Home » Eclipse Projects » Mylyn » Different Task Categorization Wanted
| Different Task Categorization Wanted [message #26759] |
Fri, 07 September 2007 14:29  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: markphip.GoogleMail.com
I was trying to use the task categories feature the other day to
solvea problem I am having, and found it just did not meet my needs.
I have a task filter, let's say "All Open Tasks". What I wanted to do
was some triage and planning. What I would have liked to have been
able to do was create some folders/categories that lived within
thefilter, and then drag and drop tasks into the folders.
You can almost do this with the existing feature. The part that is
missing is that when you have a big list of tasks in a filter there is
no way to know which tasks have been put into one of these categories
and which ones have not. For this purpose it made the feature useless
because I could not even keep track of which tasks I had already
assigned categories too, let alone the fact that new tasks might come
inon the next synchronization etc...
I could have perhaps used the scheduling system as a bastardized way
of doing this. It is just that I am not personally going to be doing
any of these tasks, and I am not that interested in actual dates at
the moment. I just wanted to make some ad-hoc grouping of tasks so
that
I can get a better picture of the work.
Thanks
Mark
--
I'm trying a new usenet client for Mac, Nemo OS X.
You can download it at http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo
|
|
|
| Re: Different Task Categorization Wanted [message #27754 is a reply to message #26759] |
Mon, 10 September 2007 20:57  |
 Eugene Kuleshov
Messages: 504
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Mark,
I've been trying to work out very similar feature probably even before
Mylar 1.0.
First of all, since recently we have pluggable presentations. So, I've
used that and contributed several grouping presentations: by owner, by
repository, by priority, by due and by scheduled date. Though Mik
resisted to enable two last ones and he is also hesitating to make
TaskGroup class used by thouse presentation a public API, which would
enable to use it from custom actions or drag and drop stuff. See bug 175318
At the same time there is very old ongoing discussion (mainly pushed
by me) about allowing to stick arbitrary data to the task data and then
convert present tagging mechanism (part of the sandbox) to store tags
within that custom task data. See bug 199818 and bug 168363
The last piece of the puzzle is to use another custom presentations
that will group by these tags.
So, if you also think those are good ideas, please vote, comment, or
chime in on the above bug reports.
BTW, custom presentations could be also used to group on something
like component or other connector-specific attributes, but it require
enhancements from the bug 199818
regards,
Eugene
Mark Phippard wrote:
> I was trying to use the task categories feature the other day to
> solvea problem I am having, and found it just did not meet my needs.
>
> I have a task filter, let's say "All Open Tasks". What I wanted to do
> was some triage and planning. What I would have liked to have been
> able to do was create some folders/categories that lived within
> thefilter, and then drag and drop tasks into the folders.
>
> You can almost do this with the existing feature. The part that is
> missing is that when you have a big list of tasks in a filter there is
> no way to know which tasks have been put into one of these categories
> and which ones have not. For this purpose it made the feature useless
> because I could not even keep track of which tasks I had already
> assigned categories too, let alone the fact that new tasks might come
> inon the next synchronization etc...
>
> I could have perhaps used the scheduling system as a bastardized way
> of doing this. It is just that I am not personally going to be doing
> any of these tasks, and I am not that interested in actual dates at
> the moment. I just wanted to make some ad-hoc grouping of tasks so
> that
> I can get a better picture of the work.
>
> Thanks
>
> Mark
>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Different Task Categorization Wanted [message #27906 is a reply to message #27754] |
Wed, 12 September 2007 02:33 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: markphip.GoogleMail.com
In article <fc4b35$1o9$1@build.eclipse.org> Eugene
Kuleshov<eu@md.pp.ru> wrote:
> Mark,
> I've been trying to work out very similar feature probably even
> before Mylar 1.0.
> First of all, since recently we have pluggable presentations. So,
> I've used that and contributed several grouping presentations: by
> owner, by repository, by priority, by due and by scheduled date.
> Though Mik resisted to enable two last ones and he is also hesitating
> to make TaskGroup class used by thouse presentation a public API,
> which would enable to use it from custom actions or drag and drop
> stuff. See bug 175318
> At the same time there is very old ongoing discussion (mainly
> pushed by me) about allowing to stick arbitrary data to the task data
> and then convert present tagging mechanism (part of the sandbox) to
> store tags within that custom task data. See bug 199818 and bug 168363
> The last piece of the puzzle is to use another custom
> presentations that will group by these tags.
