|
RemoteFile.cpp
if (!bFolder)
sLocalPath.IsEmpty();
should be sLocalPath.Empty();
|
|
|
|
|
Well spotted. Does it cause a problem?
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All
If you don't know it there's an interesting site called Give-Away-Of-The-Day[^] that does just as it says.
Today's give-away is TreeNotes[^].
I would welcome anyone installing it (temporarily) and giving me feedback.
My 2c is 'disappointing, but probably targeted at a completely different audience to ToDoList'
ps. Doe anyone think that this feature set[^] (by the same developer) sounds very familiar?
modified 1-Mar-12 18:20pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Dan,
.dan.g. wrote: there's an interesting site called Give-Away-Of-The-Day[^] that does just as it says. I'm monitoring this site but not because I want to get software for free but because I'd like to be informed about what kind of software is considered interesting by others. It's once in a blue moon that they give away interesting software. And this opinion is supported by lots of other comments on their page.
TreeNotes is an exception. The same goes for http://www.mytreedb.com/index.html[^].
Both are definitely targeting at a different audience. They are both TreeNotes is meant for note taking only and not for tasklist management. <- Update: Sorry, TreeDBNotes has a task manager. I missed that or it wasn't there when I tested it.
It's different with Swift To-Do List since you can import the data from TreeNotes. Swift combines a taskmanager with the notetaking abilities that TreeNotes offers.
I tested Swift To-Do List (and a lot of others) months ago I can say this:
The producers are exaggerating a lot with "Best To-Do List Software for Windows".
Just a few thoughts: The GUI looks a little naive (look e.g. at the icons) to me.
The settings (preferences) do not offer much. The filter options do not offer much too and it's laborious to get them to work.
I know that I'm repeating myself but ToDoList beats the pants off MLO, Chandler, Swift, Treepad, Keepnote, Taskcoach, LeaderTask, PimOne, Jettask, EfficientPIM, ABIX etc. etc. etc.
I'm not saying that all these programs are not good but I'm saying ToDoList is better, although some of them offer options ToDoList doesn't have. If you want to compare with a "real" competitor you might want to have a look at EssentialPIM[^].
Cheers,
Jochen
|
|
|
|
|
Thx Jochen.
Had a look at both MyTreeDb and EssentialPIM.
EssentialPIM (free) seems IMO to have spread itself a bit thin by trying to be a direct Outlook competitor. Its task management section looks quite simplistic (== weak).
And MyTreeDb (free) seems to have very limited task attributes.
TCP_JM wrote: although some of them offer options ToDoList doesn't have I would appreciate more feedback on this.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Dan,
I never tested the free versions but the full versions (free trial for xyz days).
Nevertheless:
Your remark ["EssentialPIM (free) seems IMO to have spread itself a bit thin by trying to be a direct Outlook competitor. Its task management section looks quite simplistic (== weak)"] is absolutely correct IMO.
Their goal seems to be to present a 'Personal Information Mangager' that offers everthing: Calendar, To Do List, Notes manager, Contact list ... But they didn't do their "homework".
Two examples of many:
You can't move the cursor in the task tree from one item to another by using the arrow keys if the tree is collapsed. Elapsing and collapsing tasks can only be done by using the mouse.
Another problem is that it's not possible to complete a task and set the correct date.
You can complete a task by clicking in the check box and the completion date (and time) will show the very date and time you click in the checkbox. It's not possible to set a date like it is possible in ToDoList.
.dan.g. wrote: TCP_JM wrote: although some of them offer options ToDoList doesn't have I would appreciate more feedback on this.
Sure.
The main options I was referring to are:
EssentialPIM (EP) offers an Outlook like calendar. The advantages of this are:
The user can have a view on a daily calendar (with hours), a weekly, monthly and yearly calendar.
EP offers something here I'd very much like to see in ToDoList, too: In EP you can put appointments in your calendar, like in Outlook. In addition to that (and that is a great idea IMO) the user can create a task and can decide that this very task is shown in the calendar (start date / end date). That way it is possible to block time for important tasks in your schedule.
Another good option is the "Today" view that shows appointments and tasks like Outlook does, too.
