I use a MindMap along with MLO to set up tasks in a rigid sequence. I've tried to be an MLO purist, but there's a point where, in my work, things get too complicated, with too many contingencies and scenarios to build...so that's when I turn to the Mindmap in order to see big picture granularly.
I've tried to be a MindMap purist (iMindQ is what I use), but it's overkill for simple to-do lists and projects. I mention this because doing the horizontal chain is insanely easy using a Mindmap. But it gives you the flexibility to make it more complex if you need to. On Sat, Aug 22, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Dwight Arthur <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, Elizabeth. My approach is very similar to what you have described. > Comparing your approach with John's, it seems to me that both approaches > achieve largely the same results - easily sets up multiple streams of tasks > with linear dependency (ie tasks must be done in order), allows completed > tasks to be removed from the active listing, allows you to execute tasks > out of order if you want, easy to see the next task, easy to get a view of > just the next task in each series with no extra lines for tasks that aren't > immediately actionable, but easy to get a view of those other pending > (future) tasks. I love the fact that MLO supports both of these approaches > and that everyone canselectthe approach that most comfortable, or invent a > new one. > > Trading off between these two approaches, I find that John's approach has > one significant advantage: from a view that shows next actions for several > different streams, you can view the hidden future tasks of any stream by > just hovering the (mouse) pointer over the relevant line in the view. By > contrast, the approach you described would require that the tab containing > the next actions view would have synchronized task selection with the first > tab, then you would doubleclick the relevant line in the view to switch to > an all-tasks view showing the line and its neighbors, then double-click > again to switch back. While managable, this is definitely more complex that > John's process. > > Offsetting this advantage are several disadvantages to my way of thinking, > including a much greater amount of editing required whenever a subtask is > completed, loss of nonlinear dependencies (eg two tasks that run in > parallel; also one task that can start whenever both predecessor tasks > (running in parallel) have completed. Also loss of any history of completed > subtasks and when each one was completed. > -Dwight > MLO Betazoid on Windows, Cloud and Android SGN2 > On 8/22/2015 7:12 PM, Elizabeth Lindsay wrote: > > That is an interesting approach. I personally would find it cumbersome to > keep editing the same item, especially to insert an unplanned (but now > identified) task in the middle of the list. > > Instead, I use the vertical approach, tag the project/folder as complete > in order, and use a view of only active items so only the next action is > shown (not taking up too much room). > > If I'm feeling I need to focus on that project and I need to see the whole > list, I change the view and zoom in to just that project. > > I find keeping sub-tasks separate from each other allows me the full > flexibility of adding dependencies. For example, maybe it is mostly > linear, but there are a few where I can pick and choose the order in the > middle, but the last few tasks can't be done until all the middle ones are > done. > > Good luck! > > On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 8:10:20 AM UTC-5, John Smith wrote: >> >> >> Hello >> >> I want to re-open this topic. >> >> After some months of using MLO, I am now in the habit of writing multiple >> tasks on one line - which I separate with " ==> ". >> >> I normally use this for things that need doing a particular order... or >> sometimes it's just a way of inspiring me to START a project by defining >> something small to get started with. >> I use CAPITALS for major projects (btw, is there really no way to get MLO >> to capitalise MLO-level "Project" names automatically? I already get it to >> change colour...) >> >> e.g. "HOUSE NOW CLEAN ==> clean bedroom ==> hoover stairs ==> bathroom >> (hoover+mirrors) ==> hoover hallway ==> clear/hoover main room." >> >> Now here's the why I like doing this: >> >> a) I can see my *first *task "clean bedroom" automatically, AND >> >> b) I'm not wasting vertical screen space with a long list of stuff which >> I'm not ready to process yet (i.e. I *know* it's there but I'm not >> interested in it right now) AND >> >> c) If I do want to see the other tasks/sub-task, then all I need to do is >> just hover with my mouse and all the hidden text appears with a simple >> mouse-over. >> >> d) Then, as soon as I have completed something (quite possibly *not *in >> the rigid order I had previous suggested to myself !) it's simply a matter >> of clicking on the line at the relevant spot and hitting the delete key a >> few times. (or of in doubt anywhere on the line in question hit F2) >> >> This stricks me as entirely brilliant ! >> To re-cap in