ForumsQuestionsTask dependency - still pending after 8 YEARS?!
Task dependency - still pending after 8 YEARS?!
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
Yugi_oh |
Thank you for your great productivity app. The first request of the task dependency (that I found!) dates back to march 2008. I mean ... come on! it's been 8 years. How hard could it be? I am a intermediate-level developer and I can't imagine such feature taking 8 year to be implemented even if it's on lowest priority, which shouldn't be due to many requests during this 8 years. I have switched from MyLifeOrganized (MLO) to toodledo and I am really suffering from lack of this feature. Could you reveal the estimated date of this feature? I know it's on your policy not to... but I don't seek a exact day, but in order of "year". If it's going to be implemented in 2025, I think users should know as many of them are waiting for it.
|
|
Purveyor |
Just curious: Given that MLO has task dependency and you are "really suffering from lack of this feature", why did you switch to Toodledo?
Also, if Toodledo promised you that task dependency would be available in two years, how would that change what you are doing now? In any case, I doubt that you're going to get a timeline commitment from Toodledo. Task dependency is not available and all you can do is structure your task management with this limitation. |
|
Salgud |
I suspect this feature is a quagmire. If you create the capability for dependencies, how far do you take it? Do you include all four types (SF, FF, FS, SS)? They would probably start with a simple FS (Finish to Start), the most common, but very quickly people would be clamoring for more. Then they'd want lead and lag times...
Will tasks be limited to a single predecessor or successor? This can easily get complicated. Not saying it can't be done, or that I wouldn't welcome even a simple version, just that from a developer's view, this can get messy. |
|
Yugi_oh |
Posted by Purveyor:
Just curious: Given that MLO has task dependency and you are "really suffering from lack of this feature", why did you switch to Toodledo? Also, if Toodledo promised you that task dependency would be available in two years, how would that change what you are doing now? In any case, I doubt that you're going to get a timeline commitment from Toodledo. Task dependency is not available and all you can do is structure your task management with this limitation. What is the deal with all this sophistry? I switched from MLO because "clearly" there are some features here that are not present there. what is so strange about this ? if Toodledo promised you that task dependency would be available in two years, first, I will continue my subscription with MLO for another two years and wait for this to be implemented and second, I will stop looking for alternatives, which is so time and energy consuming. I didn't think guessing these is so hard. Posted by Salgud: I suspect this feature is a quagmire. If you create the capability for dependencies, how far do you take it? Do you include all four types (SF, FF, FS, SS)? They would probably start with a simple FS (Finish to Start), the most common, but very quickly people would be clamoring for more. Then they'd want lead and lag times... Will tasks be limited to a single predecessor or successor? This can easily get complicated. Not saying it can't be done, or that I wouldn't welcome even a simple version, just that from a developer's view, this can get messy. I understand. But, everything has a complexity if you want to take it to the ultimate level in the first step. As some of the people requesting this feature was also switching from MLO, I can guess they are all expecting the FS. So at least the first step wouldn't be complicated as you said. Regarding your second question, I think for a FS , it wouldn't make the implementation super complex if the all the predecessors and successors are taken into account. I think everything can "easily" get complicated if not organized and scheduled step-wise. |
|
Jake Toodledo Founder |
Task dependency is a very complicated feature for us to implement and would only benefit the 1% of super power users who need this feature. This is why it has remained on our to-do list. We have been focusing on other improvements that would benefit our super power users as well as all our other users. If we can figure out a way to implement task dependency without causing the UI of Toodledo to become overly complex, we will do it.
|
|
FinnMK |
Thanks, Jake, for responding to Yugi_oh's question. If I may add my five cents, task dependency would not only benefit a minority of power users, but it could prove a great addition for a majority. It's quite natural to enter tasks that are part of a project but can only be completed if a condition is met. (We want these from our mind just like the onces that can be completed at once.) This is more likely the rule than the exception. If I nest these as subtasks, they still show up in the scheduler, a tool I love for low energy days where even deciding where to start ist difficult. It's frustrating to see tasks that I can't start doing at the present stage.
Real non-power-users are very likely content with the task feature of outlook or another software they already have. We toodledo users are a bunch who are interested in simple but sophisticated features. Dependency would fit perfectly. And the app would not have to be developed into a full fledged project management tool. A simple start-finish type dependency feature would do. For me, at least. |
|
Gnopps |
I think task dependencies can be implemented pretty easily in a way that works for both advanced and other users:
Have an option for sub-tasks to complete in order! I.e. a subtask is assigned Next for example, then when it is ticked the next on the list is given that status. |
|
Jake Toodledo Founder |
@Gnopps: This is an interesting way to do it. It is very simple, so it may not work for everyone, but I wonder.
