The Omni Group
These forums are now read-only. Please visit our new forums to participate in discussion. A new account will be required to post in the new forums. For more info on the switch, see this post. Thank you!

Go Back   The Omni Group Forums > OmniFocus > OmniFocus 1 for Mac
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 
How do you use folders? Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Thanks for the tip on parallel/sequential in the action groups Curt.

It seems to work just like it should (in terms of next actions and available actions), which is a definite help.
 
Let me put in a plug for the current distinction between action groups and projects, just for the sake of argument. I'm not sure I wholly agree, but I can see value in distinguishing them.

A project is some desired outcome that takes more than one action to complete, but where you can define what a reasonable outcome would be. "Become the world's leading triathlete" is not a project--perhaps it's a life goal--but "Prepare for Iron Man 2008" might be one. You know that it's not something that's actionable in itself, but you have a sense of what getting there means.

An action group is a set of actions that, taken together, contribute to that outcome but aren't sufficient. It's like a lemma in a mathematical proof: it's not independent (at least in the context of the proof), but it hangs together. Within the context of my Iron Man example (I've never run more than a half-marathon nor cycled more than 40 miles, so this is fantasy land), "Train to improve century time" might be an action group. Getting it done is not for its own sake but for the sake of the Iron Man project.

A cyclist might make that an independent project, if his or her goal is do do well in a 100-mile race. So the distinction is semantic; it depends on the user's goals. The question is what it takes to arrive at closure. I see a value in maintaining the distinction. When I was using Life Balance, which did not distinguish different hierarchical levels, I found myself prefixing "(p)" to projects, so I could tell the difference. Other people might not find the distinction useful, and I might be able to live without it, but I wouldn't like to see it disappear.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverator View Post
I don't want to use folders, but I'm forced to since there is no concept of sub-projects in OmniFocus.

I would prefer to have one "top-level" project for each of the areas of concern that I have (e.g. work, exercise, etc.). Then I would have sub-projects for each particular thing I'm trying to Get Done. Many of them would be "singleton actions" but of course those things have a tendency to turn into bona fide projects. I would prefer that by adding sub-actions to any individual action, that would turn the parent action into a real project with all the power that comes with it.

Since you can't do that (yet??) I am forced to have a folder for each area of concern, containing a single singleton project and a variable number of actual projects. If an action morphs into a project I have to move it out of the singleton project.

This seems like a lot of work but I keep hoping that the "identity" of any "entity" in Omnifocus will eventually not depend on setting up the Project (or Library as it is now known) hierarchy in a certain way. I would like to have a project at x depth level without having to create folders, which to me seem to just add visual clutter.

I realize there are just as many preferences as there are users of this software, so take this as just my 2 cents about my particular preferences.
I have the exact same problem and hope they will fix this issue soon.
 
Curt,
Hi it's me Dwayne again.
What about goals categories such as health financial social.. is it an either or situation where u can organize your goals around roles or categories? If so then how do you, or anyone account for catergories such as health financial and social..
 
I am also one of the proponents for sub projects but according to Omni this is really tricky to implement UI-wise. We had a good discussion about it in this thread:

http://forums.omnigroup.com/showthre...page=2&post=19

The suggestion here is to give more power to individual actions instead.

-----------------------

I try to use as little folders as possible because whenever you use strict categorization you will eventually run into problems of gray zones (one item might equally well belong in two categories).
Over-granularization of folders will get you into this kind of micro-management-hell-scenario quickly.

One thing I have noticed about myself, which is potentially dangerous, is the fact that it is very tempting to organize projects into folders (increase granularity). Later on when several projects have been completed I don't collapse folders to reduce complexity as needed. It is kind of like; I don't want to ruin my finely thought out structure.

How many projects do YOU need in a folder before your fingers start itching for cutting that folder up into sub folders?

I would love to forget more about the planning mode and live more inside context mode but it is simply not possible at work because everything here is so project-driven. Besides, if I'm going to show some tasks to someone that don't understand OF and GTD; I can really confuse them by switching between planning and context mode.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by maverator View Post
I don't want to use folders, but I'm forced to since there is no concept of sub-projects in OmniFocus.

I would prefer to have one "top-level" project for each of the areas of concern that I have (e.g. work, exercise, etc.). Then I would have sub-projects for each particular thing I'm trying to Get Done. Many of them would be "singleton actions" but of course those things have a tendency to turn into bona fide projects. I would prefer that by adding sub-actions to any individual action, that would turn the parent action into a real project with all the power that comes with it.

Since you can't do that (yet??) I am forced to have a folder for each area of concern, containing a single singleton project and a variable number of actual projects. If an action morphs into a project I have to move it out of the singleton project.

