[richbowen]

In the Task Information Inspector I can enter data, but can't seem to do the same in the Task Dependencies Inspector. Am I doing something wrong?

My specific need is easy entry of dependencies. I was hoping that there would be the ability to pull down a list of all the tasks in the Inspector and select the relevant task/dependency.

My dependent task starts a week before the main task (main task is a meeting, dependency is preparation that starts one week before the meeting). So I have set up the dependent task as a SS-1w dependency. It appears in the Inspector as a Prerequisite. This is the outcome I want, but it's a lot of work to set it up.

I know about using the Connection button, dragging in the Gantt view and typing in the IDs/Codes in the Dependencies column, but none are perfect for what I'm trying to do. The Connection button always creates F->S, or always puts the dependency in the dependency column for the main task. The Gantt drag method is just too cumbersome when the tasks are more than a day or so apart to start with. Typing in the IDs/Codes in the Dependencies column is the best method, but with Grouped tasks the IDs become pretty messy (eg: 1.2.1.4SS-1w). As stated above I'd like to be able to use "pull downs" in the Inspector (or Dependencies column) to add/manipulate dependencies.

Any suggestions?

[whpalmer4]

Originally Posted by richbowen

The Connection button always creates F->S

If you click it like a button, yes, but if you click and hold, it's a popup menu allowing you all four options. Does that help?

I'm a little unclear from your description as to what this setup looks like on your Gantt chart. Is the meeting prep task appearing above or below the meeting itself in the chart?

[richbowen]

Thanks for your reply.

Yes, I'm aware of the ability to create any of the 4 types of dependencies.

I've put the meeting prep task as the line above the meeting. I want the meeting prep task to start 1 week before the meeting, but if the meeting start date changes then I want the meeting prep task date to also change to one week before the new date of the meeting.

Here is an example:


Click for full size - Uploaded with plasq's Skitch

This shows the outcome that I want. My issue is that it takes a lot of effort to set it up. I was hoping to be able to use "pull-downs", possibly in the Task Dependencies Inspector, to achieve this ... but I can't seem to do that! Is there an easier way?

Thanks for any help.

[richbowen]

Bump ... anyone?

[Brian]

Rich, if you want a guaranteed response, the best thing to do is email the support ninjas. We collectively browse the forums as we're able, but with so many folks at the developer conference this week, our collective is a bit smaller than usual. :-)

I fiddle with OmniPlan a bit, but not regularly enough to actually know the answer to your question. :-)

[richbowen]

Thanks Brian. I didn't think about WWDC!

I'll wait a few more days and hopefully someone will be able to have a look at this later in the week.

[whpalmer4]

Originally Posted by richbowen

Thanks for your reply.

Yes, I'm aware of the ability to create any of the 4 types of dependencies.

I've put the meeting prep task as the line above the meeting. I want the meeting prep task to start 1 week before the meeting, but if the meeting start date changes then I want the meeting prep task date to also change to one week before the new date of the meeting.

Here is an example:


Click for full size - Uploaded with plasq's Skitch

This shows the outcome that I want. My issue is that it takes a lot of effort to set it up. I was hoping to be able to use "pull-downs", possibly in the Task Dependencies Inspector, to achieve this ... but I can't seem to do that! Is there an easier way?

Thanks for any help.

Well, it seems to me like a pull-down list of all the potential tasks in an outline of any size would quickly become pretty unwieldy to use, especially if you have similarly named tasks in multiple places.

I was able to reproduce your scenario pretty easily. I put the Prep step after the Meeting step, then selected both together, clicked and held on the Connection button to select a Start-Start dependency, then clicked in the dependency column and added "-1w" to the dependency created. You could stop there, or you can drag the prep step above the meeting if you don't like things going "up" the chart. It seems like that is pretty close to a minimal set of clicks and key presses to specify a connection and a 1 week lead time. In the example below, I left the second one "out of order":

[richbowen]

Originally Posted by whpalmer4

I was able to reproduce your scenario pretty easily. I put the Prep step after the Meeting step, then selected both together, clicked and held on the Connection button to select a Start-Start dependency, then clicked in the dependency column and added "-1w" to the dependency created. You could stop there, or you can drag the prep step above the meeting if you don't like things going "up" the chart.

Brilliant. Thanks, that is a lot easier than my previous attempts.

FWIW I do still like the idea of pull-down options in the Inspector, but I can understand why it might be unwieldy. And I still think that it's strange that I can't enter a new dependency via the Inspector. None-the-less, thanks whpalmer4 as your suggestion is great.

[whpalmer4]

Glad to hear that I could make life a bit easier!

Tell me what you think about this: I've occasionally thought that the order in which you select the items before hitting the connection button should be significant, so that if you wanted the connection to go from the bottom to the top, you could just select them in that order. If that feature was in place, you could have your original ordering, click on them in reverse order, hit the connection button and add the lead time. Most of the time, one is going to have the connections go down the chart, and I think that is the way that most people would do the selecting -- the one on top first, then the one on the bottom, so it would be the same as the current behavior in the usual case. Does that description make sense, and does it seem like an improvement to you? Perhaps it could be optional behavior, defaulting to how is now (order of selection not significant).

[richbowen]

Nice suggestion. I agree that the order of selection could / should be significant and would definitely be an improvement. No doubt you'd run a bit of usability testing, but it seems intuitive!