Dont know if this will help, but has anyone tried an MLO / OUTLOOK /TASKLINE
combo?

http://www.taskline.com/



On 23 January 2011 21:34,
<[email protected]<mylifeorganized%[email protected]>
> wrote:

>   Today's Topic Summary
>
> Group: http://groups.google.com/group/mylifeorganized/topics
>
>    - Preventing bottlenecks due to conflicting/crashing project 
> deadlines<#12db4cca7a606eb9_group_thread_0>[3 Updates]
>    - Bug (possible): Completing a task for which there is an open reminder
>    causes MLO to lose focus <#12db4cca7a606eb9_group_thread_1> [1 Update]
>
>   Topic: Preventing bottlenecks due to conflicting/crashing project
> deadlines<http://groups.google.com/group/mylifeorganized/t/7a93f3d7c9bf9c79>
>
>    "Richard Collings" <[email protected]> Jan 23 11:27AM 
> ^<#12db4cca7a606eb9_digest_top>
>
>    Thanks for the update on SmartPlans - won't waste time on that one in
>    the
>    short term.
>
>
>
>    Toms Planner does not provide any mechanism for entering times and
>    calculating day by day or week by week workloads. It is just a visual
>    planner but I find having a visual plan which I can eyeball to see
>    potential
>    clashes very helpful, particularly if it is very quick to update (which
>    it
>    is). So not ideal but the best thing I have found so far to complement
>    MLO.
>
>
>
>    It also good because you can put other people's work on it as well and
>    see
>    the relationship between what you are doing and everybody else.
>
>
>
>    And I would agree with you with regard to the absence of anything that
>    helps you with the 'How much work have I got on during period x'
>    problem.
>    Microsoft Project does it but it is complicated to use and expensive as
>    it
>    is designed to support very large projects.
>
>
>
>    I think it is partly the GTD mindset that says (as far as I understand)
>    "don't bother with forward planning it is a waste of time.". This works
>    fine for things like household tasks where there are no particular
>    deadlines
>    but is useless for you and I who have clients/customers who expect
>    things
>    done by certain dates and, rightly, are not very happy when you miss
>    those
>    dates.
>
>
>
>    The view which was expressed recently that it wouldn't help if you did
>    know
>    whether you could take on an extra piece of work, just doesn't apply as
>    quite often people will accept a delay in starting a piece of work but
>    find
>    it much more problematic if you fail to deliver by the agreed date (as
>    they
>    have then planned in other activities around your delivery date). And
>    even
>    if they go elsewhere, they may come back later whereas, if you take it
>    on
>    and then don't deliver you then have a seriously unhappy client (or you
>    find
>    yourself, yet again, working an 80 hour week).
>
>
>
>    So I, for one (and there are clearly many others here), would welcome
>    something in MLO which helps us see more clearly what is coming up in
>    the
>    next few weeks and the workload implications of that. Not easy but I
>    think
>    many of the elements are in place. And as you say, I think it would
>    fill
>    a significant niche.
>
>
>
>    I would also be interested to hear how you have achieved something in
>    MLO
>    that helps you with this task. I use a ToDo view that groups 'Key
>    Tasks'
>    (which are higher level tasks that I flag) by Start Date which helps
>    but I
>    just don't find the visual layout very helpful and there is nothing
>    that
>    sums the time allocated to each task by day or week.
>
>
>
>    Richard
>
>
>
>    From: [email protected]
>    [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mary Renaud
>    Sent: 17 January 2011 8:05 PM
>    To: [email protected]
>    Subject: Re: [MLO] Preventing bottlenecks due to conflicting/crashing
>    project deadlines
>
>
>
>    Hi Richard,
>
>    Yes, it is a mobile app (iPhone/iPod/iPad) and I downloaded it
>    yesterday to
>    give it a try as a complimentary tool. It's a good concept but too
>    buggy to
>    use. While I love that it allows you to enter the end date, start date,
>    and
>    total hours for a project and then it gives you a graph with your
>    workload
>    (along with a line that lets you see whether it's above/below the
>    workload
>    you want) so that you can change dates to make everything fit the
>    amount of
>    hours you have available, it crashed many many (many, many) times
