[abates17]

Originally Posted by Lecter

You are looking for a feature that is unnecessary for GTD.

David Allen specifically mentions task priorities in Getting Things Done; he does not however mention flags or colorizing tasks based on due dates, yet those features are in OmniFocus. Face it: OmniFocus has numerous features that are not “necessary”*for GTD, but that the people at OmniGroup thought would improve the product. This suggestion is no different.

Originally Posted by Lecter

And OmniFocus is developed and designed with GTD principles, for GTD users.

In a word: no. “OmniFocus works great as a Getting Things Done® trusted system but can also be used to fit other task management styles.” It is a task-management system, not just a system “for GTD users.”

Originally Posted by Lecter

Sure, OmniFocus can be shoehorned into other systems and/or productivity processes, but one should expect some personal desires not being met when one tries to shove a square peg into a round hole.

Adding one more criterion for list sorting, or added levels of priority is hardly “shoving a square peg into a round hole.” These are features already present in other task-management systems, and OmniFocus could easily include those features without impacting the workflow of GTD users.

Originally Posted by Lecter

Out of curiosity, why jump in the middle of the ocean, when one could have a calmer swim in a less turbulent lake (aka, starting a fresh, clean thread to discuss your ideas)?

Because I thought the context of the current thread was important, and I wanted to directly address opinions that others had stated here.

Originally Posted by Lecter

When you don't respond to points and counterpoints that serve the needs of your agenda, are you truly surprised that someone disagrees with your position? The last example is the customization of iTunes View Options. I feel that I made great points there. Did you miss them? Or did it just not provide any grist for your agenda?

I didn’t respond to the iTunes example because I brought it up in the first place as a direct response to your claim that adding more fields might make OmniFocus more difficult to use. My point was that iTunes has many more fields than OmniFocus does, and yet it is still easy to use. And you responded by saying…that iTunes is a great example of an application that has many fields and is still easy to use. So, you agreed with my point completely. I’m not sure what kind of response you were looking for there. “Yes, you got my point exactly, and disproved your previous claim. Good job!”

Originally Posted by Lecter

This lack of response on select topics really makes me feel like my points are not worth your time if they don't reinforce your position.

I am trying to save everyone time by responding to the salient points and cutting out the extraneous parts. I am not removing parts that “don’t reinforce my position.”

Originally Posted by Lecter

I've invested a lot of time absorbing GTD principles (through seminars, books, audio and Connect). I'm sharing what I've learned when I observe something in processes that I honestly believe could be better than they currently are. These aren't attacks, but suggestions. If you find my suggestions disagreeable, tell me that we should agree to disagree, and I'll drop the specific discussion. Really. However, if you make statements that are misconceptions (or are misleading), expect reciprocal clarifications/discussions.

But you’re not making suggestions! For example, I say, “I have certain tasks that I like to do on a regular basis. When I have several of those tasks, I would like to know which one has been done the least recently.”*And what is your response to that? “Oh, those tasks aren’t regular for ME!” “Why do you need to do those on a regular basis?” “Why should you care if one task was done last week, and the other hasn’t been done in a year?” Those aren’t suggestions; those are you saying, “I don’t look at problems the same way that you do, so your way must be wrong.”*It shouldn’t matter what the tasks are: If I want to do X and Y on a regular basis, it would be nice to know which one has been done the least recently. You can’t refute my argument by saying that I shouldn’t want to know that.

Originally Posted by Lecter

Speaking of misconceptions, lets try a little experiment. Do you see the little button in the upper left corner of the Inspector palette? Its the one that highlights in red when your mouse cursor is over it. Click that button. Now tell me if you can see the Estimated Time in the Inspector palette. No? That is probably because the Inspector palette is completely hidden.

Ignoring the part where you’re talking down to me…yes, I know that the field is completely hidden when the Inspector palette is closed. But it will be right back there when you open that palette! Is that okay with you? Great, then we have nothing to argue about. Does it bother you? Then I want to know why THAT unnecessary field bothers you, but the OTHER unnecessary fields don’t.

