Web Version and more Integration Please

There is a sacrifice in going as a web app.

Web apps don’t have any way to use operating system specific features. In a web version of OmniFocus, you will lose the quick entry shortcut in Mac OS X, the share button in iOS, the clipping shortcut in Mac OS X, and the ability to integrate with your calendar (unless we all switch to google calendar), and AppleScript in Mac OS X. Those are just few of the things you will lose in a web app version.

Lot of people use OF without Mac.
Some of them - even without iPad, only with iPhone.
So, Web version (even not as powerful as the desktop one) will be very very very welcome.

I never tried this but maybe Spootnik is an alternative to access your OmniFocus data. They claim to be able to do OmniFocus in a web browser.

www.spootnik.net

But if OmniFocus changes the data format, things might get screwy until Spootnik updates to meet compatibility.

For what it’s worth, we think spootnik might be dead. Basecamp (the tool it was designed to integrate OmniFocus with) has changed a lot since we’ve seen activity from Spootnik.

Happy to be proven wrong though!

I’ve used spootnik in the past but switched back to omni sync service as its lack of functionality does not justify the cost. What dismays me is why Omini cannot expand on the sync service they provide to allow a cut down web access. I feel sure this would win more users who (like me) love Omnifocus but are forced into a Windows environment at work. Omnifocus has such a well thought out UI it is a pity it does not seem to want to reach out to the Windoze majority. I’m convinced many would make the jump given a web based life line.

Remember that Omni Sync Server, just like any other server that OmniFocus syncs with, is just an Apache WebDAV server; there’s no actual OmniFocus client on it. The only “special” part of OSS is the account management part.

That’s not to say we won’t write a web client at some point, but it is not a matter of expanding The Sync Server; it would be a new project.

1 Like

Thanks Dave. I take your point and thanks for the rapid response. I now have all fingers and toes crossed for a “new project”. It wouldn’t matter so much if Omnifocus wasn’t so much ahead of the competition 😀

1 Like

Everyone has a different level for how much a function will cost. The question will be “how much would it cost to have web access?”

If a user never bought the iOS or Mac app and uses it exclusively on the web, what would the cost be to maintain it and to sustain it for future development. This will have to be a web-based subscription model.

1 Like

Hi wilsonng. Good points well made. I for one would be happy to subscribe to an omni web service if the functionality justified it. Namely, perspectives create via the Mac or iOS, support for notes and hiding future actions. Meanwhile I’ll mange with my iPad.

I take it all back; I simply and humbly request the immediate arrival of proper tagging/multiple contexts. It’s been promised but seems nowhere in sight yet.

3 posts were split to a new topic: Request for Comment on 2016 Road Map

I’ve moved some replies from this topic that didn’t have anything to do with a web app or Integration to a new topic.

I actually think that we are among the most communicative of developers our size. With regards to future features, we share what we can, but we always recommend that you make a decision based on what is available right now. In large part this is our because plans change based on changes in the platforms that we develop for and Apple’s own decisions about these platforms. OmniFocus 1.x had a basic web interface (hosted by the app itself, not a service), and then iPhone OS 2 came out and we could write OmniFocus for iPhone and that seemed much less important. Similarly we postponed Mac and iPhone development by over a year when the iPad was released. These are decisions we felt we had to make for our own best interest (after all, our main goal is to sustain Omni itself), but customers who had no interest in the iOS platform were probably disappointed.

2 Likes

The Omnifolk do say something. Admittedly, it’s hard to keep track of all the sources of information.

Here’s an interesting look at some very interesting plans for the future:

Take a good look at Ken Case’ tweet linked to in the posting by ediventurin.

Hi @mpw. That post was originally here and it is exactly what @dave says above he has moved to another topic ;-)

Oh. Never mind. :-)

Maybe we could crowd fund a windows/web OmniFocus client and ship a bus load of developers and coffee to Seattle ;-)

I hate to say it that I keep a copy of OF on my systems for old time sake to see if it will come up with UI changes that is as easy to use as ToDo or Things3. The interface looks old and outdated compared to either at this point in time. I LOVE OF2 and want to use it. However the amount of time I waste dealing with the interface makes it a non-started at this point in time.

What looks old and outdated is a matter of taste, I guess – I prefer the functional design of Omnifocus to the design of the other applications. But what is it that makes you waste time in dealing with the interface? If it is the lack of multiple tags or manual ordering of tasks in perspectives, those features could be expected later this year.

1 Like

That is true it is a matter of taste. An example would be a repeating project or checklist which in Things and ToDo can be performs with ease letting you know how many more steps you have left in the checklist and once the number of steps in the checklist reach zero your can easily complete the checklist. The closest thing there is is simply a project. Which breaks up each of the steps into a separate task and indicates that in the badges. I realize that if I was going to run strickly as GTD this would be proper. However GTD can be combined with other forms of productivity which I believe is sometimes more useful than with GTD alone. It appears that Things3 and ToDo-Cloud have allowed for this.

Another example would be the Forecast views in OF. They require addition time to filter things in order to get the things you want for today unless you want to set a due date, or one by one flag the tasks you desire. That or come up with a new perspective that hopefully has used the correct contexts in order to get the proper items to come up in the perspective. The idea is to get to the answer with the minimum amount of fuss. I spend more time manipulating OF to retrieve the answers I’m looking for than I have with the trial versions of Things3 or Todo Cloud.

The checklists in Things are in fact an indication of one of Things’ limitations – the lack of true hierarchies – but they are very nicely presented and easily handled. I like them too.

The forecast view in OF will get better with multiple tags and manual sorting later this year. It will be interesting to see how good it will be. At least it should be possible to build a personal forecast view that works the way we want (like in Things, that is).

1 Like