[Journey]

Originally Posted by Fulan

It's worth asking if the project is to produce software that's about "Getting Things Done™" or if it's about "getting things done."

Good question! David Allen wasn't dogmatic or "religious" about GTD as some of the people on his forum. He suggested doing what works. His book doesn't cover software; it's based on paper system. If he wrote a book with computer software in mind I am fairly certain he would take advantage of the relational nature of computer databases and have things like multiple contexts.

[VicDiesel]

Originally Posted by blewis

Finally, the very, very strict ordering dependency on Actions in a project - regardless of Series or Parallel ordering baffles me. I simply hate having to move an item that has a Due Date from the bottom of my parallel list to the top in order to have it recognized as Next Action. Shouldn't the assigned Due Date take precedence over ordering in a Parallel project?

I'm with you on that one. I think that in a parallel set of tasks the ordering should be irrelevant, so the next task is the one with the soonest deadline, provided it's past its start date.

1/ I find it very irritating that I can have a task due tomorrow, and when I finish it, I suddenly have a task popping up that's a week overdue.

2/ The only justification for giving me those tasks in that order is if they can only be done in that order. Since I've declared them parallel, that's clearly not the case.

Victor.

[al_f]

Originally Posted by homagetogorto

Dates are part of GTD (the 43 folders), so the date columns should be on by default, for example.

<snip>

Contexts are great in some contexts, but some work simply is date-based, so we have to be able to see our actions/projects by date so we can make the resources we need available, instead of just hoping that Bob or Jane will walk into our office.

From what I understand of GTD, it recommends that time-critical items (ones that have to get done on a specific date/at a specific time) go on your calendar. OF doesn't replace the calendar for me: I implement the "tickler file" (the 43 folders) by entering tickler items (things to do or review on a particular day) as all-day events in iCal. Time-specific events go in iCal as appointments as normal.

I use the actions lists in OF for things I have to get done as soon as I can that aren't tied to a particular time. Some of these have deadlines, of course, but I tend to enter those deadlines on the calendar and pick them up in my weekly review so I can prioritise the items that will be due in the next couple of weeks. I'm aware that I'm missing part of OF's functionality (due dates) by doing this, but it seems to work for me. YMMV.

[curt.clifton]

Originally Posted by VicDiesel

I'm with you on that one. I think that in a parallel set of tasks the ordering should be irrelevant, so the next task is the one with the soonest deadline, provided it's past its start date.

1/ I find it very irritating that I can have a task due tomorrow, and when I finish it, I suddenly have a task popping up that's a week overdue.

2/ The only justification for giving me those tasks in that order is if they can only be done in that order. Since I've declared them parallel, that's clearly not the case.

Try using the Available actions filter instead of the Next Action filter. It will do what you want for parallel projects.

[VicDiesel]

Originally Posted by curt.clifton

Try using the Available actions filter instead of the Next Action filter. It will do what you want for parallel projects.

Yeah, but filters are globally over a perspective, not per project.

Victor.

[jwn2]

Originally Posted by Fulan

Here's something worth thinking about for the development team, drawn from reading through pretty much all the forum entries.

It's worth asking if the project is to produce software that's about "Getting Things Done™" or if it's about "getting things done."

One of the tricks to learning how to use OmniFocus is figuring out how much time you need to spend recording and organizing what you need to get done versus actually doing it. The whole point of OmniFocus is to help minimize the time spent on the former in order to have more time for the latter. But when learning to use any new thing, it draws more of your attention and time than after it has become part of your routine. So there's a built-in frustration when starting out with OmniFocus because learning to use it gets in the way of the reason why someone was motivated to use it in the first place.

Acknowledging this dilemma up front with a little humor and a little reassurance would probably help new users get over the hurdle.

[brianogilvie]

Originally Posted by VicDiesel

I'm with you on that one. I think that in a parallel set of tasks the ordering should be irrelevant, so the next task is the one with the soonest deadline, provided it's past its start date.

