Thanks Dwight I will try something like that for the time being, and see how well it works for me. I can revert to using Active Starred view, and starring every task, which works though does not make the application shine!
If there is a solution we have both overlooked, I suspect it is in outline based views rather than to-do list ones. It may be that synchronizing other manually ordered views will be needed to solve this one. And by then Mark Forster may well have come up with new refinements to his methods! Laurence On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 5:38:44 PM UTC, Dwight Arthur wrote: > > Thanks for the link to FVP, it was an interesting read. I had been going > to suggest something about using dependencies to form tasks into a chain > but its clear that this would not help manage FVP. > > If I wanted to do this: I would use Importance. I would start by > multiselecting all of the tasks in a chain and setting importance to zero. > Then, whenever I want to put an FVP "dot" on a task I would up the > importance by one > - <alt>2, <alt>2, tab, right-arrow > - if <general> section in task properties is collapsed, only one <alt>tab > is needed > > The next task I wanted to dot, I would set importance to two. Same hotkey > sequence except two taps on the right-arrow key. > > somewhere around ten I would stop counting taps and just hold down the > right arrow key until importance gets into the neighborhood, then use right > arrow or left arrow to fine-tune it. > > If the last task I dotted got importance 27 and I need to add a new task, > I would add it with importance 28 and the next task dotted would be 29. > > I would work from a view that zoomed to a particular folder and displayed > tasks sorted in order on ascending importance. Each folder has its own > sequence of importance values and you have to remember the current value so > that you can assign a value one higher to the next dotted or added task. > > Do you want to use FVP to select which task to do next across multiple > folders? If so then the view should include all of the candidate folders > and they should share a single sequence of importance values > > drawbacks of this method: > > 1. you need to use your own memory to track the next importance value > for each chain. That, or else check the bottom of the view every time. > 2. If you use the contents of different folders together in varying > combinations you will need to assign a single string of importance numbers > across folders > 3. I suppose that every once in a while the rankings get stale and the > piece of paper gets messy and you start over with a fresh sheet, right? > The > equivalent of this would be setting importance for all tasks back to zero. > If you have more than 200 dotted or new tasks between resets you will run > out of importance values. In that case I would set urgency for all > affected > tasks to zero at the reset as well, and after assigning importance number > 200 to some task the next task would get urgency 1 and importance one, > then > urgency one and importance two and so on up to urgency one and importance > two hundred, then urgency two and importance one and so on. By the time > you > get to urgency 200 and importance 200 you will have dotted 40,000 tasks > which I think would be more than enough. Your view would then be sorted by > urgency ascending and then importance ascending, next task at the bottom. > This allows you longer lists but it's more complex and more to remember > 4. Mobile: the lists and views will synch well and display well, but > it could be terribly difficult on Android (and, I assume, iPhone) to > assign > an importance value of 7 (not 6 or 8) to a task. There's a slider that > could be used but you would need a stylus to make fine-tuning adjustments > and there's no confirmation of what number the slider is set to. So in my > opinion you would need to analyze your queue and decide what you want to > work on, on Windows and you could use mobile platforms to tick off > completed tasks, capture new tasks, and have a peek at what's pending. > 5. when a view gets longer than what fits on one page I could have > trouble doing this. But I guess that drawback applies when doing it on > paper as well. > > On Thursday, December 17, 2015 at 2:59:57 AM UTC-5, Laurence Glazier wrote: >> >> Sounds intriguing! >> >> As I understand it, each successive activity in the chain is more >> desirable (or less undesirable) than the preceding one. The last one in the >> chain is always the preferred one from the entire list. You work on that >> one. If you leave it unfinished, you remove it from the chain >> (unflag/unstar/unmark it somehow) and transfer it to the bottom of the list. >> >> The next one to work with is what was the previous one in the chain, >> unless the chain can be extended further down again with more desirable >> ones. >> >> If and when you get back to the top item, when that has been worked on >> you start a new chain again from the top. >> >> It takes a bit of getting used to. >> >> -- 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 mylifeorganized+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to mylifeorganized@googlegroups.com. 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/ac97c122-274b-4ef8-a6bc-d6e20d86bec2%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
