|
capital H wrote: This is partly a problem with windows - it is almost impossible to disable the activation of a program (unless you wait until it is active, and re-active TDL). If Dan is able to do this, I would love to know how, since I have been trying to do this for a long time. What I would rather propose is that file link can be used on multiple tasks. I.e. select 10 tasks, and click on the file link open glasses, that TDL will open all the file links sequentially (at the moment file link open is disabled when multiple tasks is selected). If the latter works: even better. Would save a lot of mouseclicks and/or keypresses.
capital H wrote: Replacing parts of the title would mean that Dan must have some form of "escape" character. I'm not sure if that is right.
I was thinking of a solution with a given name of a variable (or a given set of variables) that is/are unique, so that ToDoList can identify them in the tasktitle.
The names of these variables would be reserved then for these variables and should'nt be used then used normally in tasknames.
There's room for imagination what the names of the variables would be.
How about: $n or something similar to the command line parameters of ToDoList: -ts or how about something similar to an 'argument' like the ones we have in the preferences>user defined tools>arguments: $(selTID). The shorter, the better.
A right mouse click in the tasktitle after pressing 'F2' could offer a set of variables...
I wouldn't want to write {variable} in the taskname all the time, too. That was just an example!
|
|
|
|
|
I hear you, Jochen.
To be honest, I'm feeling a little overwhelmed by all the deep discussions you have been having because at present I'm not keeping up.
I'm hoping that I can print out all the threads and read them on the train, if I get round to it
Just letting you know that I'm not ignoring the various discussions.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Dan,
.dan.g. wrote: <layer>I hear you ... Just letting you know that I'm not ignoring the various discussions
.dan.g. wrote: I'm hoping that I can print out all the threads "I'm hoping" sounds like looking for a proper way to do it.
Smaller discussions are easily printed out but a larger amounts of messages is a little difficult. The 'print article' button on top of the page is not very helpful.
Found one way though as some sort of a workaround: I'm clicking on the little pins next to the messages name ('click to pin message'), one message after another. By doing that the messages get all opened. I'm then selecting the text of all the pinned messages by using the mouse and select 'print'>'print selection' in my browser (Firefox). Works quite "good".
A little "clubfoot" shows up if a discussion stretches over two CodeProject pages. Then you have to do it twice.
Hope it helps.
Cheers,
Jochen
P.S. The advantage of using my 'pin-system' in comparison to changing the 'layout' of the codeproject page ist that the 'pin-system' just opens those messages you are interested in and 'expand posts&replies' opens all the messages.
|
|
|
|
|
Just as TCP_JM said:
"Below or on the right hand side of your tasklist you will see these two editing controls now, 'category' and 'status'.
Start with e.g. 'category'. Think about what categories (important, urgent, etc.) you would like to have and click in the field and type e.g. 'important'. Enter. Done. Type the next category in that editing field. And so on.
Tip: Don't use very long names for categories, use abbreviations."
I tried hard to follow the steps, but I failed.
|
|
|
|
|
sepwolves wrote: I tried hard to follow the steps, but I failed. Which of the steps failed?
1. Do you see the category input field?
2. If you type something and hit 'return', what happens?
|
|
|
|
|
I could only see the category droplist rather than input field.
So I could type nothing in it.
|
|
|
|
|
I found out the problem.
I just typed on the first line below the tasklist head, of course it could not be changed. It should be changed at the bottom.
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Great app, has handled everything I can throw at it and more.
Only issue I have is that I like to sort my 500+ tasks by priority, and only having 10 priorities means I have a lot of level 10's, and a lot of level 9's etc. When something is more important than my level 10's I have no way to raise it above.
What I would love to be able to do is exceed level 10 but understandably the gradients wouldn't work. Maybe we could set our own Priority scale?
Anyway, thanks for your hard work so far!
Regards,
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. I've only ever had requests to _reduce_ the number of priority levels.
6.5 will support user-defined attributes so you will be able to create your own 'priority' replacement, although for the time being TDL itself will not recognize your attribute as a replacement for the built-in priority.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Dan. I had a play using the tags attribute as a free text priority and it seemed to work. Although I do miss the gradient colouring - small trade off I suppose.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
A couple of serious questions (no irony involved):
1. Are you using the levels 1 to 8, too?
2. Do you have 'rules' for setting a level of importance to tasks? Or are you using the 'gut feeling'?
3. What would the highest level be according to _your_ system?
4. What steps to you have in mind? 11, 12, etc. and 21, 22, 981, 982 etc.
5. If the answer to '4.' is 'yes': How are you going to keep track if you have importance levels like 241, 136, 982, 456, etc.
