You are right - my approach only works (as far as I can see) for moving items up the list. To move things down, you have to move the things below those items upwards. But for me (in theory) I would be happy to live with this in order to retain sorting for new items. I am installing the Beta as I type this and will let you know what I think after a couple of days.
The other approach which I have seen other applications use where things are sorted but this can be overriden manually, is for the process that inserts the new task to determine value of data that is being used to control the sort order for the new item and to then search down the list until it finds an item where this valueis less than that of the item being inserted (or it reaches the end of the list). This also feels to me to be a better approach than putting it at the end of the list. On Jan 30, 3:16 pm, Ron Stockfleth <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Richard, > > As I have used the beta over the past few days, I find myself moving > tasks both up and down the list. Does your approach work equally well > in both directions, or does it assume that users will only be moving > tasks up the list? > > Ron > > On Jan 30, 8:44 am, Richard C <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The problem of where you insert new tasks in the manually sorted view > > was always going to be challenging and my instinctive reaction was > > concern when Andrey said that new tasks would be inserted at the end - > > for the reasons that everybody has outlined in this thread. > > > My solution (posted at some point in the past) was to split the list - > > so that you could only drag items to the beginning of the list (or to > > the beginning of tte liast within a group) and that this would start > > to build a manual list section within the group. The remainder of > > the group would remain sorted as per the existing sort and new tasks > > would be added to this section of the list according to the existing > > sort rules. > > > I have yet to download the beta (about to do so) but my suspicion was > > that my main mode of use would be to drag items that I want to work on > > first to the start of the list to put them in the order that I want to > > work on there. > > > My suggestion feels like a significant change now but I thought I > > would refloat it as a possibility > > > Richard > > > On Jan 28, 10:19 pm, Lisa Stroyan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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] - Hide > > > quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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.