This seems like a lot of work but I keep hoping that the "identity" of any "entity" in Omnifocus will eventually not depend on setting up the Project (or Library as it is now known) hierarchy in a certain way. I would like to have a project at x depth level without having to create folders, which to me seem to just add visual clutter.

I realize there are just as many preferences as there are users of this software, so take this as just my 2 cents about my particular preferences.
Yes, I would say one draw back of using a folder heavy structure is a seeming need for single action lists for each folder. This can get a bit unwieldly.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEP View Post
I do that without any folders. Action groups are essentially sub-projects from a functional perspective. The UI is a bit wonky still, but the functionality is all there.

<edit> fixed my post which was horribly broken. nothing changed tho
Yes. This is how I am using action groups too. Unfortunately, you cannot put action groups on hold as you can a project. IMHO it would be better if action groups could get the same funtionalities of projects.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianogilvie View Post
Let me put in a plug for the current distinction between action groups and projects, just for the sake of argument. I'm not sure I wholly agree, but I can see value in distinguishing them.

A project is some desired outcome that takes more than one action to complete, but where you can define what a reasonable outcome would be. "Become the world's leading triathlete" is not a project--perhaps it's a life goal--but "Prepare for Iron Man 2008" might be one. You know that it's not something that's actionable in itself, but you have a sense of what getting there means.

An action group is a set of actions that, taken together, contribute to that outcome but aren't sufficient. It's like a lemma in a mathematical proof: it's not independent (at least in the context of the proof), but it hangs together. Within the context of my Iron Man example (I've never run more than a half-marathon nor cycled more than 40 miles, so this is fantasy land), "Train to improve century time" might be an action group. Getting it done is not for its own sake but for the sake of the Iron Man project.

A cyclist might make that an independent project, if his or her goal is do do well in a 100-mile race. So the distinction is semantic; it depends on the user's goals. The question is what it takes to arrive at closure. I see a value in maintaining the distinction. When I was using Life Balance, which did not distinguish different hierarchical levels, I found myself prefixing "(p)" to projects, so I could tell the difference. Other people might not find the distinction useful, and I might be able to live without it, but I wouldn't like to see it disappear.
Thank you brianogilvie. I will try to look at my projects/action groups similarly and see if that makes a difference. in some ways this is semantics. But in OF it's manifest in how they have organized the system. I'll give it a try to think of it this way.

I find this whole organizational debate regarding folders, projects, actions, sub-folders etc. very interesting as I'm still an OF newbie and still trying to strike the right organizational balance.

Last edited by smiggles; 2008-07-05 at 09:33 AM..
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by smiggles View Post
Yes. This is how I am using action groups too. Unfortunately, you cannot put action groups on hold as you can a project. IMHO it would be better if action groups could get the same funtionalities of projects.
You can set the start date on an action group to be in the future, and that offers much of the functionality without waiting months or years for Omni to implement something that I don't recall they have ever promised to deliver. The only drawback I've encountered with doing this vs. splitting it out as a separate project in a folder is that you lose some of the visibility (no view to just show pending action groups). I've found this to be more of a theoretical difficulty than a practical one, but YMMV. For me, the ease of coordinating action groups in a single project vs. coordinating related projects in a folder without actual dependancy linking provided by OF makes spending a little more time on the review worthwhile. Naturally, I'd like to have the best of both arrangements available :-)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve View Post
Inspired by 7 habits, I have a folder for each of my "roles"— teacher, mentor, husband-dad, geek, artist etc. The method has some merit for weekly review and for making sure that all of my values and goals have some sort projects attached to them.
hey - it's neat to hear a 7-Habits inspired use of folders! I can definitely see a compass folder full of roles and having 7 active roles any given week with the rest on hold - this would definitely fit in the Covey philosophy - good idea!

that said, I don't have my system set up this way - my folders are goal-oriented at the moment with projects that contribute to 3 primary goals to fulfill by 2015.

I, too, would love to have sub-projects, folders are my workaround for the same reasons other have mentioned - the ability to suspend a sub-project is critical.

tagging of projects and having views based on this probably would be a cleaner implementation and be nice to hear how some of you deal with dependencies as folders don't deal with this issue very well.

I am a +1 for smart-folders as well - this seems to be a very well-known concepts in mac-land indeed! :)
 
 


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Printing Folders jgravis OmniFocus 1 for Mac 7 2011-07-14 03:46 PM
Returning to no folders hypotyposis Applying OmniFocus 28 2010-10-05 04:23 AM
How many folders is too many? paland Applying OmniFocus 4 2010-01-02 08:59 AM
no folders visible if no folders selected henri OmniFocus 1 for Mac 6 2008-11-19 09:03 AM
43 folders vocaro OmniFocus 1 for Mac 19 2007-07-29 02:40 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.