Am 10.01.2018 um 04:35 schrieb Dwight:
> I understand that the 200-point scale for importance is more than you
> need and that nine levels would be enough for you. That's fine and I
> would like you to have a nine-value scale if that would help you.
> Please know that I use the 200 level scale for importance and it
> would be a real hardship for me if I had to manage my work queue with
> only nine levels of importance. Ideally there would be a way that you
> could use nine levels while I would still use 200.
Right. There should be either a config option that lets you choose
between 3 (A-C), 9 (A1-C3) or 200 importance levels, or the inputs
should work in a way that allows easy input on both scales. The levels
A-C could easily map to appropriate values in the 200 level range
internally, so that no compatibility issues arise.
The reasons why I don't want too many levels are 1. that such precise
numbers take more time to enter and decide (can you really give such
precise numbers to your tasks?) and 2. that this means sorting is then
primarily driven by the importance, not by the other factors. I want the
other factors like urgency to kick in as the second level of ordering.
If all the tasks have different importance, then the secondary factors
never play a role. How do you deal with this?
-- Christoph
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/mylifeorganized.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mylifeorganized/f6e2d081-6fc8-68a3-2305-da8074143015%40online.de.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
