I still like the concept of a Task. When I heard that word I
automatically thought of the description that Martin provided: That of
a user setting out to accomplish a specific and narrow goal in
OpenJUMP. (Example: Merge two (2) data sets.)
I almost wonder if the concept of a project really needs
Yes, good point. That is closer to the technical level, which avoids
any confusion from connotations of the word "Project".
Any ideas for what you'd call the existing Task window (now branded as
Project in OJ) ? I guess View or Map is an obvious possibility.
Paul Austin wrote:
> Another comm
Another common metaphor used is the workspace concept.
Paul
Martin Davis wrote:
> Finally getting around to answering this...
>
> I'll start out by saying that the idea of Projects and Tasks was never
> really fully realized or tested out in the real world. It was primarily
> motivated by the
Finally getting around to answering this...
I'll start out by saying that the idea of Projects and Tasks was never
really fully realized or tested out in the real world. It was primarily
motivated by the observation that there was really room for higher
levels of organization than just the ind
To pique Martin's interest, I'll just say that I like the original
JUMP "Task" terminology. The problem with "Project", IMO is that the
word is confused with the idea of "projections", at least in English.
Lots of other other software uses the term "Project" too, which can be
both good and bad (ba
Martin,
In a message from May you wrote: "(BTW, sSometime I should write up
our original idea for the model of Projects and Tasks - I think
there's some confusion about why we chose the terminology we did.)"
Is there any chance you would have a couple of minutes to provide a
brief explanation of
