[dhm2006]

Originally Posted by petro

A side question on the Inbox though. Must I drag actions out of the inbox to move them to folders/projects? I keep thinking that if I assign a project to an entry in the inbox, it'll auto-move it. Why have the ability to tie a project and context to entries in the inbox? Am I missing something?

Have you used the "Clean Up" command (on the edit menu or on the toolbar or shortcut Cmd-K)? That moves actions with contexts and projects out of the inbox.

[gary]

I think either of these are great suggestions. The first solution would preserve the referential quality of the UI elements; you'd look at a top-level group and instantly know what it contains.

I still lean towards simplicity, and keeping things the way they were. I generally put my singleton tasks in a project called Misc. And I defend the semantics; it's a project to do all the tasks that aren't in a project. :)

Well, they're only great suggestions if you're ok with neither having a chance to work. The first for reasons already stated is impossible, and the second won't ever happen. That ship has sailed.

My "single action" "Check water softener level" should appear (in my mind) at the same level as my "project" "Clean air ducts" (with three or four actions).

This idea, if I understand it correctly, has grown on me. It almost seems that making a distinction between single tasks that need to be done and projects is overkill, but once again, I think that ship has sailed.

As far as how GTD omnifocus should be, I'm ok with some flexibility, as there's even debate and personal perspectives on the system among those who have read the book. But there's definitely a limit. If someone hasn't read the book and is suggesting non gtd features, I'm not sure how much credence their suggestions should be given.

The reason I've waited this long for omnifocus and been testing it since day 1 is because I was a fan of the book and other applications haven't appealed to me. So when people start pointing to those applications as examples of direction I can only hope that omnigroup remembers their original vision for omnifocus. Those applications are already out there. I hope omnifocus strives to be different and faithful to its original intent.

[brianogilvie]

Originally Posted by petro

A side question on the Inbox though. Must I drag actions out of the inbox to move them to folders/projects? I keep thinking that if I assign a project to an entry in the inbox, it'll auto-move it. Why have the ability to tie a project and context to entries in the inbox? Am I missing something?

As dhm2006 responded, Clean Up will do that. The idea is that the user should decide when something is ready to leave the Inbox, not the application. For a while, even Quick Entry items with project and context specified would go to the Inbox first, and you can set a preference to retain that behavior.

For the same reason, I would prefer that actions that the user marks complete stayed around, struck through, until Clean Up was issued or the view was changed. (Right now, if Available actions are displayed, completed actions disappear immediately, while if Remaining actions are displayed, the behavior seems to be inconsistent.)

If you haven't modified the Toolbar to include Clean Up, I recommend doing so (unless you're opposed to toolbars on principle).

[al_f]

Originally Posted by gary

Well, they're only great suggestions if you're ok with neither having a chance to work. The first for reasons already stated is impossible, and the second won't ever happen. That ship has sailed.

Hmm, I must have missed something in the thread. First, why is it impossible to have 3 top-level planning elements? If you're referring to Curt's post, he seems to have missed my suggestion that folders with the same name under projects and singletons could be relationally linked. Second, I thought OF was an alpha - there wouldn't be much point us testing it (or this forum existing) if all the features were set in stone, would there?

[curt.clifton]

Originally Posted by al_f

Hmm, I must have missed something in the thread. First, why is it impossible to have 3 top-level planning elements? If you're referring to Curt's post, he seems to have missed my suggestion that folders with the same name under projects and singletons could be relationally linked. Second, I thought OF was an alpha - there wouldn't be much point us testing it (or this forum existing) if all the features were set in stone, would there?

Sorry, Al. I had missed that part. I still am not wild about the idea. The relational linking would solve the Focus problem, but it would require focusing in order to see the lists-of-single-actions next to the related projects.

But I strongly support your assertion about OF being an alpha. In fact, I think it would be cool if the gurus occasionally threw alternative features at us to try. For example, while I speculate that I wouldn't like 3 top-level planning elements, I don't know that. So maybe for a week we could use a version that had that. Then we could speak from experience.

[al_f]

Originally Posted by curt.clifton

Sorry, Al. I had missed that part. I still am not wild about the idea. The relational linking would solve the Focus problem, but it would require focusing in order to see the lists-of-single-actions next to the related projects.

