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

 
Single Actions ? Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjb View Post
What is the barrier to having these tasks just be individual projects under a folder. Is it that there are too many to scroll through, is it that they don't have the right behavior in Context view? I'd like to hear a discussion about this and why some folks have gravitated towards using singletons.
I currently have 82 singleton actions in my system. Adding them as items under folders would quadruple the size of my project listing. Also, projects don't show up in context view at all.

I find that singleton projects work fine for me. I look forward to a better bucket icon. I strongly agree that the default behavior of QuickEntry items bypassing the inbox is broken.
__________________
Cheers,

Curt
 
I understand that you want singletons to show up in you folders and you did need a solution. I'm glad you have one, and I'm glad that it's nice a flexible solution that can be put to all sorts of different purposes. But it's just not an excuse for completely destroying any ability to have properly projectless actions.

Right now, having a project is an absolute requirement for a task to become actionable, but it doesn't need a context, it's just ridiculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anna View Post
GeekLady, when you say they worked perfectly, was that when actions without projects showed up in context lists?

I liked that "no project, context assigned"=="do-able item". But it wasn't perfect, because I rely heavily on the folder focus, and focusing on a folder meant no single actions showed up. So I had to use the "project for singletons" idea anyway. I disliked that very much, especially that the first one was a next action. This is a *slight* improvement.

I really want to leave the project blank, but tag an action as belonging to a certain folder. That would be my perfect solution. I don't know if that's possible given the "folder" implementation.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeekLady View Post
Right now, having a project is an absolute requirement for a task to become actionable, but it doesn't need a context, it's just ridiculous.
I'm not seeing this behavior. The first part fits - an action must have a project to become actionable. (If this seems absurd, a perfectly good workaround is to call your default singleton project "None.") But the second doesn't. If I don't give an action a context, it doesn't become actionable (available).

It will leave the Inbox when cleaned up. I presume the current behavior is based on the presumption that, if you assign a project but not a context to an action, you intend to decide on the appropriate context when you review the project. There should be a preference to control Inbox behavior so that users whose workflow doesn't fit this assumption can change it.

I have to agree with those who argue that much of the power of the Focus command would be lost if there were no singleton buckets within folders. Putting individual actions in folders is certainly the logical way to do it, but from my perspective, Curt is right to point out that it would be a UI nightmare.
 
Okay, I was too busy ranting to be completely accurate, items without a context don't become actionable, but if they have a project, they leave the inbox, which my pea brain interprets as 'fully processed and ready for action upon completion of prerequisites'

My apologies.
 
In another thread I was complaining about the direction Omnigroup was heading with how omnifocus deals with single actions. I mistakenly believed that a project had to be given for an inbox item to be cleaned out. I didn't realize I had to create a default single bucket. Now that I realize that, I'm much happier.

If I had my wish there would be a default singles bucket already out of the box and not under projects. It would be on the same level as the inbox and projects.

In my opinion it is absolutely not logical to have single buckets in folders. The folders are under projects and should hold projects. Single actions are not projects. In this case, however, functionality, and the fact that others will use omnifocus differently, trumps logic.

I'm resigned to, and ok with, losing that fight. If we can only make all single bucket tasks next actions I'll be happy.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeekLady View Post
. . . But it's just not an excuse for completely destroying any ability to have properly projectless actions.
True! I wonder why they don't still allow projectless actions, even with the singleton-bucket implementation? (Especially since context-less actions are allowed.)

(And pjb, these are really, REALLY not projects. They are immediately do-able items. Simple do-able items, that definitely need to show up in the context lists. Projects require planning/thinking/organizing. I look through my project lists to find out what big things I'm working on, what requires thought. "Do Laundry" should not be there.)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gary View Post
If I had my wish there would be a default singles bucket already out of the box and not under projects. It would be on the same level as the inbox and projects.

In my opinion it is absolutely not logical to have single buckets in folders. The folders are under projects and should hold projects. Single actions are not projects. In this case, however, functionality, and the fact that others will use omnifocus differently, trumps logic.

I'm resigned to, and ok with, losing that fight. If we can only make all single bucket tasks next actions I'll be happy.
A default singles bucket at the top level is a good idea. But I don't buy that single buckets in folders is "not logical". I use folders to group my tasks into major life roles. Having singleton buckets under each role is very useful to me.
__________________
Cheers,

Curt
 
Quote:
But I don't buy that single buckets in folders is "not logical". I use folders to group my tasks into major life roles. Having singleton buckets under each role is very useful to me.
It's not logical to me only because folders are under the title of projects. So it would seem only projects go in folders. Nitpicking I know.

But doesn't mean it isn't logical in the way you use it, and I don't want omni to take away functionality that is useful. I'm glad it's there for you to use.

I'd love a top level, default, singles bucket to be available when checked in the preferences, which vanishes when unchecked, and the ability to creat new singles buckets under projects if the user chooses. But the current implementation may be the closest I get, and I'm ok with that.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeekLady View Post
...if they*[actions] have a project, they leave the inbox, which my pea brain interprets as 'fully processed and ready for action upon completion of prerequisites'
It's not a pea-brain thing, it's a matter of what works for your workflow. I can see good GTD-compatible arguments for either approach, which is why I think it should be a preference. Those who think, "I've assigned this task to a project, so I'll think about its context during the review," and those who think, "I want this in the inbox until it is good to go," could both be accommodated. That seems exactly the kind of preference that would allow the user to fine-tune her or his interaction with OF without adding needless bells and whistles.
 
I'm also seeing this whole debate as a problem with the definition of Project.

Sounds like most people are defining Project as: the group of actions that, when taken all together, meet a definite goal. Examples: Prepare 2008 budget, Vacation to Hawaii, etc.

But, what if we re-define Project to: a group of items that have a reason to be classified together. Goal isn't necessarily part of the definition. Examples: House Cleaning (a group of repeating single actions), Daughter (single tasks I need to do for/with my daughter), Subaru (a standing project, sometimes empty, with actions I need to take regarding my car).

Actions for the second group are often very different in how we enter them from actions in the first group. With the first, an action might be: figure out what format the President wants the numbers in this year (this would probably be an action group, with more planning needed). The second: Call dealer for appointment to fix the seat adjuster.

We need the Inbox to hold ideas for group 1 actions, but we also need a quick and dirty way to get group 2 items where they belong.

We also need to realize that different people have different proportions of items in each group. I live in Group 2, with a very occasional Group 1. Other people are the opposite. OF handles my Group 2 actions well, but it needs to make the Group 1 folk happy without complicating group 2 stuff.

--Liz
 
 


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Can I sort actions in a Single Actions folder? lessing OmniFocus 1 for Mac 2 2012-11-27 03:44 PM
Pausing some actions under a single actions list pauses the whole single actions list zdlo OmniFocus 1 for Mac 6 2012-08-27 09:08 PM
Projects vs single actions abowen500 Applying OmniFocus 0 2011-10-12 08:03 AM
Single actions can't be put on hold? Frosty Crunch OmniFocus 1 for Mac 29 2007-10-17 04:16 PM
Single Actions in every folder? djbell OmniFocus 1 for Mac 4 2007-09-14 02:55 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.