Re: [chandler-users] Re: Triage Sort

Ok, I'll add this to bug 6311. ...Bryan

Mimi Yin wrote:
> Moving this discussion over to the Design List.
> 
> Hi Bryan,
> 
> Thinking about it more, I agree that it would be confusing to have both 
> explicit ordering in the LATER section alongside automatic ordering 
> based on the Date column.
> 
> So explicit ordering would only be something you can do in the NOW 
> section, which would remain ordered by when items became NOW.
> 
> Mimi
> 
> On Oct 16, 2007, at 7:59 AM, Bryan Stearns wrote:
> 
>> We currently sort by a value you can see (the triage status color: now 
>> or later or done) as well as a value you can't (which, at the moment, 
>> is more or less "the time that the triage status color was last set").
>>
>> The intention behind this was always to support manual ordering by 
>> dragging items (it's bug 6311*, by the way): if you dropped an item 
>> between a "now" that was changed at 10AM yesterday, and one changed at 
>> 10:30AM yesterday, we'd pretend the dropped item was changed at, say, 
>> 10:15AM.
>>
>> We currently have a task to change the sort order of the Later and 
>> Done sections (bug 8939*): the new requirements there complicate 
>> support for manual dragging (you wanted nuanced? here it is: the old 
>> ordering only depended on what had happened to the item in the past, 
>> but the new ordering requirement for the Later section depends on 
>> values that the user can change -- so if the user changes a date on an 
>> item in Later, it might or might not move relative to other Later 
>> items. If the user expects the manual ordering to affect when the item 
>> pops to Now, they'll be disappointed and/or confused.)
>>
>> ...Bryan
>>
>>
>> * Manual ordering is this bug:
>>   https://bugzilla.osafoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6311
>>
>>   Changing the sort order in Later & Done is this bug:
>>   https://bugzilla.osafoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8939
>>
>>
>> Mimi Yin wrote:
>>> On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:12 PM, Andrew Tong wrote:
>>>> I can see the logic of the current approach, and I suspect it can be 
>>>> used productively IF we flip the trange status consciously with this 
>>>> in mind. However, I update triange status generally from top to 
>>>> bottom based on whatever the current sort order happens to be. From 
>>>> other discussions, you would know that since the current sort order 
>>>> is unlikely to be ideal so further flipping triange status is 
>>>> unlikely to result in any better order. e.g.:
>>>>
>>>>   super important event [today]    [later]
>>>>   important event       [tomorrow] [later]
>>> Yes, this is along the lines of how I've been thinking about 
>>> prioritizing items in the LATER section as well.
>>>>
>>>> Reviewing the list, I change the first item to "now", followed by 
>>>> changing the second item to [now] also. Since event dates are 
>>>> ignored in the sort ordering, the result:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   important event       [tomorrow] [now]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   super important event [today]    [now]
>>>>
>>>> To overcome this, one would have to counter-intuitively flip the 2nd 
>>>> "tomorrow" item first, then you flip the more important item.
>>>>
>>>> Again, an additional drag-and-move free form sort order would be ideal!
>>> Yes! I've run into this a number of times as well for both the NOW 
>>> and LATER sections. My understanding is that explicit ordering is 
>>> that this is quite difficult. But Bryan Stearns would have a more 
>>> nuanced perspective.
>> _______________________________________________
>> chandler-users mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-users
> 
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

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