> So, if you also think those are good ideas, please vote, comment,
> or chime in on the above bug reports.
> BTW, custom presentations could be also used to group on something
> like component or other connector-specific attributes, but it require
> enhancements from the bug 199818
> regards,
> Eugene
> Mark Phippard wrote:
>> I was trying to use the task categories feature the other day to
>> solvea problem I am having, and found it just did not meet my needs.
>> I have a task filter, let's say "All Open Tasks". What I wanted
>> to do was some triage and planning. What I would have liked to have
>> been able to do was create some folders/categories that lived within
>> thefilter, and then drag and drop tasks into the folders.
>> You can almost do this with the existing feature. The part that
>> is missing is that when you have a big list of tasks in a filter
>> there is no way to know which tasks have been put into one of these
>> categories and which ones have not. For this purpose it made the
>> feature useless because I could not even keep track of which tasks I
>> had already assigned categories too, let alone the fact that new
>> tasks might come inon the next synchronization etc...
>> I could have perhaps used the scheduling system as a bastardized
>> way of doing this. It is just that I am not personally going to be
>> doing any of these tasks, and I am not that interested in actual
>> dates at the moment. I just wanted to make some ad-hoc grouping of
>> tasks so
>> that
>> I can get a better picture of the work.
To me, the key would be that the grouping would have to take place
inside the context of an existing filter (probably the UI too).
Because my main problem with the category approach is that there is no
way to knowwhat you have not categorized yet.
It is possible that additional groupings like you propose would help,
in my case probably not since there is no field in the issue
trackerthat I can group by.
Anyway, I could probably work with the categories if I could get
themto appear as child nodes to my filter.
Mark
--
I'm trying a new usenet client for Mac, Nemo OS X.
You can download it at http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo
|
|
|
| Re: Different Task Categorization Wanted [message #27946 is a reply to message #27906] |
Wed, 12 September 2007 04:45 |
Eugene Kuleshov
Messages: 504
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Mark Phippard wrote:
> To me, the key would be that the grouping would have to take place
> inside the context of an existing filter (probably the UI too).
>
I am not sure what you mean by context or existing filter. We have
queries, categories and working sets. Newly added presentations provide
grouping of tasks from within existing queries and categories (by
assignee/owner, repository, priority and due date). You can try this
already with the recent dev build (2.1m2 code), just install sandbox
feature from "extras" update site.
> Because my main problem with the category approach is that there is no
> way to knowwhat you have not categorized yet.
>
Right. With those grouping presentations there is an <unknown> group.
> It is possible that additional groupings like you propose would help,
> in my case probably not since there is no field in the issue
> trackerthat I can group by.
>
Unfortunately right now task list UI only allow to visualize data from
the AbstractTask object, which currently don't allow to store arbitrary
data. Enhancement request 199818 should remove this limitation.
> Anyway, I could probably work with the categories if I could get
> themto appear as child nodes to my filter.
>
I don't think that won't work well. But features from bug 168363
implemented on top of the new API from bug 199818 would give local
representation you are looking for. Patch I've contributed for the
latter one about a month ago, been considered as not good enough for
inclusion into the 2.1 release and this new API won't be implemented
before the early 3.0 time.
regards,
Eugene
|
|
|
| Re: Different Task Categorization Wanted [message #29181 is a reply to message #26759] |
Tue, 18 September 2007 20:18 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: beatmik.acm.org
Mark,
Here is a quick summary of our current mechanisms for manually
organizing your Task List;
QUERIES (aka Filters in JIRA): good because they're flexible, e.g. you
can subdivide them as much as you want and name them in a way that
simulates nesting.
CATEGORIES: useful for local tasks and for repository tasks with which
you are not using a query. As you point out, much less useful if you
are using queries since there will be duplication and no indication of
what's already been added to the category.
WORKING SETS: useful for grouping sets of related categories and queries.
SCHEDULING: useful for presenting and ordering tasks in the order in
which you want to work on them, both for your own tasks and for those of
others.
What I think we need to better understand is your use case for
tagging/categorizing the tasks. For example, what would you name such
categories? When would you move things into them? How would this
overlap with the use of Scheduled For dates?
