I don’t know if I can say this is a completely accurate declaration. It is rigid when it comes to multiple contexts. But we have seen numerous workflows and blog posts about how people use OmniFocus. There are some workflows that wouldn’t work for me but completely works for another person. I would count OmniFocus as a flexible tool.
For now, we won’t see multiple contexts because it would cause a major change to the database structure and break compatibility with OF1. Never say never. We might see multiple contexts in OF 2.5. Only the Omnifolks know. I would have to guess that this is on their whiteboard hanging in the meeting room where the coders meet. It sounds like they’re trying to find a way to implement multiple contexts among a hundred other feature requests. It all may sound straightforward and easy to implement but a change like this will most likely cause a dramatic change of direction or workflow that needs to be considered carefully. Remember that Apple wasn’t the first to market with a smart phone. But they took their time to create something that they felt would affect the marketplace. Apple wasn’t the first to market with a tablet. But they sure changed the landscape with the iPad’s introduction. I think the same goes for OmniFocus.
Omni spoke about creating general MetaData for OmniFocus (so one could assign, for example, a person to a task) years ago. OmniFocus 2 was supposed to pave the way to implement this generalized data model, by getting all the versions (iPad, iPhone, Mac) at parity. If you ask me, significant new features have not been added to OmniFocus 2 since it was released. I suspect that’s because Omni’s attention is on iOS, creating universal apps, and now the Apple Watch.
@wilsonng I mean technically inflexible. You cannot “design” you own look, interface, etc. In expensive apps it is possible to some extend to move the menus around like “inspector” window. Look at Adobe.
Yes i would also like to see the return of some kind of custom appearance editor. But I think that there are other features I would rather have omnigroup work on first.
While GTD is a little outdated in terms of tools you are using to manage your stuff I am really positive on David Allen considering single contexts one of the timeless hallmarks of GTD. At MPU last year he was openly rejecting tags as means of organisation… I don’t think that this position has changed, since he was precisely referring to modern tools of organisation that use tags (evernote)
I don’t think that the reluctance on Omnis side is solely compatibility, but actually remaining true to the concept.
I would not say that anyone can blame Omni for sitting on their hands not doing anything. While your favorite feature might not be included in one app let’s not forget that there are several other apps available that need regular maintenance…
Secondly, expecting a new UI and a new db handling with every annual iteration of the Max OS is ridiculous- I am with @wilsonng that rigidity is a habit- only when not adapted to that limitation it will actually stand in your way- on the other hand integration into working procedures can make limitations a valuable and wise tool to avoid distractions.
Lastly, if you search for folks that need our pity right now look no further: Things 3 was announced december 2013… sometimes it’s just better not to set any release deadlines- in case of Things it rather became tradition. Omni is far away from this attitude, thankfully so
Just to clarify, MPU is the Mac Power User’s podcast. David Allen was on it as a guest and discussed a bit about GTD. This is October 12, 2014 podcast.
I think tags are OK if used sparingly. I experimented with tags in Cultured Code’s Things. I had to make sure that I wasn’t complicating my setup by using as few tags as possible. I would use meaningful tags that had impact and not just tag everything under the sun.
I recently had a losing battle with tags inside Apple Aperture. I would tag and describe everything in a picture:
As an example, I recently had with tags in Aperture. But it was mostly useless. Eventually, I resolved to just tagging important things. Mostly, the tags I had were the names of my family members and important people in my life. Aperture had already sorted out my photos by months. So I can guess when my daughter’s birthday parties occurred. I already know that the Christmas parties happen in December. I didn’t really need to tag those.
Tags are often used as a general tool to fill in gaps that software doesn’t take into account. Tags are so easily mis-used and abused and can cause more friction than needed. Tags seems to be the hot buzzword these days. But it isn’t the cure-all that some may think it is.
Right now, I’m dipping my toes into 2Do and exploring alternative workflows with tags. But I always have to remember to use as few tags as possible and avoid over-tagging anything.
@wilsonng that was only an example. Another example would be visibility of the different types of “fields” in the task, so you can tab it, like Estimated Time. Another one would be completely lack of color options for anything besides notes, which are still not worth to deal. Inflexibility means doing things the Omni way, “and if you don’t like it, go and buy Things 3, because it doesn’t matter how much time you have invested, or how much money you have spent on Omni” (my restated version of @mat_rheincomment)
@mat_rhein
Rigid ≠ Flexible
Rigidity is a good character trait to possess for a person. For matters like technology and software, it’s called inflexibility. That means the user is forced to do certain things, certain way. Surprisingly, this also means being unable to do particular things, particular way. I do not see rigidness of the software, where I have to learn AppleScript to accomplish something (requested from years).
So have you found any software package that does what you want? Anything that is flexible enough for you? I am curious to see other programs out there. As I said earlier, I am visiting the 2Do app to see if there is something I am missing with tags. So far, I can see that I could work with 2Do. But I have already learned how to use OF2.
We will find limits and rigidity is every program. Every program operates in a certain way and we learn how to use it as the developer allows. We put in feature requests to change something and hopefully the developer will consider it and incorporate it into the next release. The simpler the program, the easier it is to understand how to use it. OF2 is definitely powerful and can be overwhelming to somebody who is using it for the first time. I know it took me a few tries after quitting it, going to another program, and then returning back to OF2.
The only other thing to do is to create your own task manager that would behave as you want it to.
Things 3? If you thought Omnigroup was slow with OmniFocus development, you only have to see that Things 3 was promised many years ago as @mat_rhein said in a previous post. The 2Do app finally come out with version 3 for iOS after 2 years of the previous release. The Mac version of 2Do is still not yet here.
