[sfkeydel]

Originally Posted by PeterS

I've followed this debate round and round, up and down. i've read the book, listened to the audiotape and DA offers us a valuable tool NOT a gospel. Priorities would improve a fantastic tool in Omnifocus, its an easy way of sorting my list of flagged tasks - all I want is a simple way of ordering my actions- I know there are clever ways of ordering projects etc but you can't beat inserting 1-9 in a column, revising it when necessary...<snip>

Hi Peter,

In this case, I hope you've taken the advice of using the Duration column for this purpose while you wait for the metadata field.

[PeterS]

Originally Posted by sfkeydel

Hi Peter,

In this case, I hope you've taken the advice of using the Duration column for this purpose while you wait for the metadata field.

Hi
Yes I'm using Duration but then I can't use it for what it was intended, for most of my work this doesn't matter but some jobs involve a little time planning but not to the level of project planning. I don't intend to moan, OF has made my life so much easier (I sync two desktops a laptop and iphone), a simple priority system would answer my needs (currently);-)

[Douger]

Folks this isn’t a resolved issue and it isn’t a dead liquified horse. It is an easy to solve problem in OF that would make it conform with real GTD.

There is today an implicit priority sorting in every context view. It is almost guaranteed to be wrong. When you put one item above or below another there is an implicit prioritization (row one comes before two and is therefor more or less important etc) Those of you who believe you are defending GTD by banning prioritization are actually defending a failed prioritization in OF’s context view.

On the other hand, the suggestions for a prioritization field are actually rather clumsy solutions to this problem, as is the hacked idea of using duration (which is what I do now) The simple, only GTD pure, solution is to allow manual sorts on actions in the context view. This function is a hallmark of the Omni products (It is the core of OmniOutliner) and its absence in OF is somewhat shocking.

If we could use Cntl Cmd Up / Down arrow to sort in context as we can do in project this rancorous debate would end and OF would really match GTD theory.

(Since the standard response to these threads is “did you read DA’s book(s)” the answer is of course, and I have done advanced study in OB and OD so I understand the real science behind his ideas as well)

[wilsonng]

I personally believe that everybody has their own "version" or adaptation of GTD. We're all at various stages of implementing GTD. If priorities makes you feel better, go for it.

I think the OmniGroup folks have tried to state that OF is a task manager that is suite for GTD but can be molded to fit other methodologies. Perhaps we can have the priority column and then just not show it if we're not into priorities. The folks who long for priorities will have it visible. Case solved. Everybody will be able to work on their version of GTD.

David Allen explores the notion of priorities in his book "Making It All Work" under the chapter of "Getting Control: Engaging." It starts at page 189.

On page 191, he confesses that his earlier writings tended to ignore the question of priorities. It seems he hasn't really found an answer to it yet. Maybe I'm taking it out of context?

....the subject of prioritizing deserves a treatment that incorporates much more depth and detail than oversimplistic To-do lists or ABC coding techniques can address.

He appears to have found that the notion of using A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2 is just too simplified and doesn't address the "priorities" of your tasks. It's a methodology that he just couldn't get it to work.

His suggestion?

Sometimes I think we all need to lighten up a bit about goals, plans, and priorities. Do your best to capture, clarify, and organize what you can, have the basic conversations you need to have with yourself and other key people at the horizons that are calling you, and then jjust get moving. If and when you find yourself off base, course-correct and then get going again ---- ad infinitum.

Alas, I could never get priorities to work for me. So the lack of priorities doesn't concern me as much as some of us who have chimed in on this matter.

I'm not too concern about which task is higher priority. If it's on my calendar, then it's a high priority for me on that day. All the other tasks are tasks that don't have a firm deadline and so don't really have any higher priority levels. I just pick three big rocks for the week and make them my active projects.

All I know is that as long as I can get towards my destination (thinking in the mid-range to long-range vision), I don't care whether my tasks are A1, B3, C4, etc.

Hopefully OmniFocus 1.7 will have that custom data field. That should allow a lot of customization for people who want to hand-roll their own GTD setup.