Ten levels is already a lot. With more you are running the risk that you can't sort your list in a clearly arranged way anymore and loosing the overview.
|
|
|
|
|
Firstly, thanks for all the feedback. I probably am misusing the priority attribute and have tried using the new tags attribute to sort items but without the gradient colouring it feels a bit naked.
In response to your questions:
1. I'm using all levels, 1 to 10.
2. There's no rules, I just have a lot of top level tasks and I need to rank them by their importance.
3. I could easily get it to 200 with my current list.
4. Not sure what you mean here, but free text integer or decimal would be good.
5. I keep track of all these by sorting. I don't use the priority system to show me just level 6's or level 3's. I use it so that I can quickly sort my tasks in order of importance.
Am I missing a trick here? How would you recommend sorting a long list of unrelated tasks by priority? When it gets to the highest priority tasks there's no way to keep one level 10 above another.
|
|
|
|
|
mrk05s wrote: I probably am misusing the priority attribute A little...mrk05s wrote: I could easily get it to 200 with my current list. You told us that you have 500+ tasks in your list and you "could easily get it to 200 with [your] current list? Sorry, I have to rephrase that: strikethrough 'a little' that I used above and put 'Definitely!' there 200 different levels of importance? 200 times a different priority?
What I'm writing now touches - of course - only the tip of the iceberg regarding task management:
Every task (action item as some people call it) gets a 'start date' and 'due date' (maybe plus 'time').
To see what has to be done use filters (e.g. 'due by tomorrow' or 'start by today') or use the elaborate find feature (starting with 6.5).
Result: you get a filtered list with e.g. 45 tasks for today and tomorrow.
There are "elephants", "frogs" (eating the elephant, eating the frog) that is to say big and/or unpleasant tasks and a lot of simple tasks.
What is the purpose of labeling them in such a detailed way = with 200 different priority levels?
If tasks are not important they shouldn't be on your list anyway.
But, if you like to set 'priority' levels to tasks: how much levels do you need? More than 10? Sorry, but I doubt it. What would be the advantage of having 25 tasks with priority levels like 1, 49, 176, 199 ... That's not better than 1, 3, 7, 9, is it?
Planning is fine and necessary, but 'getting things done' is better. Schiller: "He who considers too much will perform little."
mrk05s wrote: How would you recommend sorting a long list of unrelated tasks by priority? I wouldn't. I sort unrelated tasks by 'due be tomorrow' and 'starting by today'. The result of that is a list with usually not more that 25 important tasks per day. I'm not talking about things like 'buying the newspaper'.
mrk05s wrote: When it gets to the highest priority tasks there's no way to keep one level 10 above another. The highest level is the highest level. There's no such thing as a task with a higher priority.
It more or less comes down to 'due date' and 'start date' and 'due/start time'.
If a task has to be done today it has to be done today but that doesn't mean that it gets a higher 'priority mark' than a task that is due in two weeks just because the task is due today. The work on a task that is due today is prior to the task that is due in two weeks but the task may not be more important than the one which is due in two weeks. It's only more "urgent". Both can have the same 'priority level'.
Hope that helps (a little).
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure your method suits every scenario.
I personally don't have due dates (well not many as I work to my own schedule), and even if I did it would be a lot quicker to rank the tasks with a priority number, and work through them in that order, rather than settings start dates, which are bound to change.
I'm not likely to start the 500th task for at least another 6 months, so how could I give this an accurate start date?
|
|
|
|
|
mrk05s wrote: I'm not sure your method suits every scenario. After I've read you message I have to admit that you are probably right.
I envy you for not having due dates, start dates and living a life in which you can work (completely) to your own schedule.
Having said this: I guess I would still making plans and scheduling the tasks ahead even if I didn't have to.
I love to set my own goals, scheduling my work according to my wishes but for me it is: No goal, no result.
And a goal needs a time frame; at least from my point of view.
Thanks for teaching me a totally different life concept. I'll think about it.
|
|
|
|
|
You're most welcome! Happy to help.
|
|
|
|
|
The 'what is the most important thing for me to do right now' based on priority is an entirely valid way of working. Some task management systems use this approach exclusively. If it is done well, dates are an aspect of the priority.
An issue you will have is that you want your priorities exclusive - you don't want 2 priority 30 for instance. Currently that means to insert a new task at priority 30, you would have to change the priority value of 470 other tasks in your list of 500 - if I understand you correctly. TDL doesn't have the feature to automatically do this, as far as I know.