What does everyone else think? You would have to order your subtasks manually, but if you did, the top subtask would be forced to have a status of "Next Action" and when you complete it, the new top subtask would be given this status. Would this solve Task dependency for you? Please let me know. |
|
allendr59 |
I think this would work really well! Manually sorting your subtasks would also be helpful for those times where you are doing a 'brain dump' of what needs to happen before really worrying about what needs to happen in what order.
|
|
fizzyice |
I think it sounds like a good idea and it would work with my work flow.
|
|
Salgud |
Sounds good. One consideration - I'm assuming this would be an option, but would it be an always-on or an always-off selection, or a case-by-case option? If it's always-on or always-off, then that wouldn't work so well for me as I have some of both in my normal work flow.
|
|
Jake Toodledo Founder |
It would have to be an account setting where all of your subtasks behaved this way or none.
|
|
alexandremrj_2 |
Hello,
the main problem I see in this, is that projects (the main task) would have to be always sequential. If I have a project that has two active subtasks that I can work, then how would it function? If my first task is a Next Action and my second task is a Waiting For, and I complete the first one, would it pass my Waiting For to a Next Action? This could be a good solution but with a compromise, the first task must be a "Next Action" and when completed then the next task without a status becomes a "Next Action". If the task after, has an already defined status then the system would jump that subtask. Example: Main task: Subtask A - Next Action Subtask B - Waiting For Subtask C - No status You complete task A: Subtask A - Completed Subtask B - Waiting For Subtask C - Next Action |
|
Gnopps |
This indeed isn't a complete implementation of task-dependencies but a compromise that makes Toodledo take a great step forward for GTD-users.
GTDnext.com has this implemented really well and I like how it is done there: Subtasks are always completed in order (i.e. assigned Next-status) automatically. If next task on the list is Waiting then then no task is assigned Next. If you want to work on several tasks simultaneously then you can manually assign tasks Next-status. However, only when completing the topmost Next-action does the next on list get Next automatically. All of this of course would be added on top of Toodledo's other features. So that a task can't get Next assigned automatically before its start date for example (i.e. same as when reaching a Waiting-task). |
|
Salgud |
LOL! This is already a quagmire! So far, we have 3 suggestions as to how this would work, all completely different. And only 3 people heard from. I say we just pillory Jake now, so he doesn't have to spend all that time coming up with a solution that no one likes, and gets pilloried then! :)
|
|
Adrien Beau |
I don't think they're completely different, they look more like an iterative refinement of an interesting base idea (auto-change the status of the next subtask), that Jake seems to believe is doable. I don't use subtasks currently, but such a feature would certainly make me reconsider. I agree with you though, in that it will certainly be impossible to please all those that request such kinds of features.
|
|
TheGriff |
This would work *if* I were using parent tasks as project indicators, which I do not. I use folders for projects due to my use of Informant and because folders are available in both the Tasks and Notes area of Toodledo.
|
|
alexandremrj_2 |
Posted by TheGriff:
This would work *if* I were using parent tasks as project indicators, which I do not. I use folders for projects due to my use of Informant and because folders are available in both the Tasks and Notes area of Toodledo. That way then it will be hard to implement dependencies, because while in subtasks we can sort manually, and so this would be a little extra, when we are talking about tasks then the sorting is always for all, and without sorting we cannot say which task comes next. |
|
TheGriff |
Posted by alexandremrj_2:
Posted by TheGriff: This would work *if* I were using parent tasks as project indicators, which I do not. I use folders for projects due to my use of Informant and because folders are available in both the Tasks and Notes area of Toodledo. That way then it will be hard to implement dependencies, because while in subtasks we can sort manually, and so this would be a little extra, when we are talking about tasks then the sorting is always for all, and without sorting we cannot say which task comes next. I don't disagree but was responding to Jake's asking "what everyone thinks". |
|
coolexplorer |
I support the idea of customer defined sequencing of sub-tasks, not just for the task dependency feature, but also for basic scheduling of my day, particularly in my custom Hot-list.
In fact not just sub-tasks but all tasks in ones Hot-list should be able to be easily sequenced by the user through a drag and drop. |
You cannot reply yet
U Back to topic home
R Post a reply
To participate in these forums, you must be signed in.