We have to proceed extremely carefully in adding any arbitrary attribute
UI to the Task List because we already have 4 orthogonal mechanisms for
organizing tasks. We also have better support for subtasks now, and a
key goal of the Task List is to stay simple by minimizing hierarchy. If
we allow containers to cascade in addition to supporting subtasks, the
UI and interaction would become considerably more complicated.
Mik
Mark Phippard wrote:
> I was trying to use the task categories feature the other day to
> solvea problem I am having, and found it just did not meet my needs.
>
> I have a task filter, let's say "All Open Tasks". What I wanted to do
> was some triage and planning. What I would have liked to have been
> able to do was create some folders/categories that lived within
> thefilter, and then drag and drop tasks into the folders.
>
> You can almost do this with the existing feature. The part that is
> missing is that when you have a big list of tasks in a filter there is
> no way to know which tasks have been put into one of these categories
> and which ones have not. For this purpose it made the feature useless
> because I could not even keep track of which tasks I had already
> assigned categories too, let alone the fact that new tasks might come
> inon the next synchronization etc...
>
> I could have perhaps used the scheduling system as a bastardized way
> of doing this. It is just that I am not personally going to be doing
> any of these tasks, and I am not that interested in actual dates at
> the moment. I just wanted to make some ad-hoc grouping of tasks so
> that
> I can get a better picture of the work.
|
|
|
| Re: Different Task Categorization Wanted [message #29333 is a reply to message #29181] |
Tue, 18 September 2007 23:55 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: markphip.GoogleMail.com
In article <fcpbru$2sg$1@build.eclipse.org> Mik
Kersten<beatmik@acm.org> wrote:
> Mark,
> Here is a quick summary of our current mechanisms for manually
> organizing your Task List;
> QUERIES (aka Filters in JIRA): good because they're flexible, e.g.
> you can subdivide them as much as you want and name them in a way
> that simulates nesting.
> CATEGORIES: useful for local tasks and for repository tasks with
> which you are not using a query. As you point out, much less useful
> if you are using queries since there will be duplication and no
> indication of what's already been added to the category.
> WORKING SETS: useful for grouping sets of related categories and
> queries.
> SCHEDULING: useful for presenting and ordering tasks in the order in
> which you want to work on them, both for your own tasks and for those
> of others.
> What I think we need to better understand is your use case for
> tagging/categorizing the tasks. For example, what would you name
> such categories? When would you move things into them? How would
> this overlap with the use of Scheduled For dates?
> We have to proceed extremely carefully in adding any arbitrary
> attribute UI to the Task List because we already have 4 orthogonal
> mechanisms for organizing tasks. We also have better support for
> subtasks now, and a key goal of the Task List is to stay simple by
> minimizing hierarchy. If we allow containers to cascade in addition
> to supporting subtasks, the UI and interaction would become
> considerably more complicated.
First let me say I do not pretend to have an answer. I guess in some
ways what I want to do ought to be doable in my issue tracker, it just
isn't. Also, when working in a collaborative open source world you
might want to do some organizing that you do not push into the issue
tracker. Theexisting scheduling features are a good example of this.
My scenario seems simple (to me). I have a query that pulls down a
number of issues. Let's say it is all open tasks with the 1.x
milestone. I have 30 tasks. I might not do any of them myself. I
wanted to organizethem in random ways. Basically I just wanted to
make some groups:
Critical - hard
Critical - medium
Deferrable
Needs Scoping
etc...
Then assign these 30 tasks to one of the groups. I started out using
categories but quickly realized there was no way to know what tasks I
hadalready categorized.
One way to approach this might be to be able to apply Web-2.0 style
tags to tasks. If you could see a comma separated list of tags
assigned in the task list you would at least know if you had assigned
one or not. You could then offer a view that grouped by tag. This
might be more flexibleassuming you can assign more than one tag.
Mark
--
I'm trying a new usenet client for Mac, Nemo OS X.
You can download it at http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo
|
|
| |
| Re: Different Task Categorization Wanted [message #30119 is a reply to message #29333] |
Fri, 21 September 2007 23:53 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: beatmik.acm.org
Thanks Mark, that's exactly the kind of feedback I was after. I've
appended this to the corresponding bug report and added some
summarization of similar requests on that same bug:
168363: provide mechanism for starring/tagging/bookmarking a task
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=168363
All interested in such a feature please consider voting for and
commenting on that bug report.
