[MEP]

OF can be used for time management styles other than GTD. Omni never claimed that it could be used for all other time management styles, just "other", which would imply some other. The lack of support for one particular time management style does not invalidate their marketing claim so long as OF continues to support at least one style other than strict GTD, which I'd say it does.

That it doesn't support your way of doing things doesn't mean that it doesn't support more than one way or that it only supports GTD.

[Brian]

Every time this thread starts back up, I'm just going to post another link to Ken's post.

[otter]

Originally Posted by MEP

OF can be used for time management styles other than GTD. Omni never claimed that it could be used for all other time management styles, just "other", which would imply some other. The lack of support for one particular time management style does not invalidate their marketing claim so long as OF continues to support at least one style other than strict GTD, which I'd say it does.

That it doesn't support your way of doing things doesn't mean that it doesn't support more than one way or that it only supports GTD.

1) Well, first I disagree with your reading of the passage. A reasonable person, I think, can rightly conclude that the connotation of the passage is much stronger than your are suggesting. As written, the passage is ambiguous, certainly. But interpreting the passage literally to mean 'Some' in the sense of "Somewhere in the universe there exists an example of an alternative management style to which OF fits" is flatly absurd. The connotation is clearly is that OmniFocus is a flexible product and can used to work with a broad range of styles.

2) Prioritizing certainly isn't a single management style, it's a method that is common to many management styles. Failing to support a method that is common to many or most management styles would not constitute a case of failing to support a single management sytle, as you suggest, but instead constitute a case of failing to support many or most management styles, and therefore arguably invalidate the posted claim.

3) It is my observation is that without exception everyone at OmniGroup consistently demonstrates behaviour of the highest integrity and community mindedness. They are absolutely dedicated to creating great software.

At this point in the evolution of this product, there is decidedly a level of unresolved tension regarding the definition of the software. Time will tell how it goes. Maybe with versions 2, 3, ... OF will evolve in a direction that is more strictly GTD, maybe the pressures of the greater market will push it in a more general direction. Regardless of how they go, my observation is that Omni Group will want to describe their product fairly and accurately --rather than dance around attempting to employ logical technicalities to maintain false descriptions of their products. Instead, they will say what their product does well, and keep building from there.

[Toadling]

Originally Posted by otter

1) Well, first I disagree with your reading of the passage. A reasonable person, I think, can rightly conclude that the connotation of the passage is much stronger than your are suggesting. As written, the passage is ambiguous, certainly. But interpreting the passage literally to mean 'Some' in the sense of "Somewhere in the universe there exists an example of an alternative management style to which OF fits" is flatly absurd. The connotation is clearly is that OmniFocus is a flexible product and can used to work with a broad range of styles.

I don't know, I think I'm pretty reasonable and I tend to agree with MEP's interpretation: OF works well with GTD in addition to some other styles. The wide variety of styles practiced by users of this forum demonstrates this nicely. So I would say the passage is accurate, and the fact there's currently little support for strict priorities doesn't invalidate it.

Anyway, this is all largely irrelevant if support for metadata columns is soon added.

-Dennis

[otter]

Originally Posted by Toadling

The wide variety of styles practiced by users of this forum demonstrates this nicely.

Which non-GTD styles are those, precisely?

[Toadling]

Originally Posted by otter

Which non-GTD styles are those, precisely?

You don't have to look far on this forum to find all kinds of people using decidedly non-GTD techniques in customized, hybrid approaches, many inspired by a variety of traditional practices and other, more formalized programs. I don't know what people call them, but it's not David Allen's GTD.

In my experience, such home-grown systems seem more common than true, by-the-book GTD. In fact, around here, GTD purists are frequently branded as zealots.

[otter]

Well, if you can't name these, could you at least describe some of these traditional practices or other more formalized programs?

There's no questioning that OF provides a large degree of flexibility for implementing GTD -- by the book or otherwise.

But what about the wholly other? What -- besides prioritization -- actually constitutes something wholly other than GTD? And how is it being implemented in OF?