At 12:10 PM 1/28/2010, you wrote:
This notion of mixing manual sorts with other secondary sorts is not
only not intuitive to me, but I don't know how you could possibly
implement it.
I've seen more complicated things implemented :) Basically, tasks
that had been moved would be the only thing that would have a
position indicator in the list. You would sort the other tasks, and
then insert the manually moved tasks into the saved slot. Therefore
if you moved most of your tasks the new ones would automatically sort
to the bottom....True, it would be inexact and perhaps a bit kludgy
(you would have to reset the indicators of where each task was each
time a task is deleted from the list, and what about "undo"?). And
it could be a bit tricky with multiple views...
My main point though, is that if you are not going to allow secondary
sorts, don't put the manual sort into the sort criteria box. Leave
it alone, and turn the box off. Let me choose whether or not to lose
all the sort orders rather than doing it one way when I move a task
(resets sort order) and another way when I change back and forth
through the sort criteria box (it leaves them alone). Let me come in
each morning and "reset" my view so that it's back to the default,
so the original sort order is useful on an ongoing basis, and have
other views where I leave it completely manually sorted forever, as I choose.
to where they thought they should be in the view. If you have a list
of 50 tasks in Computed-Score order and you want to move 3 to 5 tasks
to the top of the list, or move a few tasks, that are near the top,
down the list, I think Andrey's manual sorting works quite well.
This is a great example of what I'm trying to point out. It does
work quite well....at first. By Computed-Score is very dynamic, and
switching to manual just got rid of all of that power. As time goes
by, everything gets added to the end, none of your computed-score
ordering updates even for the items already in the list that you
never moved, and it's not so useful anymore that you ever used
Computed Score in the first place.
(this is the same problem that we are discussing in another thread
for the outline).
My overall thought is this: Match the UI to the usage model. Get
the best usage model you can implement in the time allowed, but have
the UI support the one you choose. The current usage model is a
GREAT improvement over the old one - I LIKE the changes. I just
think it could be taken farther..... :)
don't believe that you are suggesting that if you are manually sorting
that you must put all 50 tasks in a precise order, or else all you
would be doing every day is moving tasks around your view every time a
new task pops into the view.
Well, actually right now they are put in that precise order as soon
as you move the first one - it might be a perfectly good order since
it was previously sorted, but it's both precise and static. At
least, from my experimentation that is how it works ....
Lisa
----------
Lisa Stroyan, mailto:[email protected]
www.empathic-parenting.com
--
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.