Mik
Mark Phippard wrote:
> First let me say I do not pretend to have an answer. I guess in some
> ways what I want to do ought to be doable in my issue tracker, it just
> isn't. Also, when working in a collaborative open source world you
> might want to do some organizing that you do not push into the issue
> tracker. Theexisting scheduling features are a good example of this.
>
> My scenario seems simple (to me). I have a query that pulls down a
> number of issues. Let's say it is all open tasks with the 1.x
> milestone. I have 30 tasks. I might not do any of them myself. I
> wanted to organizethem in random ways. Basically I just wanted to
> make some groups:
>
> Critical - hard
> Critical - medium
> Deferrable
> Needs Scoping
>
> etc...
>
> Then assign these 30 tasks to one of the groups. I started out using
> categories but quickly realized there was no way to know what tasks I
> hadalready categorized.
>
> One way to approach this might be to be able to apply Web-2.0 style
> tags to tasks. If you could see a comma separated list of tags
> assigned in the task list you would at least know if you had assigned
> one or not. You could then offer a view that grouped by tag. This
> might be more flexibleassuming you can assign more than one tag.
|
|
|
| Re: Different Task Categorization Wanted [message #580779 is a reply to message #26759] |
Mon, 10 September 2007 20:57 |
Eugene Kuleshov
Messages: 504
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Mark,
I've been trying to work out very similar feature probably even before
Mylar 1.0.
First of all, since recently we have pluggable presentations. So, I've
used that and contributed several grouping presentations: by owner, by
repository, by priority, by due and by scheduled date. Though Mik
resisted to enable two last ones and he is also hesitating to make
TaskGroup class used by thouse presentation a public API, which would
enable to use it from custom actions or drag and drop stuff. See bug 175318
At the same time there is very old ongoing discussion (mainly pushed
by me) about allowing to stick arbitrary data to the task data and then
convert present tagging mechanism (part of the sandbox) to store tags
within that custom task data. See bug 199818 and bug 168363
The last piece of the puzzle is to use another custom presentations
that will group by these tags.
So, if you also think those are good ideas, please vote, comment, or
chime in on the above bug reports.
BTW, custom presentations could be also used to group on something
like component or other connector-specific attributes, but it require
enhancements from the bug 199818
regards,
Eugene
Mark Phippard wrote:
> I was trying to use the task categories feature the other day to
> solvea problem I am having, and found it just did not meet my needs.
>
> I have a task filter, let's say "All Open Tasks". What I wanted to do
> was some triage and planning. What I would have liked to have been
> able to do was create some folders/categories that lived within
> thefilter, and then drag and drop tasks into the folders.
>
> You can almost do this with the existing feature. The part that is
> missing is that when you have a big list of tasks in a filter there is
> no way to know which tasks have been put into one of these categories
> and which ones have not. For this purpose it made the feature useless
> because I could not even keep track of which tasks I had already
> assigned categories too, let alone the fact that new tasks might come
> inon the next synchronization etc...
>
> I could have perhaps used the scheduling system as a bastardized way
> of doing this. It is just that I am not personally going to be doing
> any of these tasks, and I am not that interested in actual dates at
> the moment. I just wanted to make some ad-hoc grouping of tasks so
> that
> I can get a better picture of the work.
>
> Thanks
>
> Mark
>
>
>
|
|
|
| Re: Different Task Categorization Wanted [message #580866 is a reply to message #27754] |
Wed, 12 September 2007 02:33 |
Mark Phippard
Messages: 129
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <fc4b35$1o9$1@build.eclipse.org> Eugene
Kuleshov<eu@md.pp.ru> wrote:
> Mark,
> I've been trying to work out very similar feature probably even
> before Mylar 1.0.
> First of all, since recently we have pluggable presentations. So,
> I've used that and contributed several grouping presentations: by
> owner, by repository, by priority, by due and by scheduled date.
