|
You are not logged in.
Home | User list | Rules | Search | Register | Login
|
| Announcement |
|
Use these forums for anything specific to the Use Tasks service. For comments, feature requests and bug reports on the Tasks Pro™ and Tasks software, please post in the appropriate Crowd Favorite forum. Thank you.
Guest posting has been temporarily disabled due to spam posts. To post, simply register or log in. |
|
|
I have lots of tasks and find a 5-level priority scheme inadequate. I end to up with a lot of top priority tasks so I have to think repeatedly about which to work on. I could reduce the list by moving things down in priority but that then requires a process for deciding which lower priority tasks should move up in priority, which is essentially the same problem.
I think I would prefer to simply decide, once for each task, what it's priority is RELATIVE TO OTHER TASKS, and not have to repeatedly go through that mental process with a bunch of task at the same priority level. I think I could do this with a unique number for each task that can be big and that I can sort on (i.e. a big integer priority number).
I don't see any way to achieve what I want with Tasks. Is there a way to effectively do this?
The closest thing I can think of is to use (misuse) the Due Date, not thinking of it as a date at all but just a sortable priority "number" with more resolution than 5 levels. But then I can't use that feature for it's intended purpose, and it's awkward, and changing dates are multiple-field things so they're more cumbersome to modify.
Any ideas?
|
|
| 2008-09-25 08:06:05 |
|
|
|
Manual ordering of tasks isn't a current feature, but it's on the list. Some people choose to prefix the title field with a number so that they can sort by title.
Perhaps this will work for you?
|
|
| 2008-09-25 09:16:56 |
|
|
|
> Some people choose to prefix the title field with a number so that they can sort by title
I'm already doing exactly that frequently for relative priority of sibling subtasks within a branch. That's pretty easy to manage for that case. (I typically use numbers like 10, 20, 30 so I can later insert tasks between others already prioritized, without having to renumber.) It seems like that might be harder to manage at a global level and it may be problematic or even impossible to do both (changing a priority prefix number to do what I want in the global sorted view could have unintended consequences for my sort order in the hierachical view.
I'll think about it some more and maybe give it a try.
I guess what I'm doing right now is using prefix numbers for sorting in hierarchical views and the real 5-level priority field for sorting in the global sortable view. The former I use for planning at the project level and the latter I use for "what to work on NOW" (juggling multiple projects).
Thanks,
Bob
|
|
| 2008-09-25 14:53:06 |
|
|
|
> Manual ordering of tasks isn't a current feature, but it's on the list
It seems like you'd have the same problem if you implement it as a feature. Were you thinking you'd just do manual ordering of siblings relative to each other (i.e. just for a hierarchical view), or would you allow reordering at a global level (e.g. in a sortable view)?
|
|
| 2008-09-25 14:59:34 |
|
|
|
Yes, the hierarchy is an issue. Manual ordering would only be applied at a per-tier level in the hierarchical views.
|
|
| 2008-09-25 17:09:09 |
|
