thanks savantier - you’re right - my remarks about the checkboxes and flags are not really connected with data-density directly, but my main point is about text styling and a response to boldfish’s on ‘tinkering with the design’.
i love change! i like to see things shaken up, but as people use OF in so many different ways, i’m completely with you with regard to being able to set things up to our liking.
my first impression when i opened up the new beta was ‘wow. how clean. how beautiful’. it was only through use that i found some shortcomings. overall tho. i love OF2 - i used to get pretty overwhelmed at times with OF 1.
Yep, I didn’t like the first beta either, but I did feel very attracted to the first iteration of the new beta. That said I’m sure I’ll get used to whatever the final design tinkering leads to - for me OF is about ease of capture, automated prompting and quick reviews.
I myself do subscribe to the GTD theory, but I am aware that other people don’t.
I’m also drawn to highly productive, workflow enhancing utilities such as OmniGroup’s – DEVONthink, Tinderbox, … But at the same time, we should be appreciative of other people who do see the utility of OmniFocus as a list-making manager.
The great thing about utilities is that it is extensible and flexible – you can use it in a simple way, or in a very advanced and highly efficient way.
In regards to being able to see ‘next actions clearly’, surely that’s an argument for an increase in data density.
The benefits of having checkboxes on the left is that it provides visual hierarchy. The triangular arrows only appear when there is a child task, and the checkbox appears where there is a finish-able/checkable task.
This sort of iconography is useful as it allows you to quickly scan the structure of your tasks as you scroll down.
In OmniFocus 1, hence the duality of this combination – 1) Downwards-facing triangular arrow signifying its status as a parent task and 2) Checkbox signifying a task.
This gives coherence to a visual structure.
Whereas in OmniFocus 2, there’s a slight confusion here. There’s half of the visual structure, accorded by the downwards-facing triangular arrow. But as highlighted with the red box – it’s abruptly cut off there. It’s hard to quickly scan through a significant amount of task and get a general impression of the overall structure when the checkbox is omitted.
Couldn’t agree more. The little checkboxes on the left provided a visual continuity that I truly miss in OF2. It’s not a deal-breaker, but it does make scanning the page and finding what you’re looking for just a wee bit less easy.
And your illustration of data density perfectly captures it. If the goal is to be able to find what you’re looking for quickly and easily, the decreased data density of OF2 fights that, in my opinion. I have to scroll a lot more to find what I used to find easily.
@savantier, You are expertly focusing in on the point that’s bugging many people here!
Nevertheless I would like to add my perspective to this- and Your pictures are putting out the reasons nicely as well.
To have the checkboxes in a non- indented row and having the status coded in this element greatly facilitates quickly checking what is important.
the “empty indenting rectangles” in Your pictures greatly support getting an idea of the underlying project structure / tasks and subtasks hierarchies
data density: the first picture so very much captures why I eventually got overwhelmed by OF, making me search for easier alternatives- only to find that complicated project structures are only to be simplified to a certain level, before losing oversight again… I am more than happy that Omni is trying to find a middle ground for 2.0, while keeping adaptability in the back hand.
So basically for processing a long list of projects I first look right for task status, then mark the row of choice and look for the hierarchy involving this specific task. Adapting to this method was instant for me.
With the density update a couple of days ago Omni for me have hit the sweet spot between oversight and loss of screen estate. It will be nice to have the option to actually adapt this varying requirements, but as of now I am really happy with what I am working here.
Thanks. I originally created this thread a few weeks ago because the lack of data density was something that frustrated me immensely (even during the 2013 version of OmniFocus 2). After all, what’s the point of a productivity application if you’re wholly unable to see all your tasks in perspective, and have to scroll down twice as much?
I must admit I’m somewhat happier with the tweaks in the latest builds, though I still really hope we’ll see a single line option in a future release as the data density is still considerably less than OF1 and far less than I’d like personally.
The data density issue is a big deal that received a lot of early attention here. Ken Case kindly joined a thread and said it was something OmniGroup was absolutely planning to address in a few different ways. So far, I’m not seeing that this has been addressed and now the official version is being released in a few days. I find that very disappointing.
Are there still plans to improve data density, and if so, how far down the road?
Ok, so I’m confused, which I’m sure is largely my fault. Is the “experimental, in-development, nowhere-near-complete beginning of an implementation of a more compact layout” done in the version being released on Thursday but not currently in the latest beta version? Because I just installed that this morning and I’m seeing no improvement at all in data density.
And is that experimental layout an option one can turn on and off, so that worst case we can use it the way it looks now until data density reaches a mature resolution?