> Though Mik resisted to enable two last ones and he is also hesitating
> to make TaskGroup class used by thouse presentation a public API,
> which would enable to use it from custom actions or drag and drop
> stuff. See bug 175318
> At the same time there is very old ongoing discussion (mainly
> pushed by me) about allowing to stick arbitrary data to the task data
> and then convert present tagging mechanism (part of the sandbox) to
> store tags within that custom task data. See bug 199818 and bug 168363
> The last piece of the puzzle is to use another custom
> presentations that will group by these tags.
> So, if you also think those are good ideas, please vote, comment,
> or chime in on the above bug reports.
> BTW, custom presentations could be also used to group on something
> like component or other connector-specific attributes, but it require
> enhancements from the bug 199818
> regards,
> Eugene
> Mark Phippard wrote:
>> I was trying to use the task categories feature the other day to
>> solvea problem I am having, and found it just did not meet my needs.
>> I have a task filter, let's say "All Open Tasks". What I wanted
>> to do was some triage and planning. What I would have liked to have
>> been able to do was create some folders/categories that lived within
>> thefilter, and then drag and drop tasks into the folders.
>> You can almost do this with the existing feature. The part that
>> is missing is that when you have a big list of tasks in a filter
>> there is no way to know which tasks have been put into one of these
>> categories and which ones have not. For this purpose it made the
>> feature useless because I could not even keep track of which tasks I
>> had already assigned categories too, let alone the fact that new
>> tasks might come inon the next synchronization etc...
>> I could have perhaps used the scheduling system as a bastardized
>> way of doing this. It is just that I am not personally going to be
>> doing any of these tasks, and I am not that interested in actual
>> dates at the moment. I just wanted to make some ad-hoc grouping of
>> tasks so
>> that
>> I can get a better picture of the work.
To me, the key would be that the grouping would have to take place
inside the context of an existing filter (probably the UI too).
Because my main problem with the category approach is that there is no
way to knowwhat you have not categorized yet.
It is possible that additional groupings like you propose would help,
in my case probably not since there is no field in the issue
trackerthat I can group by.
Anyway, I could probably work with the categories if I could get
themto appear as child nodes to my filter.
Mark
--
I'm trying a new usenet client for Mac, Nemo OS X.
You can download it at http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo
|
|
|
| Re: Different Task Categorization Wanted [message #580877 is a reply to message #27906] |
Wed, 12 September 2007 04:45 |
Eugene Kuleshov
Messages: 504
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Mark Phippard wrote:
> To me, the key would be that the grouping would have to take place
> inside the context of an existing filter (probably the UI too).
>
I am not sure what you mean by context or existing filter. We have
queries, categories and working sets. Newly added presentations provide
grouping of tasks from within existing queries and categories (by
assignee/owner, repository, priority and due date). You can try this
already with the recent dev build (2.1m2 code), just install sandbox
feature from "extras" update site.
> Because my main problem with the category approach is that there is no
> way to knowwhat you have not categorized yet.
>
Right. With those grouping presentations there is an <unknown> group.
> It is possible that additional groupings like you propose would help,
> in my case probably not since there is no field in the issue
> trackerthat I can group by.
>
Unfortunately right now task list UI only allow to visualize data from
the AbstractTask object, which currently don't allow to store arbitrary
data. Enhancement request 199818 should remove this limitation.
> Anyway, I could probably work with the categories if I could get
> themto appear as child nodes to my filter.
>
I don't think that won't work well. But features from bug 168363
implemented on top of the new API from bug 199818 would give local
representation you are looking for. Patch I've contributed for the
latter one about a month ago, been considered as not good enough for
inclusion into the 2.1 release and this new API won't be implemented
before the early 3.0 time.
regards,
Eugene
|
|
|
| Re: Different Task Categorization Wanted [message #581432 is a reply to message #26759] |
Tue, 18 September 2007 20:18 |
Mik Kersten
Messages: 287
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Mark,
Here is a quick summary of our current mechanisms for manually
organizing your Task List;
QUERIES (aka Filters in JIRA): good because they're flexible, e.g. you
can subdivide them as much as you want and name them in a way that
simulates nesting.
CATEGORIES: useful for local tasks and for repository tasks with which
you are not using a query. As you point out, much less useful if you
are using queries since there will be duplication and no indication of
what's already been added to the category.
WORKING SETS: useful for grouping sets of related categories and queries.
