Although I first downloaded Things a couple of months ago, it wasn’t suitable then for what I wanted, so I didn’t use it after an initial brief experimentation period. A week or so ago, I became aware that recurring tasks had been implemented so I downloaded the latest version - and I really like it. (Somehow I just knew this would happen, after my hasty snap-decision purchase of OmniFocus!)
OmniFocus and I didn’t get on with each other, in the end. It was never a perfect fit and within a week or two, it just seemed like a load of hassle, so I gradually stopped using it. A partially used To Do management system is almost as bad as none at all
On the other hand, my week with Things has progressed with increasing enthusiasm. I’m even starting to see the point of tagging, which allows very useful custom views on my task lists.
There are four things I need which would make Things perfect for me:
~ dependencies between tasks
~ the addition of folder hierarchies in the binder area (to make visual sense of the huge list of projects and to allow subgroups to be collapsed out of the way)
~ the ability to send/update delegated tasks by email (automatically and manually) to Teammates
~ the ability to block-pause and block-resume recurring tasks, instead of having to handle them one by one.
Other than that, I am finding Things to be excellent. And aesthetically pleasing, as well.
Recently I came across a blurb on Things and its competition where Omnifocus was described as the Microsoft Word of GTD apps… I thought: “This is so true!” and was reminded of my own deep relief upon switching.
Just that I only want to see tasks if they are physically capable of being done. For example, suppose I can’t start Task B until I have finished Task A - I would like to set up a dependency such that Task B doesn’t appear as a Next activity until Task A has been marked as complete. The Next list can then become a list of things that I can do right now if the fancy takes me, without having to consider each item individually to see if I need to finish something else first.
This isn’t as simple as just having “next” activities properly ordered in a project, because sometimes dependencies are external to the project. To take an overly simplistic example, I can’t print off a draft in colour before I have bought a new colour cartridge for the printer, but the purchase of the cartridge isn’t in the same project as the production of the draft, because it is relevant to multiple projects. Slightly more realistically, suppose I need to check multiple sources (different projects, in any order) and get feedback from multiple reviewers (delegated tasks, in any order) before doing Task X - setting up dependencies to prevent Task X from appearing on my Next list until all the many prerequisites are completed would be handy.
Nor is it as complicated as the dependencies between tasks in project management systems. I don’t want to set up anything that might be considered as a foot-in-the-door-of-scheduling - just to limit the activities in my Next list to those which I am actually in a position to address.
For what it’s worth, I’ve messed with both Things and OmniFocus, and OmniFocus just works BETTER for me. The killer element? The easy hierarchical ordering of tasks. It’s the ability to on-the-fly break a task down into subtasks that all obey the same rules.
Also, I think the comparison to Word is kind of unfair. Word’s main sin is that it hurls EVERY SINGLE FEATURE at you in one undifferentiated mass. OmniFocus has many features, and a semi-rigid structure, so you end up using a lot of them. It sort of forces you to understand the underlying mechanics in order to use it effectively. So yes, there are a lot of tools, but you don’t HAVE to use all of them. For example, in mine, I NEVER use starting dates or “On Hold” status, but I’ve found the imposed structure actually a godsend. It’s one less thing for me to think about.
Things excels in its more free-wheeling approach. Put another way, the minimal state of Things is MUCH smaller than the minimal state of OmniFocus. The tradeoff is that you lose some of OF’s depth, in exchange for greater ability to pick and choose the aspects you want present in your individualized Things usage.
All that said, it comes down to the fact that OF jives better with my brain (maybe because I never quite grokked tagging – my life is too partitioned, so tags just end up being minimally more useful than folders). But I can ABSOLUTELY see how Things can work better for some hypothetical individual.
Oh, and one other thing? OF is done, and Things is not. I mean, you can’t even reorder things in the sidebar in Things by dragging. I don’t begrudge a smaller developer a longer cycle, but this kind of program needs to work seamlessly.
While I agree with everything else you said, it’s a little unfair to complain that Things isn’t “done”. It’s still in public beta. There was plenty in OF’s public beta that didn’t work, too.
Sure. Not-doneness isn’t a particularly bad thing. I don’t blame that at all. But if you need a task manager right now, and you don’t have the luxury to wait for Things to finish up, then that weighs HEAVILY in OF’s favor.
I think Things will eventually be totally great. Maybe not in the direction I need it to be great to make me switch, but great nonetheless. And there is a lot of value to having a program that works fully available now. Then again, if Things works ENOUGH for what you need it to do, then rock on.
Howard,
A more appropriate reaction to antonys army of thingies would be ..."Thats a bit OTT(over the top)."
To inflict what looks remarkably like a gang of my inlaws having a go at me, on to Scrivs crew of innocents, is a bit much. Hence taking the piss, or you cant be serious.
see: worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-tak2.htm
I don’t know what Antony has done, but he seems to have got up the nose of the authorities here … all his images and his avatar turn up blank no matter which browser I use, OmniWeb, Opera, the latest Safari …
Blocked by the Chinese government … there’s glory for you!
Mark
(Actually, to be more realistic, I guess all his image files are stored on flickr farm1 or farm2, as they are blocked.)
Here in Australia, “taking the piss” (usually used as “take the piss out of X”) basically means making fun of someone. But it has a subtlety to it. It is usually done almost as a satire, but generally shouldn’t come across in a mean way. If you take the piss out of X, X should be able to laugh at it too.
There is a very definite distinction between “taking the piss out of someone” and “putting shit on someone”, the latter usually being cheap and mean insults, and usually less clever.
