Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecter
You are looking for a feature that is unnecessary for GTD.
|
David Allen specifically mentions task priorities in Getting Things Done; he does not however mention flags or colorizing tasks based on due dates, yet those features are in OmniFocus. Face it: OmniFocus has numerous features that are not “necessary”*for GTD, but that the people at OmniGroup thought would improve the product. This suggestion is no different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecter
And OmniFocus is developed and designed with GTD principles, for GTD users.
|
In a word: no. “OmniFocus works great as a Getting Things Done® trusted system but can also be used to fit other task management styles.” It is a task-management system, not just a system “for GTD users.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecter
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.
|
Adding one more criterion for list sorting, or added levels of priority is hardly “shoving a square peg into a round hole.” These are features already present in other task-management systems, and OmniFocus could easily include those features without impacting the workflow of GTD users.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecter
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)?
|
Because I thought the context of the current thread was important, and I wanted to directly address opinions that others had stated here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecter
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?
|
I didn’t respond to the iTunes example because I brought it up in the first place as a direct response to your claim that adding more fields might make OmniFocus more difficult to use. My point was that iTunes has many more fields than OmniFocus does, and yet it is still easy to use. And you responded by saying…that iTunes is a great example of an application that has many fields and is still easy to use. So, you agreed with my point completely. I’m not sure what kind of response you were looking for there. “Yes, you got my point exactly, and disproved your previous claim. Good job!”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecter
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 am trying to save everyone time by responding to the salient points and cutting out the extraneous parts. I am not removing parts that “don’t reinforce my position.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecter
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.
|
But you’re not making suggestions! For example, I say, “I have certain tasks that I like to do on a regular basis. When I have several of those tasks, I would like to know which one has been done the least recently.”*And what is your response to that? “Oh, those tasks aren’t regular for ME!” “Why do you need to do those on a regular basis?” “Why should you care if one task was done last week, and the other hasn’t been done in a year?” Those aren’t suggestions; those are you saying, “I don’t look at problems the same way that you do, so your way must be wrong.”*It shouldn’t matter what the tasks are: If I want to do X and Y on a regular basis, it would be nice to know which one has been done the least recently. You can’t refute my argument by saying that I shouldn’t want to know that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecter
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.
|
Ignoring the part where you’re talking down to me…yes, I know that the field is completely hidden when the Inspector palette is closed. But it will be right back there when you open that palette! Is that okay with you? Great, then we have nothing to argue about. Does it bother you? Then I want to know why THAT unnecessary field bothers you, but the OTHER unnecessary fields don’t.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecter
I've never said that the feature has to be removed — I am talking about hiding them.
|
Uh, yes you did. “Why would one feel that it seems unreasonable to hide (or remove) what one doesn’t use?” If you just want the field to be hidden, then I don’t see what the problem is; most of the extra fields in OF can already be hidden, so why would Priority be any different?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecter
The reason why there is concern over a (potential) priority field always being visible,
|
I don’t think anyone has argued or suggested that a Priority field would have to always be visible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecter
It is unreasonable to force users to view fields that are unused.
|
I agree completely. I have never argued that a Priority field must always be visible in the interface.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecter
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.
|
Things already comes pre-loaded with tags for priority. In fact, Things tags can specifically be used for multi-level priority fields, for however many priority levels I want. I could choose to just do tasks with a priority of B22 for example, if I were so inclined. So yes, that DOES make them priority fields. On the other hand, OmniFocus contexts could be used as priority fields…but then you lose the ability to use them as Contexts. And you could use flags as priority fields too…as long as all of your priorities are either 1 or 2, A or B, Vitally Important or It Can Wait. So I guess technically OmniFocus does have a priority field…a half-assed, barely worthwhile priority field. I am simply suggesting that they allow a more flexible priority field.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecter
When I've seen comments regarding Things or Hit List as the preferred option, priority fields aren't mentioned
|
Wow, then you haven’t been looking hard enough. There have been plenty of comparisons between OmniFocus and other task management systems, and many, many of them specifically mention the fact that OmniFocus does not allow explicit setting of priorities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecter
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).
|
I am suggesting a priority field that will be much less “limited” than the Flag field, but you keep shooting me down! And why would you assume that Priority would always be visible (like the Flag column), instead of easily hideable (like nearly every other column)? It sounds like you are arguing against yourself. “The Flag column is of limited use…but don’t suggest a more flexible replacement!”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecter
I ran across this article in ATPM:
I think it is a fair example of why I've stated my concerns regarding users choosing other applications.
|
And I ran across these articles. I think they are fair examples of why I think OmniFocus should have a Priority field:
Quote:
OF has a Flag capability that is binary, it’s flagged or its not. I used this to indicate priority, but invariably too many tasks get Flagged and it begins to lose its meaning without very careful management. The Tag capability lets you implement whatever scheme you like. This is a HUGE benefit of Things for me.
|
Quote:
The thing that gets me, though, is that OmniFocus does not seem to provide any way to prioritize tasks.…From what I can discern, OmniFocus doesn’t provide for any native prioritization of tasks. (It's especially ironic when syncing with iCal's own task list, which does in fact offer prioritization. It's not exactly an obscure feature, is it?) Now of course I could subvert the context feature of the system and use that to establish prioritization instead of work context, but that's not ideal, either.
I'd like to have both! I'd like to look at my tasks by priority, broken down by context ... and then flip over to tasks by context, broken down by priority. Alas this doesn't seem to be in the offing, at least in the first release. With dozens of things to get done, having a big long laundry list of unprioritized tasks could end up being more depressing than empowering.
|
Quote:
Two iGTD fields I'd like to see in OmniFocus are "Priority" and "Effort". There are some things I'd like to do today, and some I really need to do today. There's no field for this, and I'm finding I have to just keep this information up in my head. For example getting this review done — I had an item set up for this, but I just kept pushing it forward. I knew it was something I really wanted to get done, but I couldn't really see that because it was in my head. I settled on my own system where I put a number in front of the task and increased it each time I deferred a task. That really seemed to work, but I'd like the system to support this for me.
|
Quote:
So I've been playing with OmniFocus alpha to see if it can work for me as a personal productivity/task manager, but as I noted before, the system lacks a way to prioritize tasks. It seems rather obvious to me that you want to identify the important must-do items before you start filling in your day. I could spend all day answering the phone, reading and writing emails, catching up on my feeds, having meetings, doing conference calls ... and not getting done the things that need to get done.
|
Quote:
Unfortunately OmniFocus offers no real prioritization unless you want to define contexts even further like "Mac : Internet : High Priority". Not sure I want to do that.
|
These did not take very long to find. It is obvious that OmniFocus needs a Priority field, if only because of the various workarounds people have already suggested. But the best argument for OF adding Priority is this one:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lecter
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.
|
EXACTLY! This is why OmniFocus should be flexible: so that users can have features that other applications already have, like a Priority field!