this way: >> >> i) I can see what I need to do next (usually the first one OR TWO are in >> fact visible...) >> >> ii) The view is extremely compact - allowing multiple projects to be >> visible on my screen at once >> >> iii) It's trivial to see ALL the tasks within any project at once (not >> just the *first *one - as some MLO reports do... if you can remember how >> to set them up... plus set up hotkeys to get at them etc etc... All very >> fiddly in my experience!) >> >> In fact to be completely honest I'm not even using the "Project" function >> at all ! I may be missing something but it doesnt bring any value to me at >> present. >> >> What I am using however is *indentations* - and I am doing so *a lot*! I >> use it to indicate sub-tasks of tasks. You see for me it's quite rare that >> my mind naturally even *thinks* in terms of "Projects" (i.e. GTD theory not >> withstanding, things have to be genuinely quite large projects before I >> naturally want to think about them in that way!). >> >> There is a further benefit which is more subtle... which is being a very >> visual kinda guy I find it helfpul to *visually* distinguish one project >> from another. [ASIDE: One of the most productive people I know still uses >> pen and paper. Lots of written lists. She like the visual side - the shapes >> of the lists & text etc.] >> >> i.e. When you write on paper this happens automatically of course, but >> digitally all the shapes & mental photos of everything are necessarily >> leaping around as you edit. So I like to create shapes using indentations >> and colours etc. So now, in this way when I think of my "Clean house" >> project in my minds eye I see a list of stuff all on one line. I can see >> visually that these items are all tightly bound to each other. And also I >> recognise it visually when I browse past it WITHOUT READING it! Weird, I >> concede but true. >> >> Now here's downside: >> a) Ticking off is less easy. But I personally don't want to see what >> I've ticked off, nope not ever again - pure clutter! So dont care about >> that. In some instances this can psychologically slightly help me try to do >> all the tasks at once rather then feel good about half completed tasks. >> >> b) Changing order of tasks is less easy. Yes that can be a problem - but >> only sometimes... >> [And yes, for this reason I do sometimes wish to convert horizontal into >> vertical lists - see below] >> >> Ultimately it's a trade-off. You see, it slightly subtle but I like *compact >> *views and to me, and to me the ability to see on any given row... all >> my tasks within that project ... JUST with a simply mouse over, rather than >> with 3 actions is worth it. >> These three task being: >> 1. select the row >> 2. cursor right [to see all the hidden rows] >> 3. cursor left [to hid all the hidden rows again] >> >> Now, the big problem for me is that whenever I change my mind and I want >> to convert a long row into a vertical list of shorter tasks (i.e. multiple >> rows), MLO makes this a nightmare! [WHY SO HARD!!] >> >> I sometimes use the Control/D key and edit but that is pretty painful and >> on balance I regard this as a serious omission by MLO. >> >> To get clear, what MLO needs to do is for any given row: allow you to >> edit the text; get your cursor at the place you require; and hit [whatever >> hotkeys] and thereby get the row to divide i.e. "break" the line into two a >> that point. This would allow the user to go through a long line breaking it >> into a number of short lines very quickly & easily. >> Just like editing text normally in fact! >> >> And it would also be helpful to me to be able to do the reverse.i.e. To >> get to the end of a row's text and when I hit Delete, then the row below >> gets "sucked up" to join the current row. i.e. it the text is appended, and >> any child tasks come with it. >> >> Btw, don't get me wrong I do spend most of my life using cursors & >> hotkeys, rather than mouse. But over time subtle ergomic differences >> emerge. To me using the arrow keys to think about things feels 'more >> clunky' and moreover selecting text then causes a change of colour (white >> text on pale-ish blue for me - which is fractionally harder to read as well >> - yes it can be changed [I just have!] but remember most users won't >> bother...) >> >> SUGGESTION: >> I suggest that a mouse-over on text should 'pop' not just the >> longer/hitten part of the text like it does at present, but also should pop >> all hidden the subtasks below that task (I suggest probably only just >> showing the one level below it...) i.e. I am requesting that a mouseover on >> a task's name field should in effect cause a popup that is rather like >> hitting the little green sideways triangle on and off (when you mouse-off) >> at the start of a row. >> >> I concede that some people may well find this a bit disruptive because as >> your mouse moves around the screen, too much might then be moving... >> however remember I'm NOT asking for all the tasks below it on the screen to >> be actually moved down the screen (as happens when you do a real clicking >> of little green triangle (or arrow