Part of the problem with most feature requests is knowing the appeal a particular feature will have overall. This is why I mention 'systems', because appealing to an already defined system means there is already a target audience for the feature concerned. Manually ordered list's may add considerable value to MLO - but this is the point to look a little beyond just an ordered list and see if the appeal can widened. What systems utilise an ordered list, what else could MLO handle if manually ordered lists are available?
I think looking at if from this angle only adds strength to the case for a particular feature. If no new/existing systems can be addressed but it is a well supported preference that people require, then that is also a good case for implementation. All I am saying is look beyond the initial feature - see if there is the possibility it can be expanded to draw in more than one target audience. All the best Steve ----- Original message ---------------------------------------- From: "Richard Collings" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Received: 17/03/2009 20:52:50 Subject: [MLO] Re: Prioritizing Items ToDo Today - Suggestions Wanted >If it helps - I agree that this is an individual >preference. OK - so there >are bunch of other people out there who say it is not >necessary but in my >view they are wrong!!! It may work for some but it >doesn't work for me. >What Andrey has to weigh up is whether there are >enough of use "Getting >Things Ordered" people to make it worth his while >adding in a manual option >to MLO. >He must know how many people download the >product but never sign up and pay. >The key (and difficult) question for him is how many >of these are >practitioners of the Getting Things Ordered method >of working and who might >have signed up had MLO had a manual ordering >facility. >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On >Behalf Of Steve Wynn >> Sent: 17 March 2009 11:28 a >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [MLO] Re: Prioritizing Items ToDo Today - >Suggestions Wanted >> >> >> >> >> I am not trying to be pedantic but the principle of >the >> Closed list is being somewhat lost. Operating a >Closed list >> means once it is defined no new items are added, >unless same >> day urgent and these get added under a line to >distinguish >> them from the planned workload. >> >> Order and priority/sequence are not a factor, that >to an >> extent is one of the major points with regards to >the Closed >> List concept. The list is self contained and the >order you >> do things has no relevance or bearing. With a daily >Closed >> List you aim to complete the items on the list each >day - >> which is the whole reason order/priority are not a >concern. >> >> Order/priority is only a concern if you don't plan >to clear >> the contents of the defined Closed List. Which sort >of goes >> against the principle of the list, that being clearing >the >> list is your objective for today. >> >> Now overall if people want to order lists, fair >enough. But >> for most of the system's MLO addresses order isn't >a >> significant factor. Hence the reason it is not >already part >> of the product - I suspect. When various systems >or methods >> are mentioned that go against the feature being >requested I >> sort of just see contradiction which prompts me to >try and >> clarify things. >> >> I think perhaps it is becoming increasingly more >important to >> separate what is a 'system' related feature to what >is an >> individual preference. If anything it will stop me >weighing >> in on things !! So in other words >GTD/DIT/AF/Covey operate >> in this way - we need this feature because MLO >lacks >> something concerned with the system being >addressed. >> Compared to 'I' operate in this way and I would >like this feature. >> >> I am not saying personal preference in any way >should be >> devalued with regards to system requests. Just a >distinction >> be made for clarity purposes. >> >> Again these days I think any feature request could >draw >> strength from looking beyond the initial idea. For >example >> A1,A2 priority method would provide an ordered >list and may >> suit Covey users, there is also Brian Tracy who talks >of the >> virtues of A,B,C priority. The Now Habit by Dr Neil >Fiore >> deals with focusing on 'A' priority projects. There is >also a >> priority method with defined uses, A-Today, B-This >Week, >> C-This Month. So although it would not be the >preferred >> method of ordering it has virtues of appealing to >perhaps a >> broader base, and perhaps with this type of order >drag/drop >> would also be easier. >> >> A 'Today' goal has been requested a number of >times, though >> to me this isn't really what most people are after I >don't >> think. What we are talking about in this instance >is an easy >> way to flag items for today - so to an extent it >would make >> more sense I think to have some type of flags >which then have >> no bearing on priority. But could be filtered on >within the >> ToDo list. A Today goal would somehow need to >link into the >> priority algorithm to be effective and would >require a >> super+super boost to jump to the top of a >priority ordered >> list, if weekly goals existed. User defined filtered >flags >> would seem to me to be a better option as they >could work in >> conjunction with the established priority ordering. >If they >> were user defined you could have a Today flag, >Follow-up, >> Pending etc. The most important thing would be >the ability >> to create a filtered list based on a flag. >> >> All the best >> >> Steve >> >> ----- Original message ----------------------------- >----------- >> From: Stephen <[email protected]> >> To: MyLifeOrganized ><[email protected]> >> Received: 17/03/2009 02:50:11 >> Subject: [MLO] Re: Prioritizing Items ToDo Today - >Suggestions Wanted >> >> >> >> >> >> Personally I think paying too much concern to >list >> >order limits your >> >available options... >> >> >Well, that's nice, but... different people have >> >different styles and >> >personalities. I'm too likely to make poor >decisions if >> >there are a >> >bunch of possibilities and I have constantly >review >> >what to do next. >> >I also tend to get paralyzed when I see a large >list. >> >I'm learning I >> >do better with a closed list for the day. >> >> >I love the way that MLO orders tasks in a >"suggested >> >priority", but I >> >only want to review that list once a week for >weekly >> >goals and once a >> >day for daily goals, and move selected tasks to a >> >closed list. Then I >> >want a view where I can see only what I've >decide to >> >work on for today >> >(whether that's a "must do" or a "want to do" list >is >> >irrelevant). In >> >this mode, I want to be able to easily order tasks >> >within that view >> >(but probably still be able to set priorities that >affect >> >the other >> >views, in case for instance I decide to remove an >> >item from today but >> >still need to do it sometime this week). >> >> >So I think a separate field makes a lot of sense, >plus >> >a separate view >> >or mode where "manual ordering" takes place. I >> >definitely do *not* >> >want to have to manually set "A1" etc, that >would be >> >so much of a pain >> >nobody would do it. Simple drag/drop or even >> >"up/down" ordering is >> >sufficient. A/B/C is optional, but personally I >think >> >adding a "today >> >goal" like so many have suggested would be >much >> >better. These might >> >be things considered "have to do today" and the >> >others are "try to do >> >today." >> >> >I don't want MLO to change to some simpler >scheme, >> >I just want to be >> >able to use the auto-priority system to guide me >in >> >making daily/ >> >weekly decisions. >> >The manual ordering isn't so much about "I have >to do >> >these in this >> >order", but rather a way of prioritizing my time >once >> >rather than >> >having to make that decision multiple times in >the >> >day. >> >> >I currently use a context for personal/business >today >> >tasks, and it >> >sort of works, but having more control on >ordering in >> >that list, and >> >having a "today goal" would add a lot to this >> >scenario. >> >> >Thx, >> >Stephen >> >> > >> >No virus found in this incoming message. >> >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> >Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.15/2004 >- >> >Release Date: 03/16/09 07:04:00 >> >> > >> >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~--- >-~ >You received this message because you are >subscribed to the Google Groups "MyLifeOrganized" >group. >To post to this group, send email to >[email protected] >To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >[email protected] >For more options, visit this group at >http://groups.google.com/group/myLifeOrganized? >hl=en >-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~ >--- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.17/2007 - >Release Date: 03/17/09 10:18:00 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MyLifeOrganized" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/myLifeOrganized?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
