.

Originally Posted by Lecter

OmniFocus is already gaining a reputation for being too complicated. A day doesn't go by where I don't notice a post, message or tweet about users choosing Things or the Hit List over OmniFocus.

Maybe they’re switching to Things or The Hit List because both of those applications offer a Priority field.

Originally Posted by Lecter

Adding a feature from Life Balance isn't likely to win over users who want less fields and less complication.

More fields does not imply more complication. Look at iTunes for an example of this. In everything I have read about OmniFocus, it is the user interface and workflow that is cited as being too complicated, not the number of fields.

Originally Posted by Lecter

To close, here are some seminar comments from David Allen that I felt are pertinent:

"Nobody is going to take your intuition away from you. Every thing you decide to do is intuitive.…But the reason to do all the rest of this is to free yourself up so that you really listen to who you are and what you really want to do."

Obviously there is a huge continuum between making all of your decisions based on intuition, and having a trusted system make your decisions for you. When it comes right down to it, having your Next Action list sorted by a Priority field is very close to not having it sorted.

[wilsonng]

Originally Posted by abates17

Maybe they’re switching to Things or The Hit List because both of those applications offer a Priority field.

And there are just as many users that are returning back to OF because The Hit List and Things doesn't have some of the features that OF has. I was also enamored by Things and the Hit List but I eventually went back to OF.

[abates17]

Originally Posted by wilsonng

And there are just as many users that are returning back to OF because The Hit List and Things doesn't have some of the features that OF has.

Oh yeah, I believe it! I’m just saying that it’s not logical to say, “We shouldn’t add feature X, because people are leaving OmniFocus for other applications (all of which have feature X).”

[Lecter]

There is also a world of difference between whining about a personal desire for a Life Balance feature, and discussing the merits of features that are beneficial to the GTD user-base. I also believe that there is a fine line between wanting granular information and not being a GTD captain and commander. :) [note the smile!]

One of the cool things about OmniFocus is that I have the ability to turn off the color changes of due dates (Style Preferences offers a plethora of settings!), or I can completely hide due dates. This fits perfectly with my position that unused fields/features should be able to be hidden.

GTD is about being captain and commander of your tasks and decisions. If one lacks the discipline to tackle harder next actions (aka always picking the easier tasks first), then the issue is with the individual, as opposed to the list. If you choose to neglect areas (and you aren't happy about that), then some renegotiation(s) of choice(s) should take place. Maybe addiction to stress leads one to always choose the easy tasks?

I suspect we live in different climates. I rarely get dirt on regular intervals. My cleaning schedule needs to be variable. If your areas need a regular cleaning schedule, then I am wondering how bubbling/colorization adds any genuine benefits. For example, if both your garage and kitchen need cleaning today, does it really matter which one is cleaned first? Does Life Balance's slider and position bubbling and coloration add any tangible value at all? If the value is truly insignificant, why all of the fuss of desiring that LB feature?

I stand behind the premise that all possible fields should be able to be hidden. Due to the core design, I suspect that Folders, Actions and Projects might be hard coded (and might need to be omnipresent). But everything else should be able to be hidden (and luckily, Context, Estimate, Start Date, Due Date and Completion Date can be hidden — I'm hoping future updates fix the rest). Perhaps you prefer a cluttered interface populated with unused fields. I prefer a clean interface consisting only of fields that I use. Less distraction = superior focus.

Why would one feel that it seems unreasonable to hide (or remove) what one doesn't use? It isn't clear why you have an issue with this. Do you keep things that you don't use? Do you keep unused shrink-wrap, outdated newspapers and expired credit cards? If so, that might explain why you have to clean so often! :)

I just took a look at the current versions of Things. No priority fields. I had to dig into the Hit List to find the priority field. Here is a example of refined software design. The priority field is there for those who want it, yet completely hidden for those that don't want it. Maybe it is this refined and elegant design that users are finding to be better?

Odd that you reference iTunes. iTunes allows the user tremendous versatility in field views, even down to a bare minimum. In View Options, you can hide all of the fields except for the name of the song. You can even customize which fields are visible in each and every playlist. If you want complex views, great. If you want simplicity, fine. You can even have both, if your playlists are disparate. It is entirely up to each user, the way it should be. Ultra-customizable View Options FTW! :)

[Lecter]

Originally Posted by wilsonng

And there are just as many users that are returning back to OF because The Hit List and Things doesn't have some of the features that OF has. I was also enamored by Things and the Hit List but I eventually went back to OF.