For me, I find that the multiple priority approach works best on a smaller list. Otherwise you spend a lot of time on shuffling priorities - especially when new tasks are added. On larger task lists, I used to identify the top priorities for the week, with the rest largely just prioritised into must do, need to do, nice to do.
The way I currently work is to assign 'Importance' to my tasks first.
I use 4 priorities (arbitrarily 3, 5, 7, 9) for nice to do, need to do, must do, really must do or my boss will get shirty.
If there were subcategories I would probably use the feature to further prioritize the must do categories, at least for the top few. I will be looking to see how the new custom attributes can be used to help with this, although to be helpful I would need to be able to colour, sort, etc on the new attribute.
I need this approach so I don't end up just doing the fun stuff and clarifying what others are expecting of me (especially my boss).
I use the date system to handle 'Urgency' and scheduling. This is usually the second thing assigned to a task. I use this to drive my weekly / daily assessment of what the most important thing is right now. The 'Importance' is an aspect of the setting of dates.
Initially I usually assign a month indicate roughly when I hope to tackle it. When the month arrives, it gets a week assigned - or is deferred. When the week arrives I assign a day - or defer. Unless of course there are external deadlines involved.
In summary, you can set dates based on priority (schedule/urgency from importance) or vice versa. Both can get you to the same place.
You are essentially assessing each task against urgency, importance, size, complexity etc anyway (subjectively or objectively), it is just that in your approach you are attempting to 'summarise' this information using priority. As I see it, you are using priority as a means of identifying the order in which you want to tackle the tasks.
For myself, assigning over 10-20 relative priorities and keeping them current would become too hard, and so this approach isn't really scalable for me. Using TDLs various attributes, filters and sorting removes the need for this summary for me (which is what the others have also said I think). But we all have to find the approach that suits us best...
zajchap
modified 24-Apr-12 20:37pm.
|
|
|
|
|
The only way I see to handle this automatically in ToDoList if one wants to "set" priority levels for each task exclusivly (if one doesn't want two times 2 priority 30 for instance) is this:
Use 'List View', then activate the column 'Position'. Done. You get: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8... from top to bottom and if the task on position 3 has 3 subtasks and they are expanded it will be: 1, 2, 3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 4
If a task is moved to another position the list gets automatically renumbered.
This could be used as "priorities" and it seems "natural" to me that the most important task, the task with the highest priority, gets the lowest number; it's on top of all the others.
BTW:
You wrote: "Some task management systems use this approach exclusively" = task management based on priority alone, without 'due dates', 'start dates'.
I'm always very interested in task management systems. I've read a lot (really) about different task managment systems and about those that use priorities to mangage their tasks but that was always in regard to a daily or weekly list (that was filtered before by 'due by' etc.).
I've never read about an approach that uses priorities exclusively to handle a whole tasklist, setting 'the timeline' (and therefore 'due date', 'start date' etc.) aside.
Could you tell me a name of such a taskmanagement system or the name of a protagonist who uses it, please? I can start my research from there then.
Thanks in advance,
Jochen
|
|
|
|
|
TCP_JM wrote: Use 'List View', then activate the column 'Position'.
Agree that is a way forward.
TCP_JM wrote: "Some task management systems use this approach exclusively"
When I wrote that, I thought I should explain it further... What I meant is that priority is the main driver of what gets actioned. I didn't mean priority is the only aspect looked at when deciding what to do (as hopefully became clearer further down the post). Due dates/deadlines may provide information for deciding current priority. Have a look at TimeTo for an example of a system that is priority driven.
[Edit] Actually I need to retract slightly. I just checked my old installation (a few years ago now), and it transpires I was thinking of the functionality I was mainly using at the time. I was remembering how it handles flexible date tasks - these are handled by assigned priority (priority view in the view menu). The application does also allow for fixed date tasks, which I didn't use so much. Sorry to put you crook, but the application is worth a look if you are interested in this area (as I am).
TCP_JM wrote: those that use priorities to mangage their tasks <layer>but that was always in regard to a daily or weekly list
Agreed. I know several people who run simple, non-hierarchical tasklists, who make subjective priority decisions (A1, A2, A3, B1, C1...) on a daily / weekly basis, based on importance, urgency etc etc... The 'filtering' is done in their head, and often the only date involved is a 'deadline'. Given they are simple systems, they don't tend to set priorities too far ahead.
zajchap
modified 25-Apr-12 4:26am.
|
|
|
|
|
zajchapp wrote: What I meant is that priority is the main driver of what gets actioned This statement depends on how we define 'priority'.
I can agree to your statement if we define 'priority' like this:
'Time' (2 o'clock p.m.) is the comparative form of 'Due date' and that's the comparative form of 'Priority' ('ABC' or '1 to 10'). Exceptions are of course: fire alarm, emergencies etc.