Cheers,
Jochen
P.S The difference between ToDoList and EP (regarding what is shown in the calendar) is that ToDoList shows all the tasks and EP shows only those tasks that you want to see (see above). ToDoList can not show appointments since the user can not create an appointment in the calendar (only if the user uses tasks as appointments (what I do.)
|
|
|
|
|
TCP_JM wrote: EssentialPIM (EP) offers an Outlook like calendar. The advantages of this are: I hear you. Once I've done the architectural work to improve the 2-way communication between TDL and 3rd-party UI extensions, this will be on the cards. Maybe 6.6.
TCP_JM wrote: ToDoList shows all the tasks and EP shows only those tasks that you want to see (see above) TDL should (haven't tested it recently though) show just the filtered tasks in the Calendar, but I accept that this is not what you are talking about.
Perhaps it's nearly time to have task 'types': Tasks, Events, Appointments, Collections (aka Parent tasks with fewer attributes),...
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Dan,
.dan.g. wrote: TCP_JM wrote: EssentialPIM (EP) offers an Outlook like calendar. The advantages of this are: I hear you. Once I've done the architectural work to improve the 2-way communication between TDL and 3rd-party UI extensions, this will be on the cards. Maybe 6.6. Many thanks in advance !
.dan.g. wrote: Perhaps it's nearly time to have task 'types': Tasks, Events, Appointments, Collections (aka Parent tasks with fewer attributes),...
I would like to raise this question: Are "Tasks, Events, Appointments, Collections" necessarily different 'types'?
Frankly, I do not think so!
A big disadvantage of some so-called 'Personal Information Managers' is that they differ between e.g. Tasks, Events, Appointments and Notes.
It was always a very big, outstanding and distinguishing mark that ToDoList doesn't differ.
"Tasklists" in ToDoList can be used for everything: for a tasklist, a collection of notes (code snippets, recipies, a book collection list with links to PDFs and epubs etc.). The only thing is - as you metioned - the user gives e.g. notes lesser attributes (a booklist does not require 'due date' etc.).
This is what makes ToDoList "the one and only", too, the flexible solution for so many different uses.
The same goes for the appointments, events and tasks.
To differ here could make ToDoList top-heavy and maybe in a negative way. It will definitely make it complicated. It seems that we will need new filters then (for events, appointments, tasks...).
I would like to suggest that ToDoList stays like it is and does not differ. The solution IMO would be to add some more "attributes"/options and additional views. An item should ramain a list item and can be identified by 'attributes'.
For example:
Let's assume that ToDoList gets an Outlook like calendar in v6.6:
Tasks shouldn't be shown in that calendar automatically. The user should decide whether he wants to see a task in the calendar or not. So ToDoList would need the additional option "show in calendar" [and if enabled the additional option 'end date' (in addition to 'start date'). If added 'Due date' and 'end date' should exclude each other] that makes it possible to show "items" in that calendar.
[the general view with tasks and calendar-items can be added.]
It is not important (regarding the type of the item) whether this item is a task or an event or an appointment.
To make sure that the user can easily identify whether it is a task or an appointment (in the calendar) it would be great to offer some sort of dropdown list where the user can choose (like in 'category') and that 'classification' can be shown in the calendar (symbol or text).
Cheers,
Jochen
modified 6-Mar-12 6:56am.
|
|
|
|
|
TCP_JM wrote: I would like to raise this question: Are "Tasks, Events, Appointments, Collections" necessarily different 'types'?
Frankly, I do not think so!
I would like to disagree (though very softly and subtly). The difference comes in which fields must be populated.
For example.
Task
Title, Due date, Allocated To
Appointment
Title, Start Time (and date), End Time (and date - Due date can double up as End Time though), Allocated To, Meeting with, Location
Collection/parent tasks)
Probably just title (in fact, the way I use parent tasks I want to prevent due dates+allocated To in parent tasks)
Event
I have no idea how an event is different from a task/appointment
TCP_JM wrote: If added 'Due date' and 'end date' should exclude each other]
I cannot think of a use case where Due date and end date is needed (and different).
TCP_JM wrote: So ToDoList would need the additional option "show in calendar" [and if enabled the additional option 'end date' (in addition to 'start date').