[curt.clifton]

Originally Posted by Douger

Folks this isn’t a resolved issue and it isn’t a dead liquified horse.

By "dead liquified horse" I certainly don't mean that the problem is resolved. I mean that there isn't a part of this horse that hasn't been kick thrice over. The problem is clear and has been discussed ad nauseam. The solution is also clear: meta-data columns. It's just a matter of waiting for Omni to implement them. Using Help --> Send Feedback to submit this feature request is the right way to move this feature up on Omni's priority list.

[curt.clifton]

Originally Posted by Douger

The simple, only GTD pure, solution is to allow manual sorts on actions in the context view

Not surprisingly, this has also come up before. The issue is that context view is just that, a view. Ground truth is in the project and task hierarchy in OF. Context view is just a projection or a lens on the project and task hierarchy. So manual reordering in the context view is awkward from an implementation standpoint.

For example, if you manually re-order tasks in context view, switch to another perspective, then switch back, how does OF remember your manual ordering? The idea I proposed during the 1.0 sneaky peeks was to store the priorities of tasks internally as floating point numbers. Then, for example, if you manually moved a task in context view, dropping it between tasks with priority 12.5 and 13.0 would cause the moved task to have a priority of 12.75. This priority column could be visible for those who want to set explicit priorities; they could even just stick to 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Or the priority column could be hidden, though still enabling the behavior you're looking for. Essentially this is just a priority meta-data column, with the reordering UI providing an implicit means to control the meta-data.

[Douger]

Originally Posted by curt.clifton

The idea I proposed during the 1.0 sneaky peeks was to store the priorities of tasks internally as floating point numbers.

Absolutely. A very elegant solution. Excellent.

The user would only need to think that he/she can re-outline in a view and have that ordering maintained in the "I don't need to see it but it's cool that it is there" data set. A basic architecture tenant is that software should do things so users don't have to. Using the duration field or a priority field for context view sorting really is making the user do what the application should be doing for them.

I know the "truth" of the data is in projects but I'm sure you and many would agree that we operate in contexts, at least that is what DA wants us to do. So being able to re-order in an outline fashion in various views is emensly fuctional for the user. Some would say that it is an essential core functionality.

(I do see the complexity associated with this functionality from a programing perspective, but my sense is that it is not insurmountable, especially given the - rather large - impact on the users GTD experience)

Thanks for your reply Curt...I'm off to add my Help>Feedback request.

[whpalmer4]

Originally Posted by Douger

Using the duration field or a priority field for context view sorting really is making the user do what the application should be doing for them.

No, using the duration field is a practical workaround for those who feel they need some sort of priority scheme now rather than when Omni delivers something better. That's all I intended when I first suggested it long ago, and I don't recall any evidence that anyone at Omni intended the duration column would be used this way.

It is impractical and unrealistic to think that every conceivable feature should be in the first release of a product, and a prioritization scheme such as we are discussing didn't make the cut. The sales numbers to date suggest that this was not an unreasonable decision. The core functionality is there for a large number of people, sufficient to make it a successful product and fund its continuing development. Some of that continuing development should be to add the proposed metadata column, which will help Omni profit from those who would otherwise be customers but stubbornly refuse to use a task manager that doesn't have a prioritization scheme.

[Douger]

There is an implicit prioritization scheme presented in the context view already - but, we could go round and round on that for months.


wilsonng: When you say you "just pick three big rocks for the week and make them my active projects," do you mean you mark all your other projects as 'on hold' until the next review - Hence your context views only show items from those 'big rocks'?

So most of your projects are "on hold" at any given time? Interesting...

[whpalmer4]

Originally Posted by Douger

There is an implicit prioritization scheme presented in the context view already

Only if the user chooses to interpret it that way! The context view is sorted and grouped by whichever of the sort keys the user selects. If I'm looking for my most recently added items, I'll group and sort accordingly. If I'm looking for items with a start date of today, I'll use a different grouping selector. Even if I'm grouping or sorting by due date, that still doesn't produce this prioritized list you insist is there -- it makes a list sorted by due date. Do you also feel that the telephone directory is a prioritized list? :-)