As you said: "I didn't mean priority is the only aspect looked at when deciding what to do"
zajchapp wrote: how it handles flexible date tasks - these are handled by assigned priority I agree. But this is usually only the first step for me. My goal is always to set a 'start date' to every task even to tasks that 'are only nice to to but not necessary' = someday tasks.
zajchapp wrote: I know several people who run simple, non-hierarchical tasklists, who make subjective priority decisions (A1, A2, A3, B1, C1...) on a daily / weekly basis, based on importance, urgency etc etc... The 'filtering' is done in their head, and often the only date involved is a 'deadline'. Given they are simple systems, they don't tend to set priorities too far ahead. Exactly. I couldn't live (at present) with a a filtering of tasks just by reviewing my list from time to time or using a 'gut feeling'. I need to solve problems and need to make ends meet for customers and myself, have to meet deadlines and to achieve that I have to use a system that's driven by 'start dates' and 'due dates' regarding the 'action items' = tasks.
Jochen
P.S.
zajchapp wrote: the application is worth a look if you are interested in this area (as I am). I am very interested, too. Thanks for the reference.
modified 25-Apr-12 5:59am.
|
|
|
|
|
TCP_JM wrote: My goal is always to set a 'start date' to every task even to tasks that 'are only nice to to but not necessary' = someday tasks.
I set indicative start dates for my 'need to do' and higher. I don't for my nice to dos. I do this partly so I don't get tempted to do a nice to because it is more fun than the important task at hand (its amazing how I can rationalise this at the time!). A coping strategy for my procrastination and avoidance of deadlines. I review everything quarterly, so they don't get lost.
TCP_JM wrote: I have to use a system that's driven by 'start dates' and 'due dates'
As do I. I use start date & due date (urgency), and priority (importance) to sort my life. Would be a luxury not to have to.
TCP_JM wrote: I am very interested, too. Thanks for the reference.
This may also clarify where I was coming from in a previous discussion we had regarding the calendar and scheduling tasks for the day/week.
zajchap
|
|
|
|
|
zajchapp wrote: I set indicative start dates for my 'need to do' and higher. I do that too.
zajchapp wrote: I don't for my nice to dos. I do this partly so I don't get tempted to do a nice to because it is more fun than the important task at hand (its amazing how I can rationalise this at the time!). Good point.
zajchapp wrote: As do I. I use start date & due date (urgency), and priority (importance) to sort my life. Short description and hits the nail on the head.
Very good and productive discussion/conversation.
|
|
|
|
|
TCP_JM wrote: Short description and hits the nail on the head.
Thanks. The other attributes are really just there to refine the sorting / filtering.
The other thing I wanted to add is that I find there is still some subjectivity about combining the urgent and important information into 'what is the best use of my time right now' at any given time. I have yet to find a system that takes all the subjectivity out. Not sure it is even possible. Or is that just me holding on to some notion of still having some free will...
Hope the discussion didn't drift too far from the original issue. But interesting indeed.
zajchap
|
|
|
|
|
zajchapp wrote: The other attributes are really just there to refine the sorting / filtering. Especially 'category' and 'status'.
zajchapp wrote: I find there is still some subjectivity about combining the urgent and important information into 'what is the best use of my time right now' at any given time. I have yet to find a system that takes all the subjectivity out. Not sure it is even possible. Or is that just me holding on to some notion of still having some free will... A solution for this "dilemma" would be squaring the circle. On the other hand: Rules and objectivity are important but it shouldn't lead to self-abandonment.
Have you ever seen the "workflow" in some asian factories? Employess are sometimes forced to move like robots. I'm not talking about a necessary steps to do a task or a necessary sequential arrangement, I'm talking about rules for every move of the arms, hands, legs, feet. Doesn't reduce mistakes, is mind-numbing work, kills creativity and is last but not least pathogenic.
Let's hold on tight to some subjectivity which leads to creativity and flexibility amongst others.
|
|
|
|
|
TCP_JM wrote: Especially 'category' and 'status'.
and flags and tags...
Actually, I am intending to use the custom attributes to set up one more 'key' attribute to the important/urgent mix: task size (e.g. small, medium & big). I know that time estimate can do this, but ideally for me this would be a visual thing, like different sized dots, but we will see what we can do.
I hope this will help balance the work I do (e.g. so I don't focus too much on smaller tasks, not getting to the bigger ones - or vice-versa).
TCP_JM wrote: Let's hold on tight to some subjectivity which leads to creativity and flexibility
Absolutely!
|
|
|
|
|