>    during
>    use. So many times that I would consider it utterly unusable (I would
>    say an
>    average of less than 30 seconds of use before crashes). I tried the
>    company's fix as listed on their website and this changed nothing. My
>    iPhone
>    is under 2 months old so it's not that my OS is too old.
>
>    I will have a look at Tom's Planner as a compliment as well. Thanks
>
>    I seem to have come up with a temporary system that works inside of
>    MLO. It
>    took a long time to set up and I'm still tweaking it but I will be glad
>    to
>    share it when I see if it works properly. I'd gladly create and upload
>    a
>    template as well if there's room for that here somewhere.
>
>    What I don't understand is why so few pieces of software include a "How
>    much
>    work have you booked for period X" feature. Any of the good ones have
>    you
>    estimate your time per task or per project as well as deadlines and
>    lead
>    times so the data's all there. How is it that SmartPlans claims to be
>    the
>    first to have this type of feature. Unless you have only one project
>    (or
>    very flexible deadlines), it can get very complicated very fast. In
>    fact,
>    when I did create my makeshift system, I realized that I had a week
>    where I
>    had 93 hours of work booked (to fit into a 42.5 hour week). Had I
>    continued
>    using the "today forward" method I would have either missed deadlines
>    or had
>    a VERY bad week! Seeing that allows me to adjust start times and spread
>    the
>    work out so that I wouldn't wind up with that kind of a crunch.
>
>    If I can think through a helpful way to phrase a feature request (i.e.
>    try
>    to find what the minimum is that is needed for this so the programmers
>    can
>    get the most bang for their programming-hours buck) I'll do so. It
>    seems
>    like something like this would pull a program, especially as
>    full-featured a
>    program as MLO unquestionably to the front of the pack.
>
>    Thanks for the suggestion. I'll check it out this afternoon.
>    Mary
>
>    --
>    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]<mylifeorganized%[email protected]>
>    .
>    For more options, visit this group at
>    http://groups.google.com/group/mylifeorganized?hl=en.
>
>
>
>
>    Neal <[email protected]> Jan 23 10:41AM -0600 
> ^<#12db4cca7a606eb9_digest_top>
>
>
>    > I think it is partly the GTD mindset that says (as far as I
>    understand)
>    > “don’t bother with forward planning it is a waste of time.”.
>
>    I don't think anybody has told you to NOT to bother with forward
>    planning.
>    I think people have told you that MLO is NOT geared toward what you
>    want to
>    do. Future task planning is about three things:
>
>    What you need to do at certain times.
>    What you would like to do at certain times.
>    and
>    What you actually did at certain times.
>
>    I would love a tool that would allow me to overlay my plan on my
>    scheduled
>    items. I'd love to have a dual view of my planned activities next to my
>    actually work. It's just that I don't see how MLO in its current
>    implementation can do any of that.
>
>    As I said before, MLO is really only setup to deal with a next action
>    item.
>    In particular recurrences are NOT setup to do forward planning. There
>    is
>    only one instance of a recurrence/rotation and they are based on due
>    dates
>    (which they shouldn't be btw, they should be based on start times). For
>    future planning you would need a task for each future days recurrences.
>    So
>    you would have to rewrite how MLO handles recurrences BEFORE you could
>    even
>    begin to deal with "future planning" features.
>
>    This is also true for sub tasks done in order and with tasks that have
>    dependencies. None of those tasks will show up for a future plan.
>
>    So until Andrey rewrites MLO, I don't see how he implements what you
>    are
>    asking for. And that is NOT me trying to be an Andrey apologists. I
>    just
>    don't see how you get there from here with the current implementation
>    of MLO
>
>
>
>
>    "Richard Collings" <[email protected]> Jan 23 09:30PM 
> ^<#12db4cca7a606eb9_digest_top>
>
>    A question and observation...
>
>
>
>    Question: so how do you do your forward planning?
>
>
>
>    Observation: I agree all the issues you identify are issues which would
