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

 
Parallel/Sequential Question Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Quote:
Originally Posted by need2act View Post
Now, I don't want to see "Get Things Out" until "Get Things Ready" is accomplished. And although I set up "Declutter Home" to be sequential, it doesn't treat these Action Group/Projects as a sequence where you only get to see the 'next action' in the Context Mode.

In other words, can projects within projects get seqenced so that a project can be treated in the same fashion as a 'next action'? Or am I doing something wrong here?
I setup your project in OmniFocus and it seems to be working correctly here. I only see actions from the "Get Things Ready" action group, specifically thee Food & Wine mags, Ski clothing, and Books actions from the Sort Things grouping.

Is it possible that you have the view bar status menu in context mode set to display "Remaining" actions instead of "Available" or "Next Action"?

To check this, turn on your view bar and check the third menu from the left in the content area. When set to "Available", you should see only the three actions I listed above.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dancingbrook View Post
Let's say I'm going to put up new shelves in a room, and they require these actions.
Shelf Brackets (buy)
Shelves (buy)
Paint (buy)
Paint Shelves
Relocate Current Pictures
Install Brackets
Install Shelves
Does this achieve what you're looking for?

Code:
New Shelves (sequential)
    -Prepare shelving (parallel)
        -Shelves (sequential)
            -Prepare for painting shelves (parallel)
                -buy paint
                -buy shelves
            -paint shelves
        -Brackets (sequential)
            -Prepare for bracket installation (parallel)
                -buy shelf brackets
                -relocate current pictures
            -install brackets
    -install shelves
Quote:
Originally Posted by dancingbrook View Post
After looking at this, it is apparent that GTD (and OmniFocus) is a bit stilted in it's conception. Next Actions could be many things for any set of tasks (project). It is a bit artificial to create some action groups that are sequential and others that are parallel, as many projects contain some of both, ad to create "groups" just to separate them into parallel and sequential makes no sense, especially given one might find oneself inserting something sequential into a parallel group (or vice versa).
Dependancies can be quite complicated, I agree. But it looks like OmniFocus provides the necessary tools for building your project. The complexity of dependencies requires extra planning, but the same would hold true even with Gantt charts and OmniPlan.

I guess I'm not clear on what you're proposing. What exactly would you like OmniFocus to do? Some kind of connection between OmniFocus and OmniPlan has been requested elsewhere on these forums and Omni Group has stated that it's something they're considering for a future release.

Last edited by Toadling; 2008-04-09 at 09:58 AM..
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toadling View Post
Does this achieve what you're looking for?
I guess I'm not clear on what you're proposing. What exactly would you like OmniFocus to do? Some kind of connection between OmniFocus and OmniPlan has been requested elsewhere on these forums and Omni Group has stated that it's something they're considering for a future release.
Just being able to set anything as next action(s) for a project would make sense. Most projects have a jumble of sequential and parallel actions, and artificially having to set up groups to distinguish these makes no sense to me. I suppose this is contrary to the GTD model but so be it. It's not like OF follows GTD exactly.

I think if one simply looks at OP and OF, it is pretty clear these are two different models for doing the same thing; getting things done. Convergence makes a lot of sense, in part because both models have something to offer. Of course I think there is an argument for convergence or at least interrelationship, between most of the Omni apps. Shouldn't Graffle be able to simply represent an Outline, and then a change in the Graffle file get reflected back to the Outline file? Or shouldn't it really be just one app?

App convergence and cooperation is the future.

Last edited by dancingbrook; 2008-04-09 at 04:54 PM..
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dancingbrook View Post
Just being able to set anything as next action(s) for a project would make sense.
You can. Just move an item to the top of the list, it turns purple, designating it as the next action.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dancingbrook View Post
Most projects have a jumble of sequential and parallel actions, and artificially having to set up groups to distinguish these makes no sense to me.
How are action groups anymore "artificial" than folders or any other logical collection of information? Besides, they give the added benefit of being able to fold them out of sight to save space, add extra notes, batch-toggle flagging and completion states, etc.

I suppose each individual action could have its own parallel/sequential attribute. Ones set to parallel could then just be ignored for determining order and would always be available as a next action, regardless of what order they actually appear in the list. But that seems like it would be visually confusing.

And without nested groupings of some kind, you'd lose the ability to build more complex sequences. For example, you couldn't require that some parallel actions be completed before making some other parallel actions available (a sequential list of parallel groupings). In fact, it seems like your example shelving project would be impossible to build with what you're proposing.