2Do ▸ a pen and paper have more options than that app. This app is a joke. I need more options, not for more complication, but for better process. The process is the key.
The best bet would be Nozbe, but it requires everything being done by clicks, not keyboard. No time for that.
Simple doesn’t mean easy. However OF isn’t simple, nor easy, or cheap. Pro version has perspectives, which 2Do etc user doesn’t need. Most of these people would be happy with reminders if they knew it exists and it’s “advanced” features.
I don’t think we use OF for the things other software don’t have, but for what OF has and what you can do with it.
I found many workarounds for OF. But none of them could possibly implement the aristocracy, which would be OF2Pro with Multi-context. I could even pay extra for OF2 Pro-Pro to have it. I would say this feature would be worth for me $2000, maybe $3000 if I could pay it in installments. $300? No question. I’m first to buy.
Things like Things 3, Wunderlist 4, MilkMyCow 7 and Forgetters aren’t the software people like us use, need, etc. That is why so many people is using OF, so many bloggers, OF being the symbol of GTD, AppleScripts etc. is why we use OF.
Try IQTELL. I used it in the past with success, but I need onMac app not online app. If you can handle that if an iOS app, it’s a touchdown. Better than OF in many matters.
I don’t think I can say any app is a joke. Each one focuses on a different market or adapts to different work styles.
2Do has a smart list that can resemble OF2’s perspectives. It also has the “tags” that some OF2 folks dream of. 2Do also has multiple locations support which OF2 doesn’t have.
Things 2 has a nice drag-and-drop user interface.
Asana is better for users who have to share tasks and need see the status of other people’s tasks/projects.
I don’t have much experience in ToDoist and Wunderlist except for the occasional demo that I try or the YouTube video demos that I can watch.
Send feedback to omnifocus@omnigroup.com and let your voice be heard. It may sound frustrating to see the feature requests not getting addressed immediately. Omnigroup seems more focused on bug fixes and updates to the iOS app and the Mac app. But I think it is more important to address bug fixes before adding more features.
I think that Omnigroup’s decision to phase out the iPhone app in favour of a Universal version is good news. Now, they only have to take care of two apps (Universal and iOS) instead of three apps (iPhone, iPad, Mac). Hopefully this will mean development of new OmniFocus 2 features can occur faster.
Sometimes that can be a very good thing in a software product. It leads to a more (dare I say it) focussed app!
I’m not sure whether this is true here. But in general, a good rule of thumb is that every time as a developer you say “just make it an option”, you’ve failed slightly in terms of UX design. The correct strategy is to weigh up the two possibilities — is one of them better than the other overall? Does one meet the needs of 90% of users and the other 10%? If so, just go with the 90%. Trying to be all things to all people leads to a confusing watered down mess, and increases your testing workload exponentially (since you have to test every combination of options).
I would wager Omni have made such a decision in this case: that it’ll be better for the software overall to stick to a single context workflow. It’ll be interesting to see if they revisit that in the future — as @kamil pointed out, these days we’re a lot more able to work in multiple places, so maybe the design decision they made early on is no longer the best one.
But the main point I wanted to make is that Omni aren’t trying to spite anyone by not adding it, nor are they just trying to save a bit of effort. You don’t get to be a software company this well regarded without making difficult trade-offs between elegance, simplicity, practicality and customisability. OmniFocus would be nowhere near as accessible to people (and thus nowhere near as popular) if it had ten times the number of settings and let you make it work however people wanted.
I think I specifically pointed out they are doing stuff, and the lack of new features in the Mac platform is probably due to resources on iOS and the Apple Watch. It’s definitely the case that some of us would find evolution of the Mac platform more valuable than the IOS and Apple Watch stuff.
I’d have to say… YUCK on having OmniFocus as flexible as an Adobe app.
When I open an Adobe app, I stare at it for 30 minutes, can’t figure out how to do anything, and close it. If OmniFocus were that complicated (er, “flexible”) I’d never, ever use it.
Good software makes choices. Good software guides users. Good software HELPS users. Only if software CANNOT do specific things is it an issue. I want more choices made for me, not fewer. I want to work, not fiddle. I want enough tools to get the job done, and no more.
When I open an Adobe app, I stare at it for 30 minutes, can’t figure out how to do anything, and close it. If OmniFocus were that complicated (er, “flexible”) I’d never, ever use it.
The regular version could be simple, and the Pro version could have optional features.
Some people, me including, get excited when they see so many options, buttons, simply fun. But I understand some people value simplicity.
Simple’s not always easy, not for everyone. Some people would see things as more complicated, where some would see the same thing as more options, more freedom.
Example: I created my workspace with any Adobe software I’m using (actually multiple workspaces), and based on the type of work I’m doing, I’m able to speed up the process in 2-5 hours/day, comparing if I’d be using the default settings.
Good software makes choices. Good software guides users. Good software HELPS users.
You could just turn off the option. I believe if someone is paying to use a software, it’s mostly because it helps.
Only if software CANNOT do specific things is it an issue. I want more choices made for me, not fewer.
I consider OmniFocus 2 the Snow Leopard or Mountain Lion update cycle.
We had Mac OS X Leopard. The next version was Mac OS X Snow Leopard.
We also had Mac OS X Lion and then Mac OS X Mountain Lion.
These updates were more refinements and tuneups to the previous Mac OS X release. OF2 would be a refinement of OF1. More significant updates would probably be coming in a future update.
Clean simplicity is not easy and many people that use task managers are often the type that like to tweak all sorts of things. Personally, I like Omni’s approach very much and find it has the power I need without the ability to customise everything endlessly.