Rather than this I would propose a calendar filter. Then (since User defined attributes is there - you can have the "show in calendar field", I can have a "only show child tasks",
My proposal would then be
1. Get user defined attributes (coming in 6.5)
2. Allow user defined attributes to have a type (e.g. date, dropdown, combobox, free text, file etc)
3. Allow the setting of compulsory fields per tasklist. This can be separately specified for parent tasks and for child tasks (and maybe even for completed tasks)
4. Allow for tasklist aggregation i.e. combine different tasklists with possibly different compulsory fields, into 1 (this may be coming sooner than you think - though there will be no two-way sync, courtesy of AHK).
Edit: in short I agree with you to a certain extent (that the artificial creation of categories will clutter TDL), though I have a slightly different view on what the solution might be. Would like to hear your (and Dan's) thoughts on this.
|
|
|
|
|
capital H wrote: I would like to disagree (though very softly and subtly). The difference comes in which fields must be populated.
I agree. If trying to make TDL easier for 'lite' users, highlighting the relevant attribute fields for each type might be useful.
This could be achieved in 2 ways though as I see it. Firstly, as Dan describes, by defining new task types. Ideally each type could have default attributes defined (perhaps as described by you above). Perhaps these attributes could be user alterable? Secondly, you could ignore that functionality entirely and use a category to differentiate, keeping all fields. Or I guess thirdly you continue to use TDL as now.
I would prefer the first option, especially if the types could be formatted differently. It would be useful to easily see the difference between a task and appointment for instance.
My only concern is that I would probably want to put all my appointments into a separate tasklist to my tasks, as it will need different columns to be visible...
capital H wrote: Rather than this I would propose a calendar filter. Then (since User defined attributes is there - you can have the "show in calendar field", I can have a "only show child tasks",
I have thought different filters for different views will be necessary in future.
Currently this is not a problem. I filter in 'List view' (I only want to see the tasks i need to work on), but work without a filter in Tree view (where the structure of the overall plan is visible and where new tasks are added). Using F12 is fine for this.
If additional 'views' are created in future, such as Calender, Gantt view, mini view etc. Each may want a different filter, as you are probably looking at the data in different ways for different reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
capital H wrote: The difference comes in which fields must be populated. So we can agree. "Tasks, Events, Appointments, Collections, Notes" are all just items in a list. What makes them different are the different fields the user uses to characterise the item.
capital H wrote: I cannot think of a use case where Due date and end date is needed (and different). The answer is easy.
A 'due date' regarding a task is the very moment you have to present the result of your work.
An 'end date' (and 'end time) would just be the end of a time period. An appointment starts e.g. at 3 p.m and has the 'end date' 5 p.m. This 'end date' here is not a 'due date', right?
Let's have a look at that calendar "I'm dreaming of":
An appointment has a 'start date' and an 'end date'.
A task can have a 'start date' and a 'due date', but if the task shows in the calendar it could have an 'end date', too. So 'start date' and 'end date' are just showing a specific time you want to work on a task. 'End date' can be weeks before 'due date' (in this regard it was wrong that I said that 'due date' and 'end date' should exclude each other. That led to a misunderstanding. Sorry).
Maybe there should be another field (in addition to the general 'start date'); a field that refers strictly to the beginning of a time period the user wants to work on a task, like 'end date' shows the end of that period. In a way 'start date' shows the time when the task "steps" into the user's life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.dan.g. wrote: TCP_JM wrote: EssentialPIM (EP) offers an Outlook like calendar. The advantages of this are: I hear you. Once I've done the architectural work to improve the 2-way communication between TDL and 3rd-party UI extensions, this will be on the cards. Maybe 6.6.
I have thought about this in the past. For what it is worth, I see a calendar function as having 2 main parts.
Firstly as a means of showing appointments, events, reminders etc, a la Outlook. A filter combined with task type can easily deal with what to show on the calendar in this instance.
Secondly however, there is the day / week planner functionality for tasks. This is more complex and I am not sure how you would identify which tasks appear on the calendar and which don't. This can be further split into 2 scenarios.
- Scenario A. Week planning is deciding which tasks to do on which day. This filter is easily possible (e.g. I currently flag those task picked for this week in Listview). I am not sure how this should appear on a calendar, and I am not convinced the calendar is overly useful for this. I would probably need to change the way I use start and due dates, as I currently use them as indicative only.