The more I think about it, the more it seems actions groups are a better approach. I really think Omni Group did their homework here and has thoroughly thought this out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dancingbrook View Post
App convergence and cooperation is the future.
I would agree that "app cooperation" is the way of the future, but not necessarily "app convergence". The idea of one monolithic application that does everything goes against the very nature of Unix and distributed systems. It's much better to have many, specialized apps that are really good at one thing (or maybe a couple things) and that play together nicely.

Apple's iLife and iWork suites are an excellent example of this. The Omni applications are also already headed in that direction. We can see it with LinkBank support in OmniOutliner, for example (hopefully, it'll eventually come to OmniFocus as well). And there's been lots of talk about tighter integration between OmniFocus and OmniPlan in the future.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toadling View Post
You can. Just move an item to the top of the list, it turns purple, designating it as the next action.
I want to move many things to the next actions list, because when I leave in the morning (without the computer) I hope to accomplish more than just one item from any given project, even if they are sequential. Even if I am in front of the computer, I might logically want to see the next 2, 3 or 4 items in a list as they may all be linked and thus I would try to do all of them if I had time, without having to check one off to se the next.

Quote:
How are action groups anymore "artificial" than folders or any other logical collection of information?
What's artificial is the idea that they have to be either sequential or parallel. Almost no group of actions I do are just one or the other.

Quote:
Besides, they give the added benefit of being able to fold them out of sight to save space, add extra notes, batch-toggle flagging and completion states, etc.
What? I don't need an "action" folder to do that. I could simply have a folder called next actions, or any other set of folders for that matter (like is already there), The point being why either sequential or parallel?


Quote:
I suppose each individual action could have its own parallel/sequential attribute. Ones set to parallel could then just be ignored for determining order and would always be available as a next action, regardless of what order they actually appear in the list. But that seems like it would be visually confusing.
Or you could simply just let the next actions be the ones you choose to be next. If they are parallel, they all already appear in the next action list (assuming that action group is the next action). I my scenario, I select what's going to appear in my next action lists, including groups if I want.

Quote:
And without nested groupings of some kind, you'd lose the ability to build more complex sequences. For example, you couldn't require that some parallel actions be completed before making some other parallel actions available (a sequential list of parallel groupings). In fact, it seems like your example shelving project would be impossible to build with what you're proposing.
I have no idea why you reach that conclusion.

Quote:
The more I think about it, the more it seems actions groups are a better approach. I really think Omni Group did their homework here and has thoroughly thought this out.
Good for you

Quote:
I would agree that "app cooperation" is the way of the future, but not necessarily "app convergence". The idea of one monolithic application that does everything goes against the very nature of Unix and distributed systems. It's much better to have many, specialized apps that are really good at one thing (or maybe a couple things) and that play together nicely.
I said convergent. You said monolithic. I didn't because I meant what I said.
Information from apps is what converges.

Quote:
Apple's iLife and iWork suites are an excellent example of this. The Omni applications are also already headed in that direction. We can see it with LinkBank support in OmniOutliner, for example (hopefully, it'll eventually come to OmniFocus as well). And there's been lots of talk about tighter integration between OmniFocus and OmniPlan in the future.
Exactly (re iLife and iWork). LinkBack just provides an active link; the data created in app A doesn't change the data created in app B. Changing the data in app A gets reflected in app B. That's not the same thing as data syncing as seen in iCal and OF. Thus OF is more advanced than OO. What would you use LinkBack for in OF? I'm not sure what you refer to as lots of talk. I've seen nothing, yet it should have been planned from the start. Active data syncing is what I mean, so I can change the data in app A or B and it gets reflected back to the other app, just as it would in a monolithic app, which I am not asking for (though easy transitions between apps is fine with me, which is all a good monolithic app should be).

Last edited by dancingbrook; 2008-04-10 at 06:30 PM..
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dancingbrook View Post
...when I leave in the morning (without the computer) I hope to accomplish more than just one item from any given project, even if they are sequential. Even if I am in front of the computer, I might logically want to see the next 2, 3 or 4 items in a list...
Set your view bar to display "Remaining" or "Available" actions rather than just "Next Actions". It'll then display multiple, upcoming items.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dancingbrook View Post
I could simply have a folder called next actions, or any other set of folders for that matter (like is already there), The point being why either sequential or parallel?
It sounds like you want to manually select actions from a project and actually drag them to a different folder to indicate that they're to be executed next. For better or worse, that's not how OmniFocus is designed (although Cultured Code's Things sort of works that way).

In OmniFocus, actions stay in your projects, in the order you left them, where they make the most sense. A simple set of rules then automatically determines what's next and available based on action order, the sequential/parallel attribute of their parent container, and sometimes the state of their context (but that's rare).