right/left), instead I'm asking for the >> texts top "pop-up" in a temporary popup window 'floating' *above* the >> text below it. And that only when you click on text in this popup because >> you want to edit it, only then should you be taken into the formal edit >> mode - at the place in the text where you clicked of course - and only then >> should all the rows below it moved down. >> >> Btw, there is one very slightly annoying thing about the (in many ways >> brilliant) MLO interface, and that is that *during* the mouseover that pops >> up when the task decription is longer than the space visible in the row, if >> without clicking on the text, you try to move the mouse over to the right, >> to the place in the text where you want to edit... the pop-up immediately >> *disappears >> *as soon as you go too far to the right ! >> (i.e. it disappears the instant that you go beyond the area of the text >> box below it). Whereas what I want to do is: When I see a popup showing >> longer lines, if as I move the mouse to the right I do manage to keep my >> mouse over that popup, I want the pop instead of disappearing to remain >> visible on the screen if I left-click it I want to be taken to start >> editing the text at that exact place in the text. >> >> i.e. It's counter-intuitive to be shown some text which you cant just >> click on and edit at that place. >> >> >> BTW, I do also find it annoying that if I click on the area of the text >> field where it does not be full enough of text at that point, (i.e. if you >> left-click at the text but miss the actual text), then the editing window >> fails to open up like it does if you do manage to hit any actual text. So I >> find myself hitting F2 a lot rather than just left-clicking on what I want >> to edit. >> >> Enough >> >> J >> >> >> On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 5:32:55 PM UTC+1, Dwight Arthur wrote: >>> >>> On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 5:53:48 AM UTC-4, J Smith wrote: >>>> >>>> <...>Personally I use this for: >>>> A) Tasks that are *best* done consecutively immediately after each other >>>> e.g."Pick up tap from hardware store ==> go to stationers for pen & >>>> paper ==> supermarket ==> post letter on way home" >>>> B) I also use this to write up things that MUST be done in that >>>> particular sequence but not necessarily immediately after each other: >>>> e.g. "Install new locks ==> Get new keys cut ==> give new keys to Fred >>>> ==> Tell George Fred has new key"<...> >>>> >>> Hi, John. I use this syntax where I have multiple steps that must be >>> done as one. For example >>> Get Clippers>Get rope>prune and tie trees >>> If I get interrupted after getting the clippers and don't get back to >>> this tilltomorrow, I will need to restart at the top. There is no >>> possibility of partial completion. So I'm comfortable with making it a >>> single task.In both of the examples you gave here is a possibility of >>> getting interrupted in the middle and later (maybe much later) needing to >>> pick up and finish. I would want separate tasks. I would still enter it >>> quickly. For example >>> measure for blinds>order blinds>buy wall anchors>did blinds arrive >>> yet?>install blinds >>> would get entered into the Rapid Task Entry window (with parse and >>> multiple entry enabled) as >>> Install Blinds -p -o >>> measure for blinds >>> order blinds >>> buy wall anchors >>> did blinds arrive yet? @waiting >>> >>> for readers less familiar with RTE I will mention that this creates a >>> project with five subtasks and "complete tasks in order" turned on. If I >>> mark tasks complete when I finish them, the next action will always be >>> clear,After the last (waiting) task is completed, the project name (install >>> blinds) becomes the next action. I believe that all of the advantages you >>> mentioned apply, with the additional advantages that it's easy to track >>> partial completion and resume after an interruption, it's easy to add a >>> task to the middle when you need to, and you don't have to worry about >>> splitting lines. >>> >>> -Dwight >>> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MyLifeOrganized" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mylifeorganized. > To view this discussion on the web visit > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mylifeorganized/b60ce229-ee39-432e-b70f-1c8eb5a1c3df%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mylifeorganized/b60ce229-ee39-432e-b70f-1c8eb5a1c3df%40googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "MyLifeOrganized" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mylifeorganized. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mylifeorganized/55D93A33.6050104%40dwightarthur.us > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mylifeorganized/55D93A33.6050104%40dwightarthur.us?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MyLifeOrganized" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mylifeorganized. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mylifeorganized/CALBn8KqVF23URJ0xqkWY36p-GmWX%3DKpUq1zCwGB0K3ygmFDxNg%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