- Scenario B. Day / time scheduling - planning and documenting which tasks are done when during the day. This involves potentially splitting a task over days, and may use multiple start/stop time information. This is complex and I do this manually for that reason.
In my ideal world, I would be able to drag a task onto todays calendar (from list view?, no special filter needed), then drag the start and end times to suit. I could start and stop the timer, and create another time block (later in the day for instance) - perhaps by dragging again.
I could go on, but I just wanted to understand what is being meant by a calendar in TDL - I assume the first option.
PS: If you evenually get into the calendar, you will need to implement the 'the nth day of the month' recurrence option...
|
|
|
|
|
.dan.g. wrote: ps. Doe anyone think that this feature set[^] (by the same developer) sounds very familiar?
Reading the feature set i thought TDL is described there. Had this developer had a look on TDL before!?
The UI looks a bit naive but also fresh, clean and easy to handle. The sync- and backup and the cloud-, web- and smartphone-access are also quite a good thing i have to admit. The Task Edit Menu look also good. You can attach as many objects of all kinds as you like.
It´s easy to shoot other apps down when you worked with the same Taskorganizer for years. For me changing is not an option. But if somebody is looking for the first time for such an app people may prefer Swift over TDL just for the UI. But can you really compare? I mean it´s 44,95 $.
Maybe there are some features in Swift to inspire from. Actually there is one feature i miss in most taskorganzizer:
The possibility to record voice for each task. Interface for this should be simple. Maybe an option to pause listening and record again(insert) at this point. And of course deleting the or part of the recording.
Thanks for reading
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
Steve_1234 wrote: The sync- and backup and the cloud-, web- and TDL will have support for ToodleDo and subsequent version will include GoogleDocs and any other 'cloud' services considered worthwhile.
Steve_1234 wrote: The possibility to record voice for each task I'll look into it.
Steve_1234 wrote: You can attach as many objects of all kinds as you like. I suspect that we'll have to support this too in TDL at some point. But considering you can drag'n'drop as many objects into the richtext comments field as you like, it kinda can already be done.
Steve_1234 wrote: But if somebody is looking for the first time for such an app people may prefer Swift over TDL just for the UI This is a perennial problem of how to represent something complex as simple. And I welcome any feedback on this issue.
I might also have a look at the file-formats of some 'leading' task organizers and see if writing importers is a viable option.
|
|
|
|
|
As said above, Treenotes is a notes program. I used to use Keynote, but moved to TDL as it covers the functionality. You may find this odd, but I run a separate copy of TDL with only Title and Comments visible, and Comments taking up most of the screen, no alternate line colouring etc..., otherwise I find TDL doesn't quite 'look right' for this function.
I also downloaded Swift To-do List. Somewhat interesting, and I agree with most of what was said above. Certainly is a simpler application, and is therefore more limited. There are a couple of features that I find interesting:
- The in-line editing of tasks - however I found the interface too sluggish and it would get annoying.
- Task type (size). I have used this concept before and found it useful in planning my schedule.
- The ability to do a one click add time and date to the comments pane is nice.
- Creation of task using a tabbed dialog. Would probably be useful in some cases, especially beginners.
I also got a little excited when I saw 'flags' (plural). But this is non-editable and reflects the settings on the task.
I have been thinking a second flag type would be really useful in TDL (for me). I would find it useful to flag 'tasks to do this week' and also 'tasks to do this week'. I find using the 'Status' attribute is enough of a pain not use it - not as visual and can't change it in-line.
Is this a possible outcome of the updates you are currently doing Dan, or will the user created attributes be limited to text fields only?
Actually, while we are talking about alternative software, I used to use TimeTo. Not sure if you have ever looked at this Dan, but it is very different to TDL. It has some very interesting and useful ideas (such as the task size, indicated by a sized dot, and a simple vs advance mode). It is much more of a day to day scheduling program (shows appointments, tasks are loaded into the calendar and the timer is always on). I found it does get a bit oppressive, as it is always telling you what the most important tasks is right now.