Out of curiosity, which OF features drove your decision to return?

[wilsonng]

Originally Posted by Lecter

Out of curiosity, which OF features drove your decision to return?

Before I switched to OF, I was using Now Up-To-Date as a task manager. Failed miserably. Then I tried Daylite. I liked it as a contact manager and calendar program but tasks were still a little iffy.

Then I read Allen's GTD in 2007. started out with pen and paper until I got comfortable with it. Discovered Zen-To-Done in 2008. After getting comfortable with the pen-and-paper route, I explored Mac software solutions. I narrowed the choices down to Things and OF.

The biggest feature was the "review" mode. At the time of decision making, Things didn't really have anything like this. Haven't checked in a while. Or maybe I should just scan everything in Things as part of my weekly review?

I like being able to go into Review mode in OF and look at the things I should reviewing for the next month. I usually look about a month ahead (approximately 4 weeks) so I have an idea of what is coming up. In Things, I would have to scan everything.

I also liked the repeating option of creating a next action based on the completion date. An example would be to repeat a task approximately 1 month after the completion date. I believe Things or THL may have added this feature recently. But it wasn't available in Things at the time of purchase.

Another reason was that OF was feature complete. Things was still in beta during the time I was interested in buying a Mac GTD program. It's finally out as version 1.x but I am comfortable in OF. I don't really see the need to transfer over to Things at this moment. Everything I can do in Things, I can also do in OF. But I can see how someone new would purchase Things.

I liked having three distinctive modes in OF:

1. Planning Mode - go into Projects mode.

2. Do Mode - switch to Contexts mode and get things done.

3. Review Mode - I only look one month ahead. I don't have to review everything in my task list.


The three modes are very distinct in OF. It seems like planning, doing, and reviewing are kinda mixed in Things and THL. But I haven't visited the other competitors in a while. Has it changed?

Maybe some people don't like switching between modes. This may be part of the simplicity of Things. Some newbies may be dizzy from having to switch modes. Thus the confusion and seeming complexity of using OF.





THL is still in beta. I'm just not interested in starting over again.


I had also purchased Daylite a long time ago. I guess those folks are advertising version 3.8 and later as a GTD capable solution.


What piqued my interest once again was the introduction of Daylite Touch during MacWorld 2009.

I see that their web site has a QuickTime movie showing Daylite and GTD in action. They also have a web page addressing Daylite+GTD.

I'm firmly entrenched in OF as my task manager. I guess I'm looking for something else for my CRM functions and calendar now. But Daylite is teasing me as an all-in-one solution for mixing GTD, calendar, and contacts into one program.

But as of now, I'm not really interested in restarting my GTD system. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[abates17]

Originally Posted by Lecter

There is also a world of difference between whining about a personal desire for a Life Balance feature, and discussing the merits of features that are beneficial to the GTD user-base.

Let’s see: I have been talking about coloring of tasks based on due dates, setting task priorities, and sorting based on priority. Considering that OmniFocus already has all of these on some level, it seems like all of those are considered “beneficial to the GTD user-base.” I am merely asking for a greater detail and control over these, as are many others.

Originally Posted by Lecter

GTD is about being captain and commander of your tasks and decisions. If one lacks the discipline to tackle harder next actions (aka always picking the easier tasks first), then the issue is with the individual, as opposed to the list.

Aaaaaaaaand there it is! I am looking for a feature that you find unnecessary, so therefore I must have some personal flaw in how I use the system. It couldn’t possibly be that different people have different ways of working, and find benefits in things that others don’t care about? No, easier to criticize me for “doing it wrong.”

I want tasks that are more urgent to stand out more. Say what you want about “intuition,”*but obviously people care about this, or there wouldn’t be options to set due dates and color items based on those due dates, or to sort by flagged state. I am simply asking for more control over that process.

Originally Posted by Lecter

I suspect we live in different climates. I rarely get dirt on regular intervals. My cleaning schedule needs to be variable.

