[whpalmer4]

Originally Posted by Toadling

There are many enthusiastic users here that selflessly volunteer an immense amount of time in helping others.

Of course, OmniFocus makes us all so efficient that we've the got time to burn :-)

[zoisite]

I never had to ask someone about how to do something in Things. I just did it. It just worked for me. For OmniFocus I have to ask how to use it efficiently.

On the other hand OmniFocus is much more powerful. For this reason I’ll keep my OmniFocus license. Maybe some of the pre 2.0 updates will introduce features that make it work for me.

Can someone please release OmniThings? :)

[Toadling]

Originally Posted by zoisite

I never had to ask someone about how to do something in Things. I just did it. It just worked for me. For OmniFocus I have to ask how to use it efficiently.

The learning curve in OF is unquestionably steeper, but like you said, the app is much deeper.

I suspect it also has something to do with what one is accustomed to and one's willingness to experiment, keep an open mind, and explore different approaches. As you've found, the workflow of one app isn't directly transferable to the other without some adaptation, regardless of which direction you go.

FWIW, my experience was the opposite of yours: having started with OmniFocus when it was still in alpha, it has always seemed straightforward and logical. When trying out Things, on the other hand, I found it to be a bit convoluted and troubling in many areas.

-Dennis

[Ken Case]

Originally Posted by zoisite

Please use my concrete example. How to avoid missing the „Buy hardware item xyz for Bob“ action when looking at the @Bob context when nothing hints/reminds me that there is an very important action that is related to Bob waiting in the @Hardwarestore context?

It sounds like this task actually has two separate actions which you could complete independently, one which you would do in the @Bob context and another which you would do in the @Hardwarestore context. In OmniFocus, you would model this by breaking down the task into those two subtasks ("Talk with Bob about buying hardware item xyz @Bob" and "Buy hardware item xyz @Hardwarestore").

In OmniFocus, you can decide whether you need to talk with Bob before buying the item (by making the group sequential), or after, or both (by putting in two Bob actions), or neither (by making the group parallel). Or you could even check in with Bob every week until the entire project is done (by making the Bob action repeating). None of this flexibility or clarity is possible unless you actually break down the task into its individual actions.

I suspect that might be one reason that Things needs multiple tags: when you can't break down your work into individual actions (since Things has no support for subtasks), you end up with multi-step tasks which you need to be reminded of in multiple contexts.

Does that make sense? Or am I missing something about how multiple tags would be helpful for a single action?

[Ken Case]

Originally Posted by Ken Case

Does that make sense? Or am I missing something about how multiple tags would be helpful for a single action?

Actually, you've already mentioned one more case where I could see wanting multiple tags, and that's where I actually have separate actions which could accomplish the same end: for example, I can either talk with Bob by meeting with him at the office or by calling him on the telephone.

In that case, the fundamental context for the action in question is actually @Bob, rather than @office or @phone: whether I'm talking with Bob on the telephone or in person, I can pull up my Bob context and see everything I should talk with Bob about.

But if I need a reminder to actually interact with Bob (on the telephone or in the office), I can add separate actions for "Call Bob @telephone" or "Meet with Bob @office"—either of which will throw me into the @Bob context and help me get all my @Bob actions done.

Usually, though, adding a due date is sufficient reminder for me: I see that I need to get that task done today and that it requires that I talk with Bob, so I walk over to his office or give him a call or send him email or whatever.

Hope this helps!

[Mango Himself]

@Greg,

great analysis. The dilemma between using Things or OF reminds me of two applications for Palm that were very similar and are still around.

Bonsai by Natara was the equivalent of Things. Simple, pretty, easy to use. Shadowplan by Codejedi was the equivalent of OF. Powerful, lots of features and with a learning curve. It was a matter of choice. Most technically oriented individuals leaned towards Shadowplan as is the case with OF. However, both apps could work fine.

I think with Things and OF, the key is to find which one works fine for you and live with it. Somehow, I see more requests for additional functions at the Things forums. Why is this? Because OF has most bases covered. It's a very rich application and their customer service is legendary.

I've read a lot of reviews for both apps and two were influential in selecting OF at the end. One, from a popular blog, said "When you purchase a product you purchase the company behind it." I totally agree. The other one was from a client who called Omni and said that not only did the rep didn't badmouth Things, he actually praised it. That approach is the approach of an individual who is so sure of his product that he doesn't need to bash the competition. BTW, the person ended purchasing OF.

The one thing (pun?) I do see as a common denominator among Things supporters is the aggressive approach to the forums, almost insulting to the other forum members. One has only to visit Things forums to see how thick the ambience is. OF forums, on the other hand, are a breath of fresh air. I always learn something new and leave with a sense of accomplishment. Keep it up guys!


Greg, Just a question: where did you get those icons on the iPhone?

[Greg Jones]

Originally Posted by Mango Himself

Greg, Just a question: where did you get those icons on the iPhone?

A couple of them will be familiar to Things users, some are obviously included in OmniFocus, and three of them I cannot remember where I found them. That's a pity too, as they all came from a large, free collection site with a lot of quality icons. If I can recall the URL, I'll update my post. Meanwhile, here they are individually.

[Mango Himself]

@ Greg

thanks Greg. How did you place them in your iPhone? Is that an actual shot of your iPhone's screen?

Thnaks

[CatOne]

Originally Posted by Mango Himself

@ Greg

thanks Greg. How did you place them in your iPhone? Is that an actual shot of your iPhone's screen?

Thnaks

You set them up in OmniFocus on the desktop. Custom perspective icons will be synched to the phone.

[zoisite]

Originally Posted by Ken Case

Does that make sense?

Yes, that makes sense to me!
Thanks Ken! Yes, you solved the Bob problem! I begin to see the possibilities.

My mistake was to bundle two actions into one. The solution is really this: define exact and concrete actions. If needed splitt it.

The Things side in me starts to rebel:

One could say that splitting one action into two is just a trick to emulate the "multiple tags" feature. Just a trick to introduce multiple contexts from the back door at the cost of redundancy. The new action "Talk with Bob about buying hardware item xyz" is just a place holder dummy that only exist to add another context to it. You'll end up having redundant actions to make up for the lack of multiple contexts.

Don't worry, I understood that "buy the item" and "talk to bob" are different actions. In OmniFocus I have to have a different approach.

The main advantage that I see in Things is that it allows you to be more vague in the description of a task without messing up: One task and two tags are sufficient for the Bob problem.

I see it as positive thing to be able to be vague. This allows you to have to think less about how to organize a taks in the system. Vagueness allows you to just write it down. This is only possible because Things provides some infrastructure that supports this.

In OmniFocus you have to describe the action as precisely as possible. You are free to do anything, but you are free in "empty space". You have nothing to build on, no predefined basic structure as in Things. You have to find out how to manage projects, contexts and actions. If you don't know how to organize your tasks in OF you're lost.

Originally Posted by Ken Case

Hope this helps!

I find your explanation very helpful. Especially that you showed that you understood that I come from the Things/tags view point. I now begin to see how I could put a system in organizing my tasks in OmniFocus.

I think I'll transfer my Things tasks in OmniFocus and using both for a while until I get used to the OmniFocus way. Thank you very much!