Ok, I'll add this to bug 6311. ...Bryan
Mimi Yin wrote:
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