Then obviously this system doesn’t apply to you. Maybe you have shelves that stay magically dust-free for weeks at a time, followed by a freak indoor dust storm that requires an urgent cleaning. Personally, I find that dust falls pretty consistently over time, so I would like to know which areas have been cleaned within the last few weeks, and which have not been cleaned for several months.

Originally Posted by Lecter

If your areas need a regular cleaning schedule, then I am wondering how bubbling/colorization adds any genuine benefits. For example, if both your garage and kitchen need cleaning today, does it really matter which one is cleaned first? Does Life Balance's slider and position bubbling and coloration add any tangible value at all? If the value is truly insignificant, why all of the fuss of desiring that LB feature?

Because “needing to be cleaned” is not a binary state. My home—or windows, or car, or whatever—do not go from “not needing to be cleaned” one minute, to “needing to be cleaned” the next. Given a list of cleaning regular tasks that need to be done, I would rather start with the one that has been done the least recently. I could either wash the counters or vacuum the floor, but if the counters were washed last week, and the floor hasn’t been vacuumed in six months, I would rather vacuum the floors first. These are things that an automated system can track easily.

Originally Posted by Lecter

I stand behind the premise that all possible fields should be able to be hidden. Due to the core design, I suspect that Folders, Actions and Projects might be hard coded (and might need to be omnipresent). But everything else should be able to be hidden (and luckily, Context, Estimate, Start Date, Due Date and Completion Date can be hidden — I'm hoping future updates fix the rest).

But those fields can’t be hidden COMPLETELY; they are always present in the Inspector, for example. Are you suggesting that a Priority field should be hidden EVERYWHERE, including in the Inspector? If so, then why is it more important to hide Priority than, say, Estimated Time? And if you aren’t suggesting that, and just want to make sure that Priority isn’t visible in the main interface…well, why would you assume that Priority couldn’t just be hidden like every other optional field? In short, it seems like you are complaining about a problem that doesn’t exist.

Originally Posted by Lecter

Perhaps you prefer a cluttered interface populated with unused fields.
…
Why would one feel that it seems unreasonable to hide (or remove) what one doesn't use? It isn't clear why you have an issue with this. Do you keep things that you don't use? Do you keep unused shrink-wrap, outdated newspapers and expired credit cards? If so, that might explain why you have to clean so often! :)

First of all, you can stop with the “maybe you want this because you are so disorganized”*attacks. Secondly, I think it is unreasonable to REMOVE a field that you don’t use. I mean, some people have complained about a hypothetical Priority field, saying that it should only be added if it can be removed completely. That seems unreasonable, given that no other fields can be removed from the interface completely (i.e. they are all visible in the Inspector).

Originally Posted by Lecter

I just took a look at the current versions of Things. No priority fields. I had to dig into the Hit List to find the priority field.

Things has tags, which can be used for a priority field.

Originally Posted by Lecter

Here is a example of refined software design. The priority field is there for those who want it, yet completely hidden for those that don't want it.

Exactly! So why do you think that OmniFocus wouldn’t have a solution that is just as elegant? Why do you imagine that adding a Priority field to OmniFocus would lead to a “cluttered”*interface (which is why you claimed people were turning to Things and The Hit List), when those other applications include priorities, without being cluttered? It sounds like you just talked yourself out of your biggest complaint: that adding an extra field would make OmniFocus too complicated.

So, we’ve established that users want a Priority field, and we’ve established that a Priority field can be added while still maintaining a refined and elegant software design. So what was your complaint again?

[Lecter]

Hey Abates,

You are looking for a feature that is unnecessary for GTD. And OmniFocus is developed and designed with GTD principles, for GTD users. Without GTD, OmniFocus wouldn't exist. Sure, OmniFocus can be shoehorned into other systems and/or productivity processes, but one should expect some personal desires not being met when one tries to shove a square peg into a round hole.

No one is denying you the ability to request the Life Balance feature (and I've given you every opportunity to expand your reasons for the request). You "dredge up" (interesting choice of words for you to use) a thread that has been dormant for quite a while, in which a great amount of passion and thought has been invested by numerous people. By doing this, you are welcoming history and existing opinions along for the ride. Out of curiosity, why jump in the middle of the ocean, when one could have a calmer swim in a less turbulent lake (aka, starting a fresh, clean thread to discuss your ideas)?

