Re: Who are tasks assigned to in Chandler?

Hi Mimi,

>> How about this:  If a message also has the task stamp, we - rename
>> To -> assigned-to, - rename From -> assigned-by,
> 
> Do you think this is necessary? Seems like if To --> Assigned to:,
> then From is sort of obvious. I've always felt there's something
> vaguely fascist about 'Report/Assigner for Tasks and Organizer for
> Events'.

I agree, the standard names for these field implies a structure that I
don't think matches most people's actual workflow for tasks (or events).
 Fascist is maybe a little strong...

So, exposing a From: field to me when I'm trying to assign a task just
doesn't make sense to me.  It screams email just as much as cc: or bcc:
to me.  But if we hide the field most of the time, I don't care what we
call it.

> What about Owner for Tasks? I think that's more egalitarian and
> faithful to the kind of work dynamics we're espousing. At OSAF we
> always talk about task owners, not assignees. Assignees implies
> hierarchy. But perhaps owner isn't universal enough.

I like Owner better than Assigned-to, too, but it might be needless
jargon to add to the existing load of Chandler-specific jargon.  Or
maybe not needless, labels set a tone, for sure.

> Maybe we can leave the From: field blank by default for newly created
> items and hide it unless the user fills something in?

I'm having trouble understanding what this means.  Do you mean, once we
have collapsible email fields, hide the From: field, except when
email-fields are expanded (or when an explicit From: has been set)?

Would we by default hide the send-as drop-down, too?  And does all this
apply to plain-ol' message-stamp-only items, or just to Task+Messages?

If I'm understanding all this right, it sounds good to me.

Sincerely,
Jeffrey
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design