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

 
OmniFocus 1.8 sneaky peeks are now available Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Quote:
Originally Posted by gandalf44 View Post
Seeing this too. Any response? The button is not clickable.

And I assume it's the same MobileMe-iDisk path and file name as the iPhone published? (DueSoon.ics)?
Are you sure this is the correct path to the calendar file? On my system, the correct path is https://idisk.me.com/[my username]/Documents/OmniFocus-Reminders.ics
[please note the capitalization]
 
Does anyone know how to make the reminders calendar visible on iCal without getting duplicate reminders on the iPhone? If I subscribe to the reminders calendar both on the iPhone and on the desktop I end up getting duplicate reminders on the phone.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by whpalmer4 View Post
We're not talking about contexts for projects, we're talking about default contexts for the actions in the projects. There's nothing counter to GTD in that. If you think there is, could you point me to a reference?
We are infact talking about assigning contexts to projects see Ken's post earlier in this thread.

"I think it might be more helpful to view the list as items that are actionable, and as such projects can appear in the list ready to be acted upon.

In such case, you either complete the project (action), drop the project (action), hold the project (action), or add an item to the project (action). So, it makes a perfect sense for the project to appear in the list for me to act on. . ."

That may be the case for you, but according to the GTD system "you can't do a project". The sample applies for "contacting" someone or "completing" something, those verbs don't work they aren't specific enough. I understand that the market for a powerful task manager is larger than the GTD faithful, but OmniFocus sought and has the blessing of the David Allen Company, because it is powerful flexible task manager that doesn't get in the way of the user. I'm offering my suggestions, because I love their products and the difference they've made in my ability to get things done. I would suggest they run this by their partners at the David Allen Co., and depending on their input consider including a preference to allow the user to automatically assign a context to a project when it's created, so they don't have to think about it if they so choose. Although this small change is far from a deal breaker for me, it does introduce a small amount of "unconscious resistance" which is the reason I rejected the other Mac based task managers.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cashdollar View Post
We are infact talking about assigning contexts to projects see Ken's post earlier in this thread.

"I think it might be more helpful to view the list as items that are actionable, and as such projects can appear in the list ready to be acted upon.

In such case, you either complete the project (action), drop the project (action), hold the project (action), or add an item to the project (action). So, it makes a perfect sense for the project to appear in the list for me to act on. . ."

That may be the case for you, but according to the GTD system "you can't do a project". The sample applies for "contacting" someone or "completing" something, those verbs don't work they aren't specific enough. I understand that the market for a powerful task manager is larger than the GTD faithful, but OmniFocus sought and has the blessing of the David Allen Company, because it is powerful flexible task manager that doesn't get in the way of the user. I'm offering my suggestions, because I love their products and the difference they've made in my ability to get things done. I would suggest they run this by their partners at the David Allen Co., and depending on their input consider including a preference to allow the user to automatically assign a context to a project when it's created, so they don't have to think about it if they so choose. Although this small change is far from a deal breaker for me, it does introduce a small amount of "unconscious resistance" which is the reason I rejected the other Mac based task managers.
It seems to be that you are stuck on this concept that projects cannot be doable. If you shift your thinking a bit, you will find that this new system makes a perfect sense, but to each his own. . .

Here are some quotes you might find helpful from OminGroup and David Allen. As you can see, OG never claimed that this is strictly a GTD system, and even DA think projects can be translated into action items under certain situations. Hope this helps.

"OmniFocus is designed to quickly capture your thoughts and allow you to store, manage, and process them into actionable to-do items. Perfect for the Getting Things Done® system, but flexible enough for any task management style, OmniFocus helps you work smarter by giving you powerful tools for staying on top of all the things you need to do."

"Allen's reply: The key to your action lists is that you do not have to re-think what you can and cannot do at the moment, as you look at them. If you put sequential steps there, it dulls the attraction of engaging with the list to begin with. If there's a good chance that a project can be finished in one sitting, in one fell swoop, then probably best to label it simply a next action and put it on your action list."
 
The newly introduced requirement that groups and projects be assigned to a context is a step backwards.

Frankly, it is one of the reasons I switched from Toodledo to OmniFocus. As you understand, I now feel that this malignant feature is haunting me! :-)

I hope the OF developers will remove this feature or at least make it optional in the final release.

I don't see what the problem was with the original implementation. We all review our projects regularly, so upon completing all subtasks of a group/project, and during the next review at the latest, would always find out that a "childless" parent task exists, and we would cross it out as completed.

Quite clearly, OmniFocus is not a 100% GTD-compliant system anymore. I understand that there may be a user population who find this to be an improvement. Yet those of us who adhere to GTD as a system—some of us practitioners for years—this is a step backwards.

Last edited by macula; 2010-02-18 at 06:38 AM..
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cashdollar View Post
We are infact talking about assigning contexts to projects see Ken's post earlier in this thread.

"I think it might be more helpful to view the list as items that are actionable, and as such projects can appear in the list ready to be acted upon.

In such case, you either complete the project (action), drop the project (action), hold the project (action), or add an item to the project (action). So, it makes a perfect sense for the project to appear in the list for me to act on. . ."
They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Here's a picture of the OmniFocus inspector looking at a project.



See how it says "default context"? That is the field Ken is suggesting you set.



Here we see it in action. All it is doing is entering the value of the default context if I don't enter something myself. This is not a new feature.

Again, as I said, it's not a context for the project, it is a default context for the actions contained in the project. Ken just didn't bother to type all of that out. Projects don't have contexts, they have actions, which do have contexts.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by macula View Post
The newly introduced requirement that groups and projects be assigned to a context is a step backwards.

Frankly, it is one of the reasons I switched from Toodledo to OmniFocus. As you understand, I now feel that this malignant feature is haunting me! :-)
I hate to contradict you, but this is not a new feature for 1.8. This has been the case in 1.7x. The only difference is now that projects show up in the action list under the Context view.

You don't have to assign default context to project items if you don't want to ("none").

Just want to clarify.
 
Still, Bill, as I understand it, filtering my Context View by "all tasks" (i.e. including unavailable tasks) will display my project and group headings as separate entries, and alas, will do so under the context that was set as default for that project or group. That, in my view, is regrettable.

Last edited by macula; 2010-02-18 at 06:56 AM..
 
Sorry, ksrhee, my earlier post crossed in the mail with yours. Perhaps I wasn't clear; what you mention is exactly what I meant and perceive as a misguided decision by the developers of OF. "No context" is indeed an option, but perhaps I will end up creating a "Projects/Groups" context as a placeholder for these situations.

But again, I don't see the rationale for this change. It adds complexity and conceptual murkiness in a system that should aim precisely at conceptual tidiness.
 
This new "feature" with showing projects in context lists is breaking my workflow BIG time.

Please make this a global on/off option!!!!

I'm already back to 1.7!
 
 


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OmniFocus 1.7.5 sneaky peeks underway! Ken Case OmniFocus 1 for Mac 1 2009-10-21 01:34 PM
OmniFocus 1.7 sneaky peeks have begun! Ken Case OmniFocus 1 for Mac 56 2009-08-27 04:37 PM
OmniFocus v1.6 sneaky peeks! Ken Case OmniFocus 1 for Mac 32 2009-02-26 01:12 AM
Sneaky Peeks gone? Smithcraft OmniWeb General 5 2007-10-25 05:10 AM
CPU use in sneaky peeks hardcoreUFO OmniWeb Bug Reports 7 2007-08-31 02:23 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:56 PM.


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