Originally Posted by Lecter

I've never said that the feature has to be removed — I am talking about hiding them.

Uh, yes you did. “Why would one feel that it seems unreasonable to hide (or remove) what one doesn’t use?” If you just want the field to be hidden, then I don’t see what the problem is; most of the extra fields in OF can already be hidden, so why would Priority be any different?

Originally Posted by Lecter

The reason why there is concern over a (potential) priority field always being visible,

I don’t think anyone has argued or suggested that a Priority field would have to always be visible.

Originally Posted by Lecter

It is unreasonable to force users to view fields that are unused.

I agree completely. I have never argued that a Priority field must always be visible in the interface.

Originally Posted by Lecter

Sure, Things' tags could be used for priority fields. OmniFocus' contexts and/or flags could be used as priority fields too. This doesn't make them priority fields.

Things already comes pre-loaded with tags for priority. In fact, Things tags can specifically be used for multi-level priority fields, for however many priority levels I want. I could choose to just do tasks with a priority of B22 for example, if I were so inclined. So yes, that DOES make them priority fields. On the other hand, OmniFocus contexts could be used as priority fields…but then you lose the ability to use them as Contexts. And you could use flags as priority fields too…as long as all of your priorities are either 1 or 2, A or B, Vitally Important or It Can Wait. So I guess technically OmniFocus does have a priority field…a half-assed, barely worthwhile priority field. I am simply suggesting that they allow a more flexible priority field.

Originally Posted by Lecter

When I've seen comments regarding Things or Hit List as the preferred option, priority fields aren't mentioned

Wow, then you haven’t been looking hard enough. There have been plenty of comparisons between OmniFocus and other task management systems, and many, many of them specifically mention the fact that OmniFocus does not allow explicit setting of priorities.

Originally Posted by Lecter

My concern (not complaint) is that OmniGroup may make poor decisions about the planned "metadata" (priority) column. They may make it like the existing Flag column (aka, of limited use and unable to be hidden).

I am suggesting a priority field that will be much less “limited” than the Flag field, but you keep shooting me down! And why would you assume that Priority would always be visible (like the Flag column), instead of easily hideable (like nearly every other column)? It sounds like you are arguing against yourself. “The Flag column is of limited use…but don’t suggest a more flexible replacement!”

Originally Posted by Lecter

I ran across this article in ATPM:

I think it is a fair example of why I've stated my concerns regarding users choosing other applications.

And I ran across these articles. I think they are fair examples of why I think OmniFocus should have a Priority field:

OF has a Flag capability that is binary, it’s flagged or its not. I used this to indicate priority, but invariably too many tasks get Flagged and it begins to lose its meaning without very careful management. The Tag capability lets you implement whatever scheme you like. This is a HUGE benefit of Things for me.

The thing that gets me, though, is that OmniFocus does not seem to provide any way to prioritize tasks.…From what I can discern, OmniFocus doesn’t provide for any native prioritization of tasks. (It's especially ironic when syncing with iCal's own task list, which does in fact offer prioritization. It's not exactly an obscure feature, is it?) Now of course I could subvert the context feature of the system and use that to establish prioritization instead of work context, but that's not ideal, either.

I'd like to have both! I'd like to look at my tasks by priority, broken down by context ... and then flip over to tasks by context, broken down by priority. Alas this doesn't seem to be in the offing, at least in the first release. With dozens of things to get done, having a big long laundry list of unprioritized tasks could end up being more depressing than empowering.

Two iGTD fields I'd like to see in OmniFocus are "Priority" and "Effort". There are some things I'd like to do today, and some I really need to do today. There's no field for this, and I'm finding I have to just keep this information up in my head. For example getting this review done — I had an item set up for this, but I just kept pushing it forward. I knew it was something I really wanted to get done, but I couldn't really see that because it was in my head. I settled on my own system where I put a number in front of the task and increased it each time I deferred a task. That really seemed to work, but I'd like the system to support this for me.

