[abates17]

Originally Posted by BwanaZulia

1. Priority IS in GTD
2. Priority is too FLUID to capture in tool
3. Brain can do priority FASTER than tool.

I know I’m dredging up this old thread, but I have heard this repeated time and time again (while reading all 21 pages), and I have to respectfully disagree. Let me give you an example of how I use priorities in Life Balance, and how the tool calculates priorities faster than my brain can:

I have tasks to do around the house. Some are daily, some are weekly, some are monthly, and some are yearly. I have them all assigned to a House context. They all have their own recurrences, and appropriate lead times (i.e. hours for a daily task, a month for a yearly task).

The nice thing about Life Balance is that priorities for repeating tasks are adjusted dynamically, based on the time until the task is due. So with this system, I can look at my list and quickly see which items are red (past due), which ones are orange (less than one lead time until they are due), and which are green (more than one lead time until they are due). And they are all sorted accordingly.

Furthermore, Life Balance can handle those fluid priorities. Which is more important: doing a monthly task that was done three weeks ago, or doing a weekly task that was done six days ago? I don’t have to worry about it, because LB does all the calculations on the fly, and sorts the list.

I can hear the protests now: “But that is not GTD! You should just have a list of tasks and browse through them to pick the ones that are the highest priority!” That’s true, I could do that…and with this method, I still can. Nothing says I HAVE to do the top item on the list; but if I absolutely want to do the task that has been done the least recently, I know exactly where to look.

And note also that I did not set a SINGLE priority for a SINGLE one of these items! The priorities are adjusted dynamically based on due date and lead time, which I set once and forget about. If (for example) I wanted to prioritize “Wash windows” as more important than “Clean garage,”*I could do that too. And the amazing part is, if both items are due, “Wash windows” will show up first, but if I have washed the windows recently, then “Clean garage” will show up first. It does the work for you, and adjusts priorities dynamically on the fly!

Now, can you tell me that you can look at a list of repeating tasks and completion dates and repeat periods, and tell me on the fly which one was done the least recently?

[Toadling]

Originally Posted by abates17

Now, can you tell me that you can look at a list of repeating tasks and completion dates and repeat periods, and tell me on the fly which one was done the least recently?

You probably could if you sorted the actions by date added or date changed in OmniFocus.

But yeah, the priority implementation you describe in Life Balance sounds pretty sophisticated and a real boon for those who like explicit priorities. But my question is, if Life Balance is so good at this sort of planning, why not just use Life Balance instead of OmniFocus?

-Dennis

[abates17]

Originally Posted by Toadling

You probably could if you sorted the actions by date added or date changed in OmniFocus.

But not of some tasks need to be done every week, and some need to be done every year. For example, a yearly task completed two weeks ago would have a lower priority than a weekly task completed three days ago.

Originally Posted by Toadling

But yeah, the priority implementation you describe in Life Balance sounds pretty sophisticated and a real boon for those who like explicit priorities. But my question is, if Life Balance is so good at this sort of planning, why not just use Life Balance instead of OmniFocus?

Let’s see, where to begin? Life Balance doesn’t have an easy and ubiquitous way to capture new tasks; the UI of their desktop application is, frankly, horrible (they basically mimicked most of the UI from the Palm version, resulting in atrocities like a tab that contains a single slider); synchronization with the iPhone is not up to the standards I would expect; there isn’t an integrated review process that is easy to use; their development team don’t seem very responsive to product changes…I could go on and on.

However, they do have some things that OmniFocus doesn’t: Hierarchical priorities which are very easy to use but very powerful; priorities that smoothly change depending on the due date; Contexts which can be arbitrarily nested, so you don’t have to make custom Perspectives just to see, for example, everything you want to do at work.

I’m currently on the fence between the two apps, but OF is winning just because task capture is so much easier. But I keep running into roadblocks in my workflow, which are the areas I would like to see OmniFocus improve in. If those tweaks were made, OF would easily blow Life Balance away.

[Ward]

Thank, abates17, for calling my attention to this ancient thread. It touched a hot button for me (and my clients).

I use OmniFocus to capture every request from each of my consulting clients. When a to-do list gets to be more than a handful, I review the list with the client, asking her to identify the most import tasks. I note these with the red flag.

Often during these reviews, the client will mention that a task is "pretty important" (the next level down from most important).

If I had one more flag color/symbol (that exports to HTML), I think I'd be all set. Red for high priority; blue for medium; no flag for low. Or 1 flag and 2 flags.

Of course, there are Critical tasks (higher than high). I handle these with a flag + a start and/or due date.

-- Ward

[submitted as formal feedback]

[Lucas]

Originally Posted by abates17

For example, a yearly task completed two weeks ago would have a lower priority than a weekly task completed three days ago.

Yes, but why would a yearly task completed two weeks ago be even available to do? To me, personally, the real example would be a yearly task completed 35 weeks ago vs. this weekly task. And then the software, it seems, makes a judgment about which is more important. To me, that seems like a pretty close call. You might as well just have the software flip a coin. So a good workaround might be to hold on to some change.

[Lecter]

Originally Posted by abates17

Now, can you tell me that you can look at a list of repeating tasks and completion dates and repeat periods, and tell me on the fly which one was done the least recently?

Using GTD, I don't have the need to know which tasks were done the least recently - so this [Life Balance] priority system doesn't provide any value for me.

My intuition, which is calculated through my goals (as defined in my horizons of focus) and active weekly reviews, tells me instantly what I want to do. My hard landscape is on my calendar, so those hard deadlines can supersede as needed.