Using the view bar, you can control how much gets displayed, and in what order, and how it's grouped. At any time, you can go back to a default view and still see all of your actions in their original order, in their original projects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dancingbrook View Post
Or you could simply just let the next actions be the ones you choose to be next. [snip] I my scenario, I select what's going to appear in my next action lists, including groups if I want.
If you're going to manually move items to a "next action list", why not just use OmniOutliner or a text editor to simply drag items from one list to another?

The process of determining what comes next and how actions are related to one another is costly in time and mental effort. It can be distracting if you need to think about it every time you're ready for the next action in a project.

The advantage of OmniFocus is that it allows you to do all that thinking ahead of time and only once. After you've set up a project, the app guides you to what's next so you don't have to go through that process over and over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toadling View Post
In fact, it seems like your example shelving project would be impossible to build with what you're proposing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dancingbrook View Post
I have no idea why you reach that conclusion.
I think we've simply misunderstood each other. I thought you were suggesting removing the sequential/parallel attribute from containers and adding it to each individual action, and then expecting OmniFocus to still be able to automatically determine which actions should be next or be available. Clearly, that wouldn't work with your example project.

But if you're going to manually choose and move next actions, then I guess you wouldn't need the sequential/parallel attribute at all. Just have one big list, maybe with some organizational folders, and pick whatever you want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toadling View Post
I really think Omni Group did their homework here and has thoroughly thought this out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dancingbrook View Post
Good for you
Not just for me, but good for anyone who's interested in using a well-designed GTD app.

My comments are in response to your original assertion that Omni Group somehow failed in their thinking when designing OmniFocus (see post 8).

But you're last remark feels a little snarky to me, especially when mine was not meant to be offensive. I don't know why you'd be snide about this. After all, I am trying to help you. So perhaps it just got lost in translation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dancingbrook View Post
I said convergent. You said monolithic. I didn't because I meant what I said. Information from apps is what converges.
Actually, you said, "App convergence and cooperation is the future" (emphasis mine), not "information convergence". Perhaps you meant "data convergence and app cooperation?"

Either way, now that you've made it a little more clear, I think we agree on this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dancingbrook View Post
Exactly (re iLife and iWork). LinkBack just provides an active link [snip] That's not the same thing as data syncing as seen in iCal and OF.
I'll agree that syncing between iCal and OmniFocus is a big step towards data convergence.

But isn't the "app cooperation" achieved with LinkBack very similar to what happens between the iLife and iWork apps? Having apps that simply work well together, sharing their respective data, even if not the same data, is a step in the right direction. Yet you seem to feel that iLife and iWork are excellent examples, but LinkBack support is not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dancingbrook View Post
What would you use LinkBack for in OF?
Embedding OmniGraffle graphics in OmniFocus projects, maintaining the ability to later edit the graphics in OmniGraffle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dancingbrook View Post
I'm not sure what you refer to as lots of talk. I've seen nothing, yet it should have been planned from the start.
I don't know if it's been planned from the start, or even if it's officially planned at all. But a quick search of these forums reveals several relevant threads. There's even mention of it by an actual Omni Group employee.

http://forums.omnigroup.com/showthread.php?t=7335
http://forums.omnigroup.com/showthread.php?t=6745
http://forums.omnigroup.com/showthread.php?t=7565
http://forums.omnigroup.com/showthread.php?t=2533

Wow, this is one big post. I don't seriously expect you to respond to it. I've already spent too much time on this topic anyway. Good luck and I hope you find something that works for you.

Last edited by Toadling; 2008-04-10 at 11:14 PM..
 
Toadling,
I appreciate your taking time to consider my thoughts. Sorry if you feel I was being snarky or snide. I was just simply trying to point out that stating you like something doesn't really add anything helpful. (eg. I like it red, and I think Omni did a good job picking that color; OK, good for me, but all that matters is the reasoning that backs up that declaration. The declaration itself adds nothing more than an opinion).

If Omni is interested in my perspective, they might chime in, or they'll ask offline. In the meantime, my demo has expired so...
 
 


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Help... Sequential/Parallel issue Avrum68 Applying OmniFocus 11 2009-02-03 12:45 PM
Quick question - sequential and/or parallel? MacBerry OmniFocus 1 for Mac 5 2008-08-03 09:02 AM
Sequential vs. Parallel villageboy OmniFocus 1 for Mac 2 2008-02-13 06:46 AM
Sequential Vs. Parallel Projects KPC OmniFocus 1 for Mac 1 2008-01-10 09:21 AM
Parallel and sequential subprojects javito OmniFocus 1 for Mac 16 2007-05-29 03:35 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:58 PM.


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