So I've been playing with OmniFocus alpha to see if it can work for me as a personal productivity/task manager, but as I noted before, the system lacks a way to prioritize tasks. It seems rather obvious to me that you want to identify the important must-do items before you start filling in your day. I could spend all day answering the phone, reading and writing emails, catching up on my feeds, having meetings, doing conference calls ... and not getting done the things that need to get done.

Unfortunately OmniFocus offers no real prioritization unless you want to define contexts even further like "Mac : Internet : High Priority". Not sure I want to do that.

These did not take very long to find. It is obvious that OmniFocus needs a Priority field, if only because of the various workarounds people have already suggested. But the best argument for OF adding Priority is this one:

Originally Posted by Lecter

I think if OmniFocus moves towards flexibility and interface customization, the competition will have to step up their efforts several notches. Vibrant competition will benefit us all.

EXACTLY! This is why OmniFocus should be flexible: so that users can have features that other applications already have, like a Priority field!

[shuttersny]

Wheeeeee - That's some response!
I agree entirely that OF needs some sort prioritization. I also would like to see some sort of "secondary sort" (OMG did I disturb the PROTECTORS OF GTD?)

I vaguely remember it being mentioned that tags were in the plan down the road- That's great. I also remember, the idea of a "custom column" being mentioned, which could handle many of the requested issues. Please correct me if I am wrong on these! (Somehow I think that will come without asking).
Again, I am like many users here, I have licenses for multiple task managers, always seeking one that really works for ME.
We all want that = What works best for the INDIVIDUAL. "Apple" type programs have always been characterized customization aspects.

I believe Omnifocus is the best task management I've ever used. I love the responsiveness of it's developers. I dropped Things because of the developers lack of response.
I have used Omni Group products for years and trust their development process as well as the depth of the company.

Saying that, there are still features that can make OF better. I mentioned this before, I have great ease and satisfaction in PLANNING" -I would love to see tags and Priorities in OF -but in retrieving info- I think OF is in dire need of improvements.
(Wait, I've got to put on a bullet proof vest and amour before I make the next statement).
I am now trying The Hit List - the kid has got something! I am able to understand what I have to do, I can retrieve information much faster with THL - and dare I say, it is easier on the eyes. In the good old apple spirit - it is more "fun" to use.
Does THL have an iPhone version? No.
Omnifocus has an iphone version that has the most amazing rock solid sync.
I am amazed how good it is. Does the iPhone version need a little work? Yeah. Also I have no idea if the Potion Factory which makes THL with be here 3 years from now.
So what is my only "complaint" - okay call it a whine!
Development on these programs seems to be at a glacial pace.
We have the nightly bug fixes but it seems things have slowed.
Yeah, I realize these guys are probably looking hard at both Snow Leopard and the new 3.0 iPhone software but still........

[oschultz]

Wow, good to see the GTD vs. Priortization battle still raging strong!

I can hear Cartman from South Park..."Respect My Priortah!"

[Robbie1702]

Just to reignite the fire =)

Here's another voice for adding some sort of advanced prioritisation feature to OF:

It would be great to have a column to select a high/medium/low priority. At the moment I (and so many other OF users) have to revert to either using 1m, 2m or 3m in 'Duration' of flags (which is a waste of flags) to indicate projects that ought to stand out more. These are both cumbersome methods and only cheap work-arounds. Furthermore they don't all work if you want to find your priorities on the iPhone!

I know you say it's not the pure GTD way of doing things, but one optional column squeezed between due date and duration won't make OF too complex as a piece of software. Also this will give none of those fence sitters a reason to even consider any other to-to-list/GTD software like Things or iGTD (The lack of this feature is often even being ridiculed in many reviews).

It's simple - if it's in such a great demand (this seems like the longest discussion in the forums), just offer the column and everyone will be happy =) For those who don't want it - they can always hide it in "view".

