I haven't posted yet, so I don't feel too guilty adding to a thread that's just too long already.

GTD purists, why haven't you been beating on the OF developers about flags? The Book doesn't mention flags. They aren't GTD. Should we have a new war about the blasphemy of flags? Just kidding! Just kidding!

I want priorities for the reasons GeekLady posted so well. Flags seem like binary priorities, so it might be natural to replace them with 1-5 priority levels. Some people will still want flags, so perhaps OF should let us turn on or off both flags and real priorities. There may be a use for both at the same time. Make today's behavior the default.

[abruenin]

Is there any update on plannings for task priorities?

PLEASE no answers regarding "priorities is not plain GTD", this is absolute irrelevant to me. I am just looking for something that works.

So is there any hope for priorities in the near future?

[abruenin]

Originally Posted by Pete Siemsen

GTD purists, why haven't you been beating on the OF developers about flags? The Book doesn't mention flags. They aren't GTD. Should we have a new war about the blasphemy of flags? Just kidding! Just kidding!

...and in DA does not mention the window layout of OF, so please trash it!

Also just kidding ;-) But I definitely second, that this discussion has been more religious than pragmatic.

[Brian]

In the near future, no. Priorities are one of the feature requests in the system, but the ones we're working on right now have more demand behind them.

I would hesitate to dismiss the whole no-priorities position as dogma, though; that's an oversimplification. For some folks the feature would constitute nothing more than an attractive distraction. (Twiddling tasks by marking them with statuses is not time spent getting things done, in other words.) One of the way OmniFocus is supposed to assist you is by helping avoid distractions.

Personally, I do fine without them; I review my tasks, I flag the ones I care the most about, I do those, then I review again. Having additional layers of priority wouldn't help me one bit.

I know folks want priorities, but I'm not (again, personally; I am not speaking for Omni) convinced they actually need them. The app seems to be doing pretty well without them so far.

On the other hand, it is on the more popular end of the feature request list; ultimately, I'm not sure what we'll do.

[colicoid]

Reordering items only work in planning mode...

One fundamental thought here. Because we have a sequential option for projects and groups; that specifies the order already. If the priority is so important then you shouldn't go about doing lower priority tasks before high priority tasks. Therefore there is no point to even look at the lower prio. stuff. Or is it?

[Lecter]

I think Brian's response is great.

I am surprised that more people don't readily see why the distraction of tweaking priorities is a form of procrastination. At different times of the day, and/or in different locations, my priorities are vastly different. No priority system is capable of dynamically adjusting my priorities on so many levels. However, my brain can adapt to the variables of the moment and make the priority call on the spot, rather than being a slave to a A-B-C-D-E (or high-medium-low) priority system.

The real key is that if a artificial priority system is added to OmniFocus, as long as it is able to be completely hidden (aka truly optional), then both camps will be happy. Now that would be a priority! :)

Jim

[Toadling]

Originally Posted by Lecter

The real key is that if a artificial priority system is added to OmniFocus, as long as it is able to be completely hidden (aka truly optional), then both camps will be happy.

Except that adding those undesired features, even if completely hide-able, still brings complexity to the app and consumes limited engineering resources. So it's still not really a complete win-win situation.

There's no making everyone happy. :)

[jonwalthour]

I've read posts now on this desire for prioritization and a desire to have OF connect tasks to blocks of time in your calendar. What happened to the WEEKLY REVIEW. Remember DA's admonition that no organization can do all your thinking for you. I think he said something like, "You can't push a button at 9:43 AM and have your organizer tell you 'Call Fred'." When it comes right down to it, deciding what to do at any particular moment is an intuitive judgment based on circumstances at that time. No personal management system can nor should try to take all factors into account. This is what the weekly review is for, to keep oneself refreshed week-to-week in the landscape of one's life. So, knowing the priority of something derives out of that complexity, not some number/letter assignment in OF. It is my opinion, and only my OPINION, that GTD as DA defines it handles nearly every situation perfectly well as it is, if you truly do GTD throughout your system. Hybridizing one's system is usually not necessary if one is truly following GTD methodology. So, I would ask the folks at OMNI to please NOT do any prioritization feature. Keep OF simple, straight-forward and as pure GTD as possible.

[Toadling]

Originally Posted by jonwalthour

So, I would ask the folks at OMNI to please NOT do any prioritization feature. Keep OF simple, straight-forward and as pure GTD as possible.

I don't want to be cast as a GTD zealot, and I'd prefer OmniFocus not be shackled to GTD (will GTD still be in fashion 5 years from now?).

Despite this, I completely agree with jonwalthour. In my opinion, adding priorities is unnecessary and a waste of valuable engineering resources. I'm not religious about it, but I think pure GTD is the best approach. Even if OF is not shackled to GTD, OF can still follow its principles.

[Boatguy]

It's software, not religion

Hey folks, if enough people want priorities, then what's the harm? If you don't want to use them, don't, they'll be invisible to you.

I'd like priorities, I'm tired of only two priorities, flag on, flag off.

Please implement priorities.