Moving this discussion over to the Design List.
Hi Bryan,
Thinking about it more, I agree that it would be confusing to have
both explicit ordering in the LATER section alongside automatic
ordering based on the Date column.
So explicit ordering would only be something you can do in the NOW
section, which would remain ordered by when items became NOW.
Mimi
On Oct 16, 2007, at 7:59 AM, Bryan Stearns wrote:
We currently sort by a value you can see (the triage status color:
now or later or done) as well as a value you can't (which, at the
moment, is more or less "the time that the triage status color was
last set").
The intention behind this was always to support manual ordering by
dragging items (it's bug 6311*, by the way): if you dropped an item
between a "now" that was changed at 10AM yesterday, and one changed
at 10:30AM yesterday, we'd pretend the dropped item was changed at,
say, 10:15AM.
We currently have a task to change the sort order of the Later and
Done sections (bug 8939*): the new requirements there complicate
support for manual dragging (you wanted nuanced? here it is: the
old ordering only depended on what had happened to the item in the
past, but the new ordering requirement for the Later section
depends on values that the user can change -- so if the user
changes a date on an item in Later, it might or might not move
relative to other Later items. If the user expects the manual
ordering to affect when the item pops to Now, they'll be
disappointed and/or confused.)
...Bryan
* Manual ordering is this bug:
https://bugzilla.osafoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6311
Changing the sort order in Later & Done is this bug:
https://bugzilla.osafoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8939
Mimi Yin wrote:
On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:12 PM, Andrew Tong wrote:
I can see the logic of the current approach, and I suspect it can
be used productively IF we flip the trange status consciously
with this in mind. However, I update triange status generally
from top to bottom based on whatever the current sort order
happens to be. From other discussions, you would know that since
the current sort order is unlikely to be ideal so further
flipping triange status is unlikely to result in any better
order. e.g.:
super important event [today] [later]
important event [tomorrow] [later]
Yes, this is along the lines of how I've been thinking about
prioritizing items in the LATER section as well.
Reviewing the list, I change the first item to "now", followed by
changing the second item to [now] also. Since event dates are
ignored in the sort ordering, the result:
important event [tomorrow] [now]
super important event [today] [now]
To overcome this, one would have to counter-intuitively flip the
2nd "tomorrow" item first, then you flip the more important item.
Again, an additional drag-and-move free form sort order would be
ideal!
Yes! I've run into this a number of times as well for both the NOW
and LATER sections. My understanding is that explicit ordering is
that this is quite difficult. But Bryan Stearns would have a more
nuanced perspective.
_______________________________________________
chandler-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-users
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