What is the current status on adding this feature anyway? Is it even being considered for 1.x or 2.0?

Robert

[Lecter]

Abates:

The advantage of OmniFocus' implementation of task colorization is that if the user doesn't want it, they can be turned off by adjusting the styles preferences. On the other hand, the flags column cannot be hidden, so I feel that it is poorly implemented. Even if you choose to not use flags, their shadowy ghost is present whenever a item is hovered over or is active.

In a word, yes. Kinkless (which OmniFocus was directly designed from) started and evolved as a GTD specific product. I think this focus has lead to its current success. Afterwards, the marketing ninjas at OmniGroup started to advertise it as a more generic task management solution. If OmniFocus starts trying be be a "Jack of All Tasks" and not a "Master of GTD" — then I suspect that it will eventually fade into a bland and generic toy that doesn't serve the real needs of anyone.

I think the context here is that you were reaching for an audience for the LifeBalance feature, and saw this thread a way to pursue that. After all, why not jump on a huge river of posts to take advantage of the built-in momentum.

Regarding iTunes, my point was that with all of the fields visible, it does present a confusing interface. Have you tried that? Turning all of the iTunes fields on? I have. Showing more fields makes for a overly busy and cluttered interface. Adding obscure fields that serve limited purposes will add confusion to the interface. Feature creep and refined software design don't mix well.

Regarding the comments about talking down, I suspect this is a misunderstanding due to this discussion being on the internet. I am being jovial with those comments. Should I put a [wink, wink!] or [nudge, nudge!] tag around comments? I suspect that if we were face to face, we would be enjoying some camaraderie and laughing during this discussion. If you don't recognize the smiles with my comments, consider that I am not talking down nor insulting you. This is my way of having a lively discussion—debates, smiles and prods are part of it.

I am sharing my thoughts and my processes as examples. They are things that I have found to work. If you choose to ignore them, that doesn't mean that I am not trying to make suggestions/educate by what I chose to do. When you make a statement that you want to see which item has been done least recently, my responses were meant to show why "least recently" isn't worth tracking when using GTD. If you choose to not learn from or use GTD, that is your personal choice. I'm sharing my personal choices too. I took the time to transcribe the thoughts from David's seminar because I felt they would provide some inspiration in this regard. With his strategies, I feel 100% confident that I am always on track, always doing the best task/next action, and none of it requires tracking which item was done least recently.

I do wish that all of the fields in OmniFocus were able to be hidden. This could allow for some very interesting perspectives views. Currently, the most annoying one for me is that the Flags column cannot be hidden. I would hate to see the proposed meta-field (or any future additions to OmniFocus) be designed the same way.

Regarding the numerous quotes from the referenced article, I stand by the conclusion, which speaks volumes beyond all the extracted tidbits/musings:

The problems with OmniFocus are its bells and whistles, the rigidity of its system, and hence the extra time it takes to enter information. As one of the tutorial notes, “[o]nce you have a significant amount of information in your OmniFocus database, it can start to get overwhelming.” That is an understatement.

The author reaches a pretty serious conclusion there. Sure, there were other thoughts along the way, but the author arrived at this point (one that didn't end up with OmniFocus as the winner). Adding more bells and whistles will increase the user's feeling of being overwhelmed.

If the (current) tool itself makes users feel overwhelmed, adding unnecessary fields, obscure features and complexity will further alienate users. Keep in mind, I am not against progress and improvements. I'm just hoping that conversations such as this forum thread help the OmniFocus code ninjas make their design choices with thorough consideration and great care.

As Einstein said, "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." But what does he know?

