Legend

Forum

Unread topics or posts

Topic

Unread posts

Locked

Announcement

Search

Search results for "Posted by DrLaban"



AuthorMessage
DrLaban

Posted: May 14, 2013



Hi!

I'd like to raise the request of having folder length increased to something more than only 32 characters.

Also, when poking around the site I stumbled upon the fact that it is possible to create a folder name larger than 32 characters, because the "Add folder..." field on the left sidebar in the Folder view does not put any restriction on the length.
This results in the possibility of creating folders with a length bigger than 32 (the longer-than-32-character-folder-name is also selectable in the drop down list when assigning a folder to a task).
Now, this looks like it only needs another tiny update; removing (or at least increasing) the maxlength and size of the fields where folder names can be edited.

So, will we see this happen any time soon? It's one of the few things holding me back from using this regularly.
DrLaban

Posted: Sep 09, 2012



I completely understand that this is a tricky business because of all the customisation abilities presented.

How about a test-program sort of way of trying new ideas out? If I understood you right you're concerned about the way people would react to these kind of changes, because it could become a bad user experience. Then, how about offering users an experimental playground so to speak, where you clearly state that the features are only for experimentation and that the functionality is never to be viewed as permanent.
People who are inclined to test these features can opt-in and you select a batch of subjects to run wild.

Just a thought. I know it takes a lot of resources to ship an idea like this, but then again, it can also depend a lot on if the live section of the site needs much attention.
DrLaban

Posted: Sep 08, 2012



Posted by Jake: The very fact that there is so much debate in this thread about how to implement manual sorting almost proves my point that an elegant solution isn't obvious.

True. So let's keep the discussion running and see if we can figure this out, despite the signs that it might be impossible. If nothing else, we will have gone through our options.

Posted by Jake: Global vs per-view has been one sticking point. I'll just point out another. Filters. Suppose you are manually sorting your list of 100 items and you have it all perfect. Now, you apply some filter that hides 90 items leaving 10 displayed. Now, you drag item 5 to position 2. Now, you turn off the filter. What is the new state of the list? Its confusing. There is no good answer, and this would happen all the time. Without a clear, consistent behavior for this scenario, I am very hesitant to proceed with any half-baked solution.

Is there a way for us to approach the problem that you would like to bring up about this whole deal? Are there only a few but deal breaking issues you are trying to tackle or are there a gazillion small and large issues around this whole manual sort ordering monster? A compiled list of concerns could help out spark discussion about it and see if there are any suggestions of solving things _good enough_. I say good enough because in a complex system there are never any silver bullets.

Posted by Jake: My hesitance comes from my experience with subtasks. I feel that our implementation of subtasks is inelegant. I was persuaded to do it based on customer requests even though I had concerns about how certain things would work. While we have made improvements over the years, and I am happy that we have this feature overall, I think that subtasks are confusing to use and I still do not have a solution for making them perfect. I do not want to repeat this experience, so I want to make sure that if we do implement manual sorting, that it is done in a way that is obvious and clear to everyone.

What is it, more specifically, that does not work as you'd like to or intend it to? Is it the case of the filter issue mentioned above?
In the current situation, [sub-tasks] follow a set of rules based on the actual implementation. These might be sub-optimal (I'm not sure in what way as I hinted above, but that's most likely because I don't use them the way everyone else does) but they are still there and users are likely to use the functionality. Theoretically, would all hell break lose if this kind of implementation would be applied to the [parent tasks]? "An ugly hack way of looking at this" would be to make them sub-tasks to a non visible [grand daddy parent task] and use the same implementation on the [parent tasks] as the [sub-tasks]. I'm not saying this is a good solution at all, I'm trying to figure out where things go horribly wrong and people would perceive this as a visible, tangible drawback or if it's actually something that people can live with.

Posted by Jake: There is also the small but no longer important fact that I initially made Toodledo because I didn't want to waste time constantly micromanaging the order of my list. I wanted smart sorting options to do that for me, hence "Importance" and 19 ways to sort your list.

Well, that's your prerogative since you're the developer. :)


This message was edited Sep 08, 2012.
DrLaban

Posted: Sep 07, 2012



Everything is fine and well with sub-task reordering, that is working just as I like it. My gripe is the fact that the parent-task cannot be reordered the same way as sub-tasks and folders.

Any chance at all to increase the folder character limit to say... the max allowed value for the type of the column? :) (As long as it's not constrained to 32 chars but that would sound a little odd to me) Or at least 255?
I would never use a folder name of 255 characters myself but that would certainly give leeway for more or less everything anyone can think of.
DrLaban

Posted: Apr 27, 2012



I just archived a folder and noticed that the tasks related to that folder were still very much visible in my tasks list.
The behaviour I would expect out of this would be that the tasks connected to this folder would be archived or orphaned or somehow hidden.
Or am I interpreting this entirely the wrong way?
DrLaban

Posted: Feb 09, 2012



Hi!