I think eventually an improved calendar would be very useful for TDL, but for now I use Outlook for my meetings / appointments, and a hard-copy diary for my hour to hour planning on the day (I am not always at the computer). This works well enough for my needs.
zajchap
modified 5-Mar-12 6:16am.
|
|
|
|
|
Firstly, thx for your feedback. Very useful.
zajchapp wrote: You may find this odd, but I run a separate copy of TDL with only Title and Comments visible And presumably as you make changes to the 'other' instance, 'this' instance automatically reloads the tasklist.
If so, does it reload seamlessly without the selection or scrolled position 'jumping'?
zajchapp wrote: The ability to do a one click add time and date to the comments pane is nice. There's no reason why this cannot be added to the richtext comments toolbar...
zajchapp wrote: Creation of task using a tabbed dialog. Would probably be useful in some cases, especially beginners. Indeed. Would be easy to have such a dialog that had multiple modes: [Beginner], [Advanced], [Raw], where:
'Beginner' is a tabbed dialog - nice and simple
'Advanced' is a non-tabbed dialog having the same input fields as the main interface
'Raw' provides 3 edit fields: 'Title', 'Comments', 'Attributes' where 'Attributes' allows people to type the attributes of a new task as if they were creating it from the commandline options.
And all modes would re-fill attributes from the default task attributes page in the preferences.
zajchapp wrote: or will the user created attributes be limited to text fields only? No, Users will be able to create almost any type of attribute including simple states like flags.
zajchapp wrote: such as the task size, indicated by a sized dot This could be easily implemented on TDL, with preferences to control how 'size' would be calculated/weighted: Number of subtasks, Total time estimate, etc.
zajchapp wrote: I think eventually an improved calendar would be very useful for TDL Once I have improved the integration between TDL and 3rd-party UI extensions, I will get to work on this. Maybe 6.6
|
|
|
|
|
.dan.g. wrote: zajchapp wrote: You may find this odd, but I run a separate copy of TDL with only Title and Comments visible And presumably as you make changes to the 'other' instance, 'this' instance automatically reloads the tasklist.
If so, does it reload seamlessly without the selection or scrolled position 'jumping'?
Not sure I explained myself well. I run two 'installations' of TDL. One is for tasks etc, with the usual set of tasklists and 'look and feel'. I also run another (separate folder, exe, ini etc) for a different purpose - structured notes etc - with different 'tasklists', different visual configuration (e.g. the comments pane is much larger than the other one). I find this is easier than having to change (open/close) different sets of tasklists etc... Lazy?
.dan.g. wrote: zajchapp wrote: The ability to do a one click add time and date to the comments pane is nice. There's no reason why this cannot be added to the richtext comments toolbar...
Had a further thought on this. Date / time stamp on comments might be useful, but in collaborative situations, who added the note is also valuable. I guess TDL doesn't know about that though, as you don't log into it as such.
.dan.g. wrote: No, Users will be able to create almost any type of attribute including simple states like flags.
Very nice!!
.dan.g. wrote: zajchapp wrote: such as the task size, indicated by a sized dot This could be easily implemented on TDL, with preferences to control how 'size' would be calculated/weighted: Number of subtasks, Total time estimate, etc.
Yes. Calculation options, or a simple structure like big = >2 weeks work, medium = >2 days... etc. But that could be a user defined attribute. The key thing for me is a visual size differentiation rather than a textual field.
.dan.g. wrote: Once I have improved the integration between TDL and 3rd-party UI extensions, I will get to work on this. Maybe 6.6
Awesome. See comments above on my thoughts on this - if interested.
Zajchap
|
|
|
|
|
zajchapp wrote: Not sure I explained myself well. My mistake. I thought you meant you had two instances, both viewing the same tasklist but in different ways.
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, so we are agreed IMO on a number of points:
- Defining different types of task at an application level is not favoured. And this is effectively already handled by the 'Category' field.
- The ability for users to choose the visible attributes that are associated with their own types (categories) would be useful.
This raises a debate as to what should happen to the visible fields when the user switches between types? Should the UI resize to accommodate the extra/fewer fields? or just enable/disable as required? IMO it would be horrible if the UI kept jumping around
- Some control over which tasks are visible in the Calendar (and other views) would be useful, possibly independent of the current filter.
