[al_f]

Originally Posted by RobTrew

The bottom line is that users are reporting losing track of actions to which projects but not contexts have been assigned. This is an expression of an architectural flaw in the current draft.

You can see them in project view if a project is assigned. There is a search function if you forget exactly where you put something. How is that a problem?

The Planning and the Doing views are just orthogonal perspectives on the same data. Neither should have blind patches. Singletons should not be missing from the basic Planning view, and tasks awaiting contexts should not be missing from the basic Doing view.

I'd argue that they aren't looking at entirely the same data due to the processed/unprocessed nature of actions with/without contexts. However, I can see we're never going to agree about this, so probably best to leave it here.

Any personal preferences, such as those you report, about what should be showing at a particular time, can be handled with custom Perspectives. That is not a reason for building compulsory blind patches into the base views.

Can you explain why what you're suggesting is any less a personal preference than what I'm suggesting? As far as I can tell we just disagree about the "right" way to do this, which doesn't automatically make one of us right and the other wrong. :)

Originally Posted by al_f

There is a search function if you forget exactly where you put something. How is that a problem?

Search is not too useful if you don't know what you are looking for. Users report losing track of context-unassigned items when they have forgotten to assign a context, or when a context has been inadvertently deleted.

It is a good idea to offer the option of hiding unassigned actions from the "Contexts" view. It is bound to create redundant effort, however, (and some weakening of trust / confidence in the system) if a blind patch is made compulsory.

[LizPf]

As I said elsewhere, I also like re-naming the two views Planning and Working.

Canonical GTD has us using our system to "empty our heads". Once I enter an action into OF, I feel free to forget about it completely until it shows up again in its proper place. [Inbox for things I need to plan more, on the proper Due Day, during a Review, etc.] If an item drops off the list of places in OF that I will look at, it's as if the item was completely forgotten.

An Unassigned context would at least contain these lost actions, so I could add "look at Unassigned Context" to my Weekly Review.


I think a lot of this debate is showing that there are two grops of people using OF:

- those whose work is primarily project oriented, so every action fits into a hierarchy of Folder --> Project --> (action group) --> Action. Everything in planned, pigeonholed, and neatly sorted. Things that aren't fully planned stay in the InBox.

- some of us (me) have much fuzzier lives. Some things can be fully planned, but others are very fuzzy and will stay that way. We're not likely to spend 20 minutes developing a project hierarchy for all our tasks, so we end up with a lot of singletons, actions without contexts, actions without projects, etc. Someone in the first group would run screaming if s/he looked at the database of a second group member!
[This is why GTD software that forces the InBox --> planning --> work list flow don't work for me. I'd rather throw the action approximately where it belongs the first time and trust my subconscious to finish the planning. OmniFu lets me use my messy methods.]

OmniFu has to work for both types of people. There need to be features that let Group 1 members work effectively, and other features that make sure the Group 2 members can work at all! And all of us need to be able to ignore the features that don't fit our styles.

--Liz

[al_f]

@Rob:
Well, I'd think people would pick up the lost items in their weekly review, but I can see how if something is time-critical it might cause problems before that.

@Liz:
I think what you're saying with your groups idea is probably spot on i.e. Al = nerd, Liz = normal. :)

[jelmore]

Originally Posted by LizPf

I think a lot of this debate is showing that there are two grops of people using OF:

- those whose work is primarily project oriented, so every action fits into a hierarchy of Folder --> Project --> (action group) --> Action. Everything in planned, pigeonholed, and neatly sorted. Things that aren't fully planned stay in the InBox.

- some of us (me) have much fuzzier lives. Some things can be fully planned, but others are very fuzzy and will stay that way. We're not likely to spend 20 minutes developing a project hierarchy for all our tasks, so we end up with a lot of singletons, actions without contexts, actions without projects, etc. Someone in the first group would run screaming if s/he looked at the database of a second group member!
[This is why GTD software that forces the InBox --> planning --> work list flow don't work for me. I'd rather throw the action approximately where it belongs the first time and trust my subconscious to finish the planning. OmniFu lets me use my messy methods.]

OmniFu has to work for both types of people. There need to be features that let Group 1 members work effectively, and other features that make sure the Group 2 members can work at all! And all of us need to be able to ignore the features that don't fit our styles.

--Liz

Consider me part of group 2, with a splash of group 1; sometimes in order to empty my head of a potential project I have to throw down a plan (especially if I have to delegate to others). But otherwise I look at my context lists and decide to do what I feel I can do.