Aaaaaaaaand there it is, indeed. When you don't respond to points and counterpoints that serve the needs of your agenda, are you truly surprised that someone disagrees with your position? The last example is the customization of iTunes View Options. I feel that I made great points there. Did you miss them? Or did it just not provide any grist for your agenda? This lack of response on select topics really makes me feel like my points are not worth your time if they don't reinforce your position.

I've invested a lot of time absorbing GTD principles (through seminars, books, audio and Connect). I'm sharing what I've learned when I observe something in processes that I honestly believe could be better than they currently are. These aren't attacks, but suggestions. If you find my suggestions disagreeable, tell me that we should agree to disagree, and I'll drop the specific discussion. Really. However, if you make statements that are misconceptions (or are misleading), expect reciprocal clarifications/discussions.

Speaking of misconceptions, lets try a little experiment. Do you see the little button in the upper left corner of the Inspector palette? Its the one that highlights in red when your mouse cursor is over it. Click that button. Now tell me if you can see the Estimated Time in the Inspector palette. No? That is probably because the Inspector palette is completely hidden. I've never said that the feature has to be removed — I am talking about hiding them. Since the Inspector palette can be completely hidden, it handles the issue of hiding the unused features that are contained in it.

I do feel that the Inspector palette has its own issues (which have lead me to using keyboard shortcuts instead of the palate), but this is a topic for another thread.

The reason why there is concern over a (potential) priority field always being visible, is exemplified in the existing Flag column. Unlike the Context, Estimate, Start Date, Due Date and Completion Date columns, Flag cannot be hidden. It shows up whenever I move my mouse near it. I'm not sure why the OmniFocus designers & programmers have made this choice, and that is the reason why I am defending the position here (so the Support Ninjas et al can see why they should offer users the choice of which columns are visible).

It is unreasonable to force users to view fields that are unused. If you honestly don't get this, then this is a area where we will need to agree to disagree.

Flexibility is a key way for Omnifocus to grow and evolve. Adding optional new features is great. Forcing new features to always be visible (particularly ones that go against OmniFocus' GTD centric design) will result in alienating the existing GTD user-base.

Sure, Things' tags could be used for priority fields. OmniFocus' contexts and/or flags could be used as priority fields too. This doesn't make them priority fields. When I've seen comments regarding Things or Hit List as the preferred option, priority fields aren't mentioned — complexity and the interface are the motivational factors.

My concern (not complaint) is that OmniGroup may make poor decisions about the planned "metadata" (priority) column. They may make it like the existing Flag column (aka, of limited use and unable to be hidden). By voicing concerns early, users' thoughts can be noted during the designing and planning stages, thus avoiding subsequent recoding and redesign. Its about being proactive versus reactive.

I ran across this article in ATPM:

http://www.atpm.com/15.04/gtd.shtml

I think it is a fair example of why I've stated my concerns regarding users choosing other applications. Of particular note:

The problems with OmniFocus are its bells and whistles, the rigidity of its system, and hence the extra time it takes to enter information. As one of the tutorial notes, “[o]nce you have a significant amount of information in your OmniFocus database, it can start to get overwhelming.” That is an understatement.

And:

Like the hero in a Greek tragedy, its greatest strengths are its greatest weaknesses: it has so many features that it is too complicated for most purposes.

Read the full article. OmniFocus is given reasonable praise, but the reviewer ends up choosing Things as his final solution.

[Lecter]

Originally Posted by wilsonng

The biggest feature was the "review" mode. At the time of decision making, Things didn't really have anything like this. Haven't checked in a while.

Things still doesn't have a review mode. Their progress seems to have stagnated a bit, but they are hinting that a new version will be released shortly. Unless they have done some major changes, it is unlikely to even be a blip on my personal radar of GTD tools.

I love the three distinctive modes in OmniFocus as well. Things and Hit List feel shallow in that regard. Midnight Inbox has them, but during my evaluation of it (a long time ago — it may have changed), it was excessively rigid in its workflow.

I think if OmniFocus moves towards flexibility and interface customization, the competition will have to step up their efforts several notches. Vibrant competition will benefit us all.