This is a tricky one for a couple of reasons:
- The Calendar (or Gantt chart, or other views) will be plugins, and as such will not be as accessible to TDL as are the tree and list views. This could be handled perhaps by allowing these plugin views to supply a filter that would allow the view itself to control which tasks were visible. The user would then select an option provided by the view itself that would in turn trigger a re-filtering of the view.
Alternatively, the user creates a custom boolean (flag) attribute called, say, 'Visible in Calendar' and this is (somehow) used to filter on the Calendar.
- The current architecture requires that no view (including the list) can display tasks that are not visible (albeit collapsed) in the tree. This is probably not an unreasonable restriction for the time being.
- People want vastly improved calendar editing.
I'm considering buying this component[^] for the calendar improvements.
|
|
|
|
|
.dan.g. wrote: Defining different types of task at an application level is not favoured
Thinking about this further, I'm not so sure. See below.
.dan.g. wrote: <layer>The ability for users to choose the visible attributes that are associated with their own types (categories) would be useful.
<layer>This raises a debate as to what should happen to the visible fields ...
This is the most concerning thing. Currently I use tasks, and use the 'show columns' essentially to choose the attributes I use. This is tidy.
As soon as you create an appointment type, you end up potentially introducing a whole lot of other columns for the attributes related to the appointment. . This could get very crowded and ugly. It wouldn't be any better if you greyed out the attributes not needed. This might be minimised of you can make certain fields do double duty (e.g. Due date = due date for tasks, but = end date for appointments - but the user would need to be aware of these shortcuts).
One way I could see this working tidily is a different grid (e.g. below tasks) or tab for calendar items. Or of course these items live solely in the calendar interface (like outlook).
But either way you are back to application level differentiation.
I think there are really only 2 types of object - a task and an appointment, and they largely have different attributes. The other possible types are subsets of these (e.g. a parent type is just a subset of a task - fewer attributes). For these the grid could be greyed for the columns that aren't needed or just left empty. The unneeded editing tools could possibly also be disabled.
.dan.g. wrote: The Calendar (or Gantt chart, or other views) will be plugins, and as such will not be as accessible to TDL as are the tree and list views.
. I was hoping they would be additional tabs, with their own filters and sorting. But I guess this is much more work. In my ideal world, you could choose the columns visible at the left, and replace the comments on the right with a calendar. Similarly with a Gantt tab (along the line of the mockup you did recently). This is much more of a nice to than a must do by the way.
.dan.g. wrote: Alternatively, the user creates a custom boolean (flag) attribute called, say, 'Visible in Calendar' and this is (somehow) used to filter on the Calendar.
This is how I currently(ish) filter the tasks that go to GanttProject - a Tag that says "Gantt", which I use to filter on. With user creatable fields, I would do as you suggest.
.dan.g. wrote: People want vastly improved calendar editing.
Maybe that is worth finding out more about (hope I'm not being presumptuous here). For me, the 'day scheduling' I talked about above is a nice to - I have a system that works, and I would think it would be a bit of work. The calendar like outlook is also a nice to, as I use Outlook (and need to be able to sync appointments at work. The question is which of the possible calendar functions / uses really advances TDL and is likely to be of benefit to the most peope.
I have sometimes wondered where you want to take TDL in future. What functionality should be pulled into the application, and what should be left to more specialised applications. One of the great things about TDL is its ability to link with other useful apps.
PS: I have had an initial look at the plugin site - looks good.
I feel I need to state that TDL works great for me, and once the user createable fields are there, everything else will be icing on the cake.
Zajchap
modified 7-Mar-12 5:50am.
|
|
|
|
|
zajchapp wrote: I was hoping they would be additional tabs, with their own filters and sorting. But I guess this is much more work They will be tabbed and can have their own sorting (just as the list can be sorted independently of the tree), but will regarding filtering they will be like the list also, only able to reduce the filtered items via 'options' not display their own separate task collection.
zajchapp wrote: In my ideal world, you could choose the columns visible at the left, and replace the comments on the right with a calendar. This is how I intend it will appear.
|
|
|
|
|
Awesome. I shouldn't have doubted!
Thanks for the response.
zajchap
|
|
|
|
|