1/ I find it very irritating that I can have a task due tomorrow, and when I finish it, I suddenly have a task popping up that's a week overdue.

2/ The only justification for giving me those tasks in that order is if they can only be done in that order. Since I've declared them parallel, that's clearly not the case.

I see where you're coming from, but I personally don't find the current behavior that unreasonable. If I have a parallel project with 20 actions, and I set a due date on the 10th, that might be because I realize that particular action MUST be done by a fixed date. But I might feel that actions 1-9 really should be done before 10 because they're higher priority. If I really think that I should have all actions with due dates come before all actions without them, it's easy to reorder them during my weekly review.

Put more abstractly: in a parallel project, "next" is a semantic category, not a logical category. I find it semantically important not to automatically make an action into a next action just by putting a due date on it.

[D-Mac]

Well, I am glad to see others who aren't GTD experts (in the David Allen sense) are finding OmniFocus less than intuitive to use.

If I remember correctly, the OmniGroup specifically stated that one of the design goals was to make OmniFocus a general tool, rather than tied explicitly to any productivity methodology. Well, that hasn't seemed to come into play.

As I mentioned to Tim Cook already, why the heck can't I create a simple to-do list, without assigning contexts or projects, and be able to sort the damned thing by clicking on column headings or using the Filter View Bar?

I mean, even if you are strictly following the GTD methodology (I've only just started reading the book), how are you supposed to track a huge, initial brain dump, in which you haven't quite decided on all of the "bins"?

Again, this thing was supposed to be somewhat flexible. And, adding the simple functionality I described to the Inbox (in Planning mode) has got to be very simple (if the code isn't already in there, or easily adaptable from OmniOutliner, etc.).

I guess you just can't think and work outside of the OmniFocus "box"...

It's frustrating...

[ksrhee]

Originally Posted by D-Mac

Well, I am glad to see others who aren't GTD experts (in the David Allen sense) are finding OmniFocus less than intuitive to use.

If I remember correctly, the OmniGroup specifically stated that one of the design goals was to make OmniFocus a general tool, rather than tied explicitly to any productivity methodology. Well, that hasn't seemed to come into play.

As I mentioned to Tim Cook already, why the heck can't I create a simple to-do list, without assigning contexts or projects, and be able to sort the damned thing by clicking on column headings or using the Filter View Bar?

I mean, even if you are strictly following the GTD methodology (I've only just started reading the book), how are you supposed to track a huge, initial brain dump, in which you haven't quite decided on all of the "bins"?

Again, this thing was supposed to be somewhat flexible. And, adding the simple functionality I described to the Inbox (in Planning mode) has got to be very simple (if the code isn't already in there, or easily adaptable from OmniOutliner, etc.).

I guess you just can't think and work outside of the OmniFocus "box"...

It's frustrating...

The method requires you to collect all future actions into a repository (in this case called Inbox) and then you can process them into project and/or context.

Processing and review are critical part of any planning, and this is no different with GTD.

I for one find OF easy to use once you grasp the basic concepts. Besides, if you use QS or other inputting tool, there is nothing easier to capture what I need to do in an instant.

Often my colleagues get surprised when I do this when they are in my office since it takes me a few seconds to capture my future to do's instead of putting it into a yellow stickies or a notepad.

I also take comfort in knowing that my future task is in a safe place and I can safely "forget" about them until my next processing/review time.

[ptone]

Originally Posted by brianogilvie

But I might feel that actions 1-9 really should be done before 10 because they're higher priority. If I really think that I should have all actions with due dates come before all actions without them, it's easy to reorder them during my weekly review.

Um, in the original post which you quote, he was talking about two items with due dates, and the fact that "Next" doesn't float the one with the earlier due date in front of the latter due date.

Manually sorting actions by date seems dumb when computers are so good at.

Your point on the issue of mixing dated and non-dated actions is quite valid, however the issue is in ease of use vis a vis expectation.

-P