On Dec 11, 2007 12:19 AM, Davor Cubranic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Hank, > > I'm curious, which PIMs have you worked on in the past? I'm a big fan of > EccoPro (still use it daily) and even have a couple of Agenda files > that I occasionally open and add things to. >
I wrote DayMaker. For research purposes I have used Now Up to date, Ecco, Outlook, KeyPlan, Acta, Palm Organizer, and a bunch of PIMs from the 90's on the Mac whose names now escape me without thinking *really* hard. I never used agenda because I never used a character based PCI currently us google calendar after having played with *many* of the web based calendars and PIMs. I also use todoist, and have played with but do not actively use iCal. There are many more, but I will have to take another ginko to remember! > As you've noted, Chandler's terminology and UI are quite influenced by > GTD, and I agree with your point that it would be good to get rid of > unnecessary jargon. "Triage" is a good example: it seems like several > people brought up "status" as a more understandable alternative, which > I also quite like. > > On the other hand, I think your perspective is at times a little too > harsh and perhaps also too strongly anchored in your use of iTunes (or > other apps). For example, "collection" is a pretty common English word, > why is it less descriptive of a "group of things" than a "folder"? I > don't know iTunes that well (although I do use it to listen to > podcasts), but I don't dispute that "folder" by now is a well > established word in the computer usage. However, in the most common use > by far it means a bunch of files. This common usage further implies > that there is a hierarchy (or tree) of folders, and that each file (or > item) can only belong to one folder. Neither is true in Chandler's > case: collections are not hierarchical and an item can belong to > multiple collections. I long ago wrote that I was OK with collection because I feel that with some additional steps like labeling that it can be quite understandable. > > Dashboard is a term that I'm more ambivalent about. It's another one of > GTD-ish terms, although it is also one that is increasingly common in > business applications that give a one-page, easy to understand status > overview of some process or operation. If that were indeed what the > Dashboard view did in Chandler, I would feel a lot more strongly about > it. indeed. However, it does not right now, and serves more-or-less as a union > of some subset of available collections. (Plus Dashboard-only items, as > Heikki pointed out, although this doesn't seem to be that common in > everyday usage.) Discussion about Dashboard redesign seems to pop up > every now and then, but so far with no visible changes in the app, as > far as I can tell. If this redesign is not going to be done in the 1.0 > timeframe, maybe it's better to just not have the Dashboard collection > at all, rethink it fully when there is more time, and add it with great > fanfare for 2.0. :-) > The design is not that complex to fix. In web applications, companies are iterating daily and fixing stuff until they get it right. This process should not wait till 2.0. The world moves too fast. Hank _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