I'd like to be able to share one or more tasks with people I know, who don't own Toodledo.
I would also like to be able to allow/forbid editing of this shared task so I can collaboratively have this edited by others.
Is there a way of doing this?
DrLaban

Posted: Jan 18, 2011



Posted by PeterW:
My Toodledo setup has folders such as Next, Projects, Waiting for and Someday. My projects are represented by parent tasks in the Projects folder and each has subtasks to represent the project actions.

For this scenario - what I'd call an "inactive project" - I think I'd probably just create a standalone task in my Someday folder and put the actions as bullet points in the Notes field. This keeps all of the thoughts somewhere without creating too much clutter to be reviewed.


THIS made my day. Totally works right on the front end. My Someday/Maybes are all of a sudden readable and reviewable and even without having to resort to subtasks. Cool.
DrLaban

Posted: Jan 15, 2011



So, I was listening to David Allen once again and noticed I hadn't thought much about Someday/Maybes.

I have a bunch of projects that I go through each week and of course I add as many tasks as possible to them when I do mindsweeps and brainstorms.
But, David Allen mentions (or at least that's what I interpret) that the Someday/Maybe "stuff" are tasks. Not projects.
And I've found that I might have thought through a Someday/Maybe-task, broke it down into several tasks, which made it into a project, which in the end is a Someday/Maybe-project.

I don't know how I should handle this, really, so I turn to you people. Do you find yourself in the same situation?
Or do you use another method of taking care of Someday/Maybes?
Perhaps you don't break them down into even more tasks or brainstorm them? But in that case, what if you had some good input to them? Then you'd have to think them over alla again.
Maybe you use subtasks? This could be one solution to the entire issue, seeing that it would be possible to mark the parent task as Someday/Maybe and have it resurface on the weekly reviews, with brainstorming intact.
I should mention that I use folder _only_ as my project list. I don't use subtasks, I had Pro before but didn't use subtasks because I didn't find it to fit in very well in David Allens approach; one project, one folder (which could contain subfolders, which is not implemented in Toodledo (yet?)).
DrLaban

Posted: Jan 13, 2011



Sure, having them on the same level would be an alternative. But that would mean I probably end up with tons of folders on the top level = hard to overview. And also being forced the task to name them appropriately to easily see what parent folder the folder I'm looking at belongs to. If I don't, I'd have to look at what's in the folder and then figure it out.

I'm curious as to what the rationale behind NOT adding subfolders is about. Subtasks are in there, why no subfolders?

It would still be possible to do what you do, Andrew, if there was a setting such as "Flat folder view". That means all folders remain on the top level while still having the hierarchical structure, fully maintained when not in the flat view.


This message was edited Jan 13, 2011.
DrLaban

Posted: Jan 09, 2011



I'm not sure that it's because I'm such a David Allen biased GTD:er but when I hear him mention subprojects for projects I visualise Folder and Subfolder in front of me.

My rationale behind this is that when I create a Project (Folder) and there are other related projects (subprojects) within that, I just don't have the mindset to go "Ooh, right I need a task with subtasks for that.". I think this is because it feels awkward to think; "Yep, I got my project (folder) made. Now, let's go create a subproject (task with subtasks).".
Instead I want to go "Yep, I got my project (folder) made. Now, let's go create a subproject (folder) and put some tasks in that." but can't since there are no subfolders.


This message was edited Jan 09, 2011.
DrLaban

Posted: Oct 06, 2009



I couldn't find another post already mentioning this, so I'd like to add it to the wish list. You can read up on why I'd like to see this feature come about, here: http://www.toodledo.com/forums/2/3384/0/improvement-suggestion-hiding-folders.html

Thank you!
DrLaban

Posted: Oct 02, 2009
From Topic: Feature Request Post



@TheGriff: That was one very excellent suggestion, good idea.

@All: I agree that it would be a great idea to know what the Toodledo-team has to do and as I just pointed out, TheGriff's suggestion of format is the precise way I'd like to see it.
I'm not that sure that it would ease Anders' and Jake's burden of having to answer the same questions all over again, though. I'm by no means an expert in this field but I always get the general feeling that most (not all, though) people asking questions that have already been answered, still would ask those questions even if the answer kissed them in their face.
I think this is because they generally don't have a sense of where they should be able to find the answer, or that they don't know/bother about using the search feature.
If they had, they most likely would have found their answer.

I believe that this list would be used extensively among those who want to contribute and discuss improvements/drawbacks, those who want to be involved in the mechanics of Toodledo and the ones who like to know if their proposed feature has made it past the development stage.

I get a feeling that this is also about a level of surprise to the customer; By not showing the (probably huge ;)) requirements list and todo's, each release will bring in a level of surprise to the customer using it. You anxiously wait for the next release to see what's happened and hope that the one feature you requested just made it through.

As I said, these are just my opinions and I have no expert knowledge in this field, at least not yet. Feel free to discuss about it.
DrLaban

Posted: Sep 29, 2009



Sure, I guess I can hide my inactive projects at the bortom, at least for now. Unless you already got a feature suggestion for hiding folders, please add this to your list.
Thank you for your feedback people, I appreciate it.
DrLaban

Posted: Sep 27, 2009



Hi!

