Skip to content

Settings and activity

12 results found

  1. 1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  General  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Ian commented  · 

    Derived-Importance should also consider dependencies. If a low importance task is blocking a high importance task (directly or indirectly) its Derived-Importance should be as high as the highest importance task it is blocking.

    This is similar to the following, more general idea about Computed-Score:
    http://mlo.uservoice.com/forums/9235-general/suggestions/7241670-take-dependencies-and-effort-max-time-into-accou

    I hope this is feasible.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Ian commented  · 

    I found a comment from 2010 in the MLO Google Group partially related to this idea (advanced filtering). Things might have changed since then:

    "Feature Request: Add Computed Score to Advance Filtering"
    https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mylifeorganized/G1ywSxm0V0I/AlmdPVjiR3gJ

    copied here for completeness:
    -------------------------------------
    "The feature request is not trivial to implement in the current
    architecture:
    1) The computed score calculated only when todo list is created. The
    algorithm should process all the tasks in a specific order. So it is
    not possible to use it in AutoFormatting or Filter when any task can
    be requested at any time.

    2) I do not understand how you can group tasks by computed score
    priority which is a float number with big range.

    3) I can probably add computed score as a column (actually three
    columns by priority, urgency, both) but it is not trivial to sync the
    values for this columns at any time due to (1)

    A."

    Ian shared this idea  · 
  2. 2 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  General  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Ian commented  · 

    This would be a nice usability enhancement. I also strongly encourage that approach of treating the importance of sibling tasks as *relative* importance.

    I posted a related idea based on a new Derived-Importance computed field (taking ancestors into account) which would also treat sibling importance as relative:
    http://mlo.uservoice.com/forums/9235-general/suggestions/7726980--derived-importance-computed-field-taking-ancesto

    Ian supported this idea  · 
  3. 7 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  General  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Ian commented  · 

    Absolutely! Also, it would be great to be able to specify them in a filter rule, which we currently can't do even with the existing "Computed-Score" field.

    The "To-Do ordering options" are great, but they only apply to one computed field and are can only be used for sorting, not filtering.

    Here's a somewhat related idea for another albeit specific, computed field based on derived importance:
    http://mlo.uservoice.com/forums/9235-general/suggestions/7726980--derived-importance-computed-field-taking-ancesto

    Ian supported this idea  · 
  4. 1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  General  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Ian commented  · 

    min time could also be a factor

    Ian shared this idea  · 
  5. 1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  General  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Ian commented  · 

    After posting this idea I noticed the "Complete task and all subtasks" command (located in the menu Task -> Advanced, or in the context menu under Advanced).

    I still believe the prompting behaviour could be considered a good usability enhancement because people either aren't aware of that menu item, or they just mark the task as (in)complete by habit, without considering subtasks.

    Ian shared this idea  · 
  6. 4 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  General  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Ian commented  · 

    By the way, I'd rather not use reminders / alarms / alerts. Perhaps reminders are the intended way to manage this. Unless I specifically want to receive an alert, however, I don't particularly want to manage yet another property when the Due date or Computed-Score (for "Active Actions" view) should be enough. In other words, my "Active Actions" view *is* my set of reminders.

    Ian shared this idea  · 
  7. 737 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    under review  ·  64 comments  ·  General  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Ian commented  · 

    Thanks for the great new feature! I have a suggestion for an improvement in a future version:

    Allow users to mark a task as an event
    http://mlo.uservoice.com/forums/9235-general/suggestions/7260012-mark-task-as-event-for-calendar

  8. 4 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  General  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Ian shared this idea  · 
  9. 37 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    4 comments  ·  General  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Ian commented  · 

    If you are referring to a view that uses Computed-Score ordering, then you can do the following:

    In options -> To-Do ordering options -> Weight factors, it is possible to modify the weight for some task factors. In my case, I reduced the weight assigned to "start date" and I got a sort order that made much more sense.

    Here's the related idea that I posted:
    http://mlo.uservoice.com/forums/9235-general/suggestions/7238564-reduce-default-weight-factor-assigned-to-start-dat

    You may know this already, but just in case:

    For each view (such as "Active Actions") you can click on "filter" at the bottom. Then, in the section "Group & Sort", click "Sort" to modify the sort order of that view or to allow manual sorting.

  10. 1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  General  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Ian shared this idea  · 
  11. 1 vote
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  General  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Ian shared this idea  · 
  12. 4 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    4 comments  ·  General  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Ian commented  · 

    I've only used v4.3 so far and the user experience is very nice indeed. Perhaps the changes that were made in v4 involved a lot of UI work. Most importantly for me: you seem to have avoided sacrificing any functionality.

    I obviously agree that an elegant app is better than an ugly or plain one. There are so many apps out there now that offer task management / GTD to varying degrees. Most of them, however, have a tendency to make shiny, polished apps and boast of their "simplicity" as their main selling point. Once you start using their apps you quickly discover their limitations.

    MLO targets users that require more fine-grained control over their tasks. I, for one, use MLO because its feature set is superior to other apps in the same category. Dependencies, for example, is one feature that differentiates it from the others. Also, having a decent MLO windows app from which you can sync to mobile means it's much more usable compared to other products (usually only web and mobile).