>    need to be addressed in some way but those ways include not using the
>    facility. For example, I have significantly reduced my use of recurring
>    tasks because a) you can't easily reschedule them and b) as you say,
>    2nd
>    and subsequent occurrences don't appear in the current ToDo view.
>
>
>
>    Alternatively <light bulb moment>, the new 'Calendar' view could treat
>    these artefacts differently. So the existing behaviours would be
>    retained
>    in the To Do view (keeps existing, Calendar hostile user happy) but in
>    the
>    new Calendar view (which can be ignored by those that don't want to use
>    it),
>    things like recurring items would be displayed differently (makes
>    Calendar
>    fans very happy).
>
>
>
>    Looks like I have addressed all the objections of those who don't want
>    the
>    calendar (just ignore the calendar tab). J
>
>
>
>    Richard
>
>
>
>    From: [email protected]
>    [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Neal
>    Sent: 23 January 2011 4:41 PM
>    To: [email protected]
>    Subject: Re: [MLO] Preventing bottlenecks due to conflicting/crashing
>    project deadlines
>
>
>
>    On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 5:27 AM, Richard Collings <[email protected]>
>    wrote:
>
>    I think it is partly the GTD mindset that says (as far as I understand)
>    "don't bother with forward planning it is a waste of time.".
>
>
>    I don't think anybody has told you to NOT to bother with forward
>    planning.
>    I think people have told you that MLO is NOT geared toward what you
>    want to
>    do. Future task planning is about three things:
>
>    What you need to do at certain times.
>    What you would like to do at certain times.
>    and
>    What you actually did at certain times.
>
>    I would love a tool that would allow me to overlay my plan on my
>    scheduled
>    items. I'd love to have a dual view of my planned activities next to my
>    actually work. It's just that I don't see how MLO in its current
>    implementation can do any of that.
>
>    As I said before, MLO is really only setup to deal with a next action
>    item.
>    In particular recurrences are NOT setup to do forward planning. There
>    is
>    only one instance of a recurrence/rotation and they are based on due
>    dates
>    (which they shouldn't be btw, they should be based on start times). For
>    future planning you would need a task for each future days recurrences.
>    So
>    you would have to rewrite how MLO handles recurrences BEFORE you could
>    even
>    begin to deal with "future planning" features.
>
>    This is also true for sub tasks done in order and with tasks that have
>    dependencies. None of those tasks will show up for a future plan.
>
>    So until Andrey rewrites MLO, I don't see how he implements what you
>    are
>    asking for. And that is NOT me trying to be an Andrey apologists. I
>    just
>    don't see how you get there from here with the current implementation
>    of MLO
>
>    --
>    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]<mylifeorganized%[email protected]>
>    .
>    For more options, visit this group at
>    http://groups.google.com/group/mylifeorganized?hl=en.
>
>
>
>   Topic: Bug (possible): Completing a task for which there is an open
> reminder causes MLO to lose 
> focus<http://groups.google.com/group/mylifeorganized/t/9bcbe5bab625baf0>
>
>    "Richard Collings" <[email protected]> Jan 23 03:12PM 
> ^<#12db4cca7a606eb9_digest_top>
>
>    One thing that is very irritating about MLO is that if a reminder fires
>    so
>    that you have the reminder window open and you then switch to the main
>    MLO
>    window and clear the item which has caused the reminder to fire, the
>    main
>    window loses focus (it disappears).
>
>
>
>    It doesn't always do this (can't work out the circumstances in which it
>    does) but it does it enough to irritate me.
>
>
>
>    Would be nice if it was fixed.
>
>
>
>    ________________________________
>
>    Richard Collings
>
>    Information Systems Consultant
>
>
>
>    Stuff that has caught my eye recently:
>    http://www.delicious.com/richardcollings
>
>
>
>  --
> 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]<mylifeorganized%[email protected]>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/mylifeorganized?hl=en.
>



-- 
<http://www.justgiving.com/Derek-Davidson>

-- 
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.

Reply via email to