I've been using Toodledo close to a year now and it's getting really good.
Now, I'm trying to figure out a way of handling my Active projects.
I create one Folder for each Project. This is the way I've understood Gavid Allen and it's so far working pretty well.
But I'm having some issues with how to separating Active projects from Non-active ones.
I try doing my weekly review and of course I feel obliged to go through all of my projects to make sure I have everything on track.
Now, when I'm done with my weekly review I'm supposed to know what is to get done the coming week. It's a bit of an issue to have to see all of the Projects/Folders in the Folder list, even the ones that are Non-active. Alot of my projects don't have any actionable items until way ahead in time and it would be a huge benefit for me to be able to hide them from the Folder view.
DrLaban

Posted: Sep 23, 2009



I'm actually on the same aide as those wanting a less obtrusive way of getting a heads-up that the network is unavailable. I've seen very suitable ways of informing users that a sync was not possible because the network was unavailable and one very capable way of doing this can be found in the Appigo Notebook app. I switch fast between calendar, Toodledo, notes, password managers, etc and having to tap this button each time I reopen toodledo is pretty distracting. So, I could turn the sync on start off. So now I also have to remember that I have to manually sync my lists. Not very ideal in my eyes. I suggest a less obtrusive way of informing the user about this and why not also a setting that can hide it altogether when we're at it.
DrLaban

Posted: Aug 17, 2009



Hi!

I'm trying to figure out some sort of best practice when it gets around to managing PRojects.

I use one Folder per Project I can come up with, as long as they have more than one action enbedded (as per GTD methodology).

I have created a Folder called "Projects" where I keep all my Active Projects. If a Project is not Active, it will not be in the Project folder.

I have found a flaw with this; keeping my Project list up to date during the week. I don't know about you but sometimes the Projects tend to shift around, getting completed, more added, gets inactive, reactivates and so forth.
The problem with my current way of doing this, my Project Folder is not really current. I notice I have Projects in there that have went unactive the last couple of days, some Projects are missing that should be in the list, etc.
I tend to always go back to looking at the whole complete list of Folders I've got and try to figure out what is current by looking at the names and this is quite cumbersome. I like having my Projects as Folders as opposed to having them as Tasks with Subtasks, so I'd like not to change this.

It would have been awesome if Toodledo would have been able to give me the option to set a Folder with a Status, such as Active, and then having that Folder tab turn into a shaded green color or something. And Hold Status would shade the tabs Red or whatnot.
Since my suggestion is something for the Toodledo developers to take care of and I'd have to wait for the update to become implemented, if at all, I'd like to hear how you other GTD:ers out there get by with this issue.

Thank you in advance, I'm really starting to get the hang of this and I'm not stopping for anything now. :)


This message was edited Aug 17, 2009.
DrLaban

Posted: Jul 15, 2009



I got a bit stuck today. I'm in the flow of having all my open loops and todo's grouped into project folders and I'm now wondeing one thing;

How can I make Toodledo show all the tasks that are contained in the folders matching my Project folder?

I have a Project-list in the shape of tasks in a folder called Projects. Now, each Project-task within that Project folder has a corresponding folder with the exact same name as the task.

I would now like, for instance, the context to display the Next Action-task of the tasks contained in the folders where i have defined by adding tasks to the Project-folder.

Here's the punchline in using this: I can now move any task to or from the Project-folder and have the Context showing me only the related tasks within the Project folder.

Got any idea about how I could get this to work or any other suggestion of method I could use?
DrLaban

Posted: Mar 11, 2009



How do you go about prioritizing your subtasks, or your ordinary tasks for that matter, when it comes to tasks that almost has flow-chart types of actions?

For instance, I have to do these in a specific order but not necessarily in a specific space in time;
Main task: Go visit grandma
Subtasks:
1: Get car
2: Take care of laundry
3: Pick up sister
4: Drive
5: Eat at Route 66
6: Drive
7: If grandma has forgotten anything, shop at the local store
8: Drive until we get to grandma's house
Any suggestions as how to manage situations like these when they are truly linear if nothing unexpected happens would be great.
DrLaban

Posted: Jan 12, 2009



Is there a way to let Google Calendar make use of the iCal-data to store the due time of a task. Such as having it mark the set due time and add 30 minutes to it? I'm thinking of finding a way of getting the tasks to not mark entire days when it comes to tasks.

[EDIT]Sorry, I have my head up my ass. I noticed when switching views in Google Calendar that the time is actually considered[/EDIT]


This message was edited Jan 12, 2009.
DrLaban

Posted: Jan 05, 2009



For some reason I'm having problems with getting a somewhat secure password stick in all different types of interfaces of Toodledo.
I'm using the regular Toodledo website and the Firefox Add-in and the results of my experiments are these:

Password: 123456
Works with Toodledo: Yes
Works with FF Add-in: Yes

Password: "123456
Works with Toodledo: No
Works with FF Add-in: No

Password: #123456
Works with Toodledo: Yes
Works with FF Add-in: No

As you probably understand this makes for something of a limit between interfaces and usage of a bit more secure passwords.


This message was edited Jan 05, 2009.
Skip to Page:  1   2   3      Next
Contact Us | Blog | API | Jobs | Press | Documentation | Forums Privacy | Terms | Copyright © 2004-2014