SCHEDULING: useful for presenting and ordering tasks in the order in
which you want to work on them, both for your own tasks and for those of
others.
What I think we need to better understand is your use case for
tagging/categorizing the tasks. For example, what would you name such
categories? When would you move things into them? How would this
overlap with the use of Scheduled For dates?
We have to proceed extremely carefully in adding any arbitrary attribute
UI to the Task List because we already have 4 orthogonal mechanisms for
organizing tasks. We also have better support for subtasks now, and a
key goal of the Task List is to stay simple by minimizing hierarchy. If
we allow containers to cascade in addition to supporting subtasks, the
UI and interaction would become considerably more complicated.
Mik
Mark Phippard wrote:
> I was trying to use the task categories feature the other day to
> solvea problem I am having, and found it just did not meet my needs.
>
> I have a task filter, let's say "All Open Tasks". What I wanted to do
> was some triage and planning. What I would have liked to have been
> able to do was create some folders/categories that lived within
> thefilter, and then drag and drop tasks into the folders.
>
> You can almost do this with the existing feature. The part that is
> missing is that when you have a big list of tasks in a filter there is
> no way to know which tasks have been put into one of these categories
> and which ones have not. For this purpose it made the feature useless
> because I could not even keep track of which tasks I had already
> assigned categories too, let alone the fact that new tasks might come
> inon the next synchronization etc...
>
> I could have perhaps used the scheduling system as a bastardized way
> of doing this. It is just that I am not personally going to be doing
> any of these tasks, and I am not that interested in actual dates at
> the moment. I just wanted to make some ad-hoc grouping of tasks so
> that
> I can get a better picture of the work.
|
|
|
| Re: Different Task Categorization Wanted [message #581573 is a reply to message #29181] |
Tue, 18 September 2007 23:55 |
Mark Phippard
Messages: 129
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <fcpbru$2sg$1@build.eclipse.org> Mik
Kersten<beatmik@acm.org> wrote:
> Mark,
> Here is a quick summary of our current mechanisms for manually
> organizing your Task List;
> QUERIES (aka Filters in JIRA): good because they're flexible, e.g.
> you can subdivide them as much as you want and name them in a way
> that simulates nesting.
> CATEGORIES: useful for local tasks and for repository tasks with
> which you are not using a query. As you point out, much less useful
> if you are using queries since there will be duplication and no
> indication of what's already been added to the category.
> WORKING SETS: useful for grouping sets of related categories and
> queries.
> SCHEDULING: useful for presenting and ordering tasks in the order in
> which you want to work on them, both for your own tasks and for those
> of others.
> What I think we need to better understand is your use case for
> tagging/categorizing the tasks. For example, what would you name
> such categories? When would you move things into them? How would
> this overlap with the use of Scheduled For dates?
> We have to proceed extremely carefully in adding any arbitrary
> attribute UI to the Task List because we already have 4 orthogonal
> mechanisms for organizing tasks. We also have better support for
> subtasks now, and a key goal of the Task List is to stay simple by
> minimizing hierarchy. If we allow containers to cascade in addition
> to supporting subtasks, the UI and interaction would become
> considerably more complicated.
First let me say I do not pretend to have an answer. I guess in some
ways what I want to do ought to be doable in my issue tracker, it just
isn't. Also, when working in a collaborative open source world you
might want to do some organizing that you do not push into the issue
tracker. Theexisting scheduling features are a good example of this.
My scenario seems simple (to me). I have a query that pulls down a
number of issues. Let's say it is all open tasks with the 1.x
milestone. I have 30 tasks. I might not do any of them myself. I
wanted to organizethem in random ways. Basically I just wanted to
make some groups:
Critical - hard
Critical - medium
Deferrable
Needs Scoping
etc...
Then assign these 30 tasks to one of the groups. I started out using
categories but quickly realized there was no way to know what tasks I
hadalready categorized.
One way to approach this might be to be able to apply Web-2.0 style
tags to tasks. If you could see a comma separated list of tags
assigned in the task list you would at least know if you had assigned
one or not. You could then offer a view that grouped by tag. This
might be more flexibleassuming you can assign more than one tag.
Mark
--
I'm trying a new usenet client for Mac, Nemo OS X.
You can download it at http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo
|
|
| | |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed Apr 24 13:53:42 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.05526 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