True, I can see how that's not ideal: I don't know whether there's a way of making it not require focusing or not. There may also be solid programming reasons that it isn't a good idea which I don't know about. :)

But I strongly support your assertion about OF being an alpha. In fact, I think it would be cool if the gurus occasionally threw alternative features at us to try. For example, while I speculate that I wouldn't like 3 top-level planning elements, I don't know that. So maybe for a week we could use a version that had that. Then we could speak from experience.

I think that's one of the greatest strengths of the way Omni's developing the app: we can try stuff, feed back and Omni should end up with a product that satisfies (nearly!) everybody. I think we'd probably all agree that the core functionality's there anyway: most of what we're debating on here is peripheral stuff that, to be honest, I'd probably just get used to whichever way it's implemented in 1.0.

[gary]

Hmm, I must have missed something in the thread. First, why is it impossible to have 3 top-level planning elements? If you're referring to Curt's post, he seems to have missed my suggestion that folders with the same name under projects and singletons could be relationally linked. Second, I thought OF was an alpha - there wouldn't be much point us testing it (or this forum existing) if all the features were set in stone, would there?

The first suggestion is something I was in favor of a while back. But with the current system it simply wouldn't work. You're suggestion of relational thinking might work but seems overly complicated. Maybe I'm mistaken.

As for the second, I think the whole 'library' concept is going to grow to include other things. So although it's alpha, I doubt omni will go back to the simplicity it had when first released. Again, I could be wrong.

[jasong]

A bit late in the game here, but I wanted to respond to Anna's comment earlier in thread:

Originally Posted by jasong

I've never understood the need for "singleton actions". My "single action" "Check water softener level" should appear (in my mind) at the same level as my "project" "Clean air ducts" (with three or four actions).

Originally Posted by anna

At the same level? That means not in a context list and with no handy-dandy checkbox to mark it complete and clear it from view. How would you ever know to do it?

I think perhaps I wasn't clear. I was talking about the Projects list, not the Contexts list. In my scenario, my Projects list might look like this:

* Build a new personal server
* Buy "The Truth With Jokes", Al Franken
* Check water softener level
* Clean air ducts
* Get backyard landscaped

Each item may have zero or more actions underneath them. "Build a new personal server" may have a dozen actions (in appropriate contexts), while "Buy The Truth With Jokes" would have none: it's an action in and of itself (and in a context of Errands).

Right now, though, "Buy The Truth With Jokes" has to either

* have an action associated with it so I can show it as a Project, and get all the Project-y goodness (like not being stuck in my inbox); or

* be moved into a "single actions" holding pen which separates the item from the rest of my items unnecessarily.

With a "single actions" holding pen, I have to stop and think: "Was this item entered as a single-action item, or as part of a larger project item". Bam. There goes my mind-like-water, worrying about my system.

And then when I realize, "Oh, this *has* another action!", I have to manually move the item out to my projects list. Unnecessary work for a computer.

I want to see *all* my agreed-upon "desired outcomes" together, regardless of whether they have one action (complete the task, achieve the desired outcome) a dozen actions (complete all tasks to achieve the desired outcome), or may simply need more actions added to them later on.

Calling the top level holder of content "Library" is less bothersome to me than having the items in that library segregated for no beneficial reason.

(I know, this is a long-standing gripe of several members of the board. I'm holding out hope that the OmniGang will change things up and go to a single list of "desired outcomes" rather than "single actions plus projects".)

[dhm2006]

Originally Posted by jasong

I want to see *all* my agreed-upon "desired outcomes" together, regardless of whether they have one action (complete the task, achieve the desired outcome) a dozen actions (complete all tasks to achieve the desired outcome), or may simply need more actions added to them later on.

Calling the top level holder of content "Library" is less bothersome to me than having the items in that library segregated for no beneficial reason.

(I know, this is a long-standing gripe of several members of the board. I'm holding out hope that the OmniGang will change things up and go to a single list of "desired outcomes" rather than "single actions plus projects".)

I am on the other side of this debate. I want to keep my single action lists separate from my projects lists in Planning mode. I have too many single actions, and the projects would be overwhelmed if the single actions were intermingled with them. I like the way I can organize in OF now, so I hope the Omni folks leave the current functionality.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by dhm2006

I am on the other side of this debate. I want to keep my single action lists separate from my projects lists in Planning mode. I have too many single actions, and the projects would be overwhelmed if the single actions were intermingled with them. I like the way I can organize in OF now, so I hope the Omni folks leave the current functionality.

What about putting those single actions into a folder?

What's the line between a single action and a project for you, and do single actions ever turn into projects?