•••

To get back to the subject of prioritization, here are some articles that will hopefully add some substance to this thread, rather than just fanning the flames of the fire:

From Kelly Forrister:

So how do I know my priorities? Ah, the golden question. Only you know your priorities. GTD helps you define where your attention is with the Horizons of Focus. But ultimately, no system will tell you what to do. Only YOU know what to do based on how you have captured what has your attention, made decisions on all that, organized those answers in a place you trust and then reviewed them on some kind of regular basis so you trust they are current based on what's important to you personally and professionally. Then, doing becomes a matter of trusting your hard-wired intuitive judgment. If you do it any other way, it cannot be sustained. If intuition is too fluffy of a word for you, call it something else: your knowing, your heart, your gut, your instinct. It's that part of you that just KNOWS that you're making the best choice and just does it.

From Merlin Mann:

A priority is observed, not manufactured or assigned. Otherwise, it’s necessarily not a priority.

Got that? You can’t “prioritize” a list of 20 tasks any more than you can “uniqueify” 20 objects by “uniqueness,” or “pregnantitze” 20 women by “pregnantness.” Each of those words means something.

An item is either unique or it is not. A woman is either pregnant or she is not. An item is either the priority or it is not. One-bit. Mutually exclusive. One ring to rule them all.

[kinosabi]

The power of a good piece of software comes from it's flexibility and ease of use. Having many ways of doing certain things will be less frustrating for it's users. Having to be limited by one persons way of thinking when it comes to organizing my life seems a bit dogmatic.

When switching on my computer in the morning and looking at my list of things to do today, I don't want have to make all my phones calls at one time or rely on my intuition to guide me on the next best thing!

My usual way of working is to prioritize all my tasks the night before, so on the next day I can work my way down the list from 'important' to 'less important'. What I don't manage to complete that day then overflows to the next day.

The context system is useful, but it's not something I can rely on.

Also I don't want to have to double entry my tasks into 2 different pieces of software either. The integration with iCal seems clumsy to me.

Why can't a 'planner', 'task management' and 'calender' be integrated into one piece of software?

As it is now, having to spread all information across separate programs just seems too time consuming. I thought the aim was to reduce work hours.



But for an immediate fix: a priority column.

Also a day of the week column, it gets frustrating for me to have no visual representation of the day tasks fall on. Just showing the date and not the day of the week is not enough information for me. Having to cross reference to iCal is annoying.


I am using the trial version of Omnifocus, but I have no desire to buy at this point. Right now using an Excel spread sheet for my tasks seems more appropriate as I can customize the columns.

[whpalmer4]

OmniFocus isn't the tool for everyone, just as GTD isn't the productivity system for everyone. If OmniFocus doesn't suit you, please drop Omni a note at omnifocus@omnigroup.com (or use Help->Send Feedback) outlining your concerns and suggestions, and you might also thank them for providing a full-function trial version that enabled you to recognize this without spending any of your hard-earned cash.

If the lack of a priority column is the only thing standing between you and being a happy OmniFocus user, it's easy to repurpose the duration/estimate column as a priority column. Omni has promised to deliver a general purpose metadata column which could be used for tagging or priorities, but it's pretty safe to bet that it won't put in an appearance before 2.0, which will be a long wait if you're convinced that you need a built-in priority column.

[kinosabi]

Originally Posted by whpalmer4

and you might also thank them for providing a full-function trial version that enabled you to recognize this without spending any of your hard-earned cash.

It's a standard service these days, and in their best interest to offer this.

But maybe you can thank them for me, and then I'll thank you for thanking them for me.

thanks!

[whpalmer4]

Originally Posted by kinosabi

It's a standard service these days, and in their best interest to offer this.

I agree it is in their best interest to offer it, but it certainly isn't a universal practice! With the exception of the Omni products, none of the purchased software I used today offers a full-function trial.

[Robbie1702]

OmniFocus 2.0.............. a distant dream - but oh my is it going to be like Christmas when the day comes that it is released!!! Let's just hope it doesn't disappoint... but I'm confident it won't. They've made good improvements in the past and I hope all will be in that beloved 2.0!

Gosh if I were a programmer, I'd apply to that open vacancy at OmniGroup straight away, just to get that beautiful piece of software out earlier =)

Go Omnigroup! =)