To be frank, I wouldn't trust a automated system to tell me the priorities of cleaning my windows versus cleaning my garage. Unless Life Balance comes with sensors that detect dirt, my intuition (with data gathered through observation) will always give me better results in choosing what should be done first. If I see dirt on my windows, and that the garage is not in need of maintenance - Life Balance's "dynamic" system isn't helpful - it becomes misleading.

We are the executives of our lives, of our decisions. We need to be in control, vetted with perspective, rather than hoping that a automated system can maintain control of our decisions, and magically choose our priorities as accurately as we, ourselves, can.

•••

In terms of development that meets variable concerns, I am keeping my hopes open regarding Ken's post. That way, the priority zealots will have a tool that GTD'ers can hide and not be (overtly) affected by. And this dead horse can be buried without further dismemberment. :)

[abates17]

Originally Posted by Lucas

To me, personally, the real example would be a yearly task completed 35 weeks ago vs. this weekly task. And then the software, it seems, makes a judgment about which is more important. To me, that seems like a pretty close call.

Yes, that is a pretty close call. What about a yearly task completed 42 weeks ago? 46 weeks ago? 51 weeks ago? The point is, the software can easily calculate relative priorities on the fly, much easier and more quickly than I can. Of course, I am still free to pick from any item on the list, but this just tells me which ones are closest to being due again. THAT is what software should do for you: take care of mundane calculations so you don’t have to.

[abates17]

Originally Posted by Lecter

Using GTD, I don't have the need to know which tasks were done the least recently - so this [Life Balance] priority system doesn't provide any value for me.

I am also using GTD, and knowing which tasks were done the least recently does provide value for me, as I explained. And using GTD, it doesn’t matter to you how a list is sorted, so even if you had a system like this set up, it wouldn’t get in your way at all. Right?

Originally Posted by Lecter

My intuition, which is calculated through my goals (as defined in my horizons of focus) and active weekly reviews, tells me instantly what I want to do.

And I’m more concerned about what I NEED to do, not what I WANT to do. When I know which tasks have been done the least recently, those bubble up to the top, so I am aware of them.

Originally Posted by Lecter

To be frank, I wouldn't trust a automated system to tell me the priorities of cleaning my windows versus cleaning my garage. Unless Life Balance comes with sensors that detect dirt, my intuition (with data gathered through observation) will always give me better results in choosing what should be done first. If I see dirt on my windows, and that the garage is not in need of maintenance - Life Balance's "dynamic" system isn't helpful - it becomes misleading.

I don’t want to bother with walking around and examining every window and floor and counter in my house before deciding what needs to be done! I want to vacuum my floors on a weekly basis. I want to clean my windows monthly. I want to clean my counters daily. I do not have the time nor the inclination to walk through my house every day and say, “Do the floors need vacuuming? Should I wipe down the counters?” Using a system like I described, the items that have been done least recently (according to MY priorities when I set them up) will automatically bubble up to the top.

Originally Posted by Lecter

We are the executives of our lives, of our decisions. We need to be in control, vetted with perspective, rather than hoping that a automated system can maintain control of our decisions, and magically choose our priorities as accurately as we, ourselves, can.

When did I ever say, or even imply, that I was not in control of my own decisions? Having a list sorted by priority does not require me to do the top item on the list, any more than if the list were sorted alphabetically. It just gives me more information (more perspective, if you will) that I can use to help make my decisions. I am using GTD as well, WITH priorities, and there is NOTHING about having priorities that contradicts using GTD. Priorities do not keep me from reviewing my list of tasks and finding something to do; they do not keep me from reviewing my projects on a weekly basis. They merely provide one more piece of information that I can use. And frankly, I am surprised at how many people complain that a prioritization system means that we want our systems to “magically choose our priorities” for us.

Originally Posted by Lecter

That way, the priority zealots will have a tool that GTD'ers can hide and not be (overtly) affected by.

Please don’t imply that “priority zealots” and GTD’ers are two separate groups. And again, why would you need to hide a “priority” field? At worst, it is one extra field that you wouldn’t use. And since you are always scanning the list anyway, why would it matter how the list is sorted?

[Lucas]

Originally Posted by abates17

Having a list sorted by priority does not require me to do the top item on the list, any more than if the list were sorted alphabetically. It just gives me more information (more perspective, if you will) that I can use to help make my decisions. I am using GTD as well, WITH priorities, and there is NOTHING about having priorities that contradicts using GTD. Priorities do not keep me from reviewing my list of tasks and finding something to do; they do not keep me from reviewing my projects on a weekly basis. They merely provide one more piece of information that I can use. And frankly, I am surprised at how many people complain that a prioritization system means that we want our systems to “magically choose our priorities” for us.

I agree completely; but to my view OF does now use priority in its own way, although certainly not as obvious as in lifebalance. As has been said by others, I think that the developers are aware (probably!) of an interest by some in priority being done differently in OF. Although such a change might happen someday, it might be useful to use this user forum to ask the advice of other users who are using OF as it is now to handle prioritization issues.

[abates17]

Originally Posted by Lucas

Although such a change might happen someday, it might be useful to use this user forum to ask the advice of other users who are using OF as it is now to handle prioritization issues.

I understand. I just wanted to clarify the misconception that priorities are “not GTD,”*or that the brain can always determine priorities more quickly and easily than an automated system. I think the brain determines urgency, but a system can track priority reasonably well.