Start Date but no Due Date

[iLiAS]

Many times I like to delay/postpone tasks for a later time ("I don't
want to be bothered with this for now.. I'll deal with it in 2 weeks").
I don't want it to appear in my todo list until then, but I don't want
to put it in the Someday/Maybe list (place) either--the task is not
"someday" as it will start on a specific date, and it is certainly not
a "maybe".

When I set the start date in MLO, however, MLO also sets the due date
the same as the start date. Also, if a task has a start date, MLO
*forces* it to have a due date. This is wrong. Just because a task
should start on a specific date, it doesn't mean that it should have a
due date associated with it.

What I really want here is to be able to set a Start Date, but no Due
Date (I would leave that at "None"). The Start and Due dates should not
be "tied" to one another in any way--they should exist, and be able to
be set, completely independently from one another (except for a logical
check where a due date cannot be earlier than a start date)

[Bob Pankratz]

Beware of absolutes.....

While it makes sense to have start dates without due dates, which is on
the list of enhancements...

It's not so clear what to do when both exist....

Here what we know:

0) Tasks without due dates but with start dates are needed.
1) Due dates need to be sacred; the only way to change a due date is to
Change it.
2) Recurrence should recurr Due Dates not Start Dates because humans
think in due dates and the GUI feels wrong if you recur start dates;
symantecally from a language standpoint it seems like start dates should
recurr. The program was changed to recurr start dates a while back by
community request, call it a failed experiment. It will be changed,
because in real world practice the majority of users don't like it the
way it is now; because iteraction with the GUI doesn't produce the
obvious expected outcomes.
3) If you have recurrence, you have to check if the due date is "in or
out" of the pattern. If the due date is out of pattern you have to warn
the user to make a correction; annoying but necessary. Auto correction
is sloppy at best.
4) Lead time complicate things. Leadtime = due - start. So you have to
define which are the locked attributes. If you are locking due dates;
then it seems to make sense to "lock" lead times as we. If that is the
case then if you move the due date then the start date has to move too
in order to preserve the lead time. In order to have free floating like
you are asking you'd have to float the leadtime or eliminate it.
Floating the lead seems to work ok on single instance tasks but a pain
in the arse on recurring tasks, becuase you defer a recuring instance
and poof the lead time is all fouled.... I've been playing with various
iterations of this and locking due date and lead time seems to have the
best balance.

[Simon Coles]

iLIAS,

I agree that having start dates with no due dates would be good.

In the meantime, if you don't want to put these deferred tasks into a
someday/maybe place or section of your outline, would the following be a
usable workaround?

* For each task you want to postpone, add subtask called 'begin task xyz?'
or similar
* Give the subtask a due date (0 lead time) for when you want to be reminded
of the real task
* When the subtask pops-up in your to-do list, you can either
a) check-it off if you want the main task to appear
b) reset the date for another x days time if you want to postpone it again

A bit of a cludge, I know, but it sort of gives you start dates without due
dates.

Simon

[David Rees]

I am now starting to think I could really use a "weekly" view. The lack of
weekly planning and visibility is really hurting my ability to feel
long-term organized (I felt the same way with LB).

Many projects have things due on a weekly basis, and by seeing things in a
weekly view you can see what is adding up for that week. In some ways it's a
light, week-level version of some of the stuff people have been talking
about with TimeTo and Above Beyond.

Actually, let's go one more step as long as I am brainstorming. We could
have a combined daily/weekly view. It would have seven day buckets (or just
the remaining days of this week) and then week buckets.

This would all work with the same grouping effect we have now.

And we could add drag/drop to move items between days/weeks. Especially if
combined with dual-pane support.

d

-----Original Message-----
From: myLifeO...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:myLifeO...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of iLiAS
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 8:43 AM
To: myLifeOrganized
Subject: [MLO] Start Date but no Due Date

[David Rees]

As we have discussed in the past, having Due Dates without Start Dates also
makes sense.

Really there seem to be four situations:

Start Date only - I won't start this task until this date or later
Due Date only - I want to complete this task by this date
Start and Due Date - A combination of the above
Due Date with Lead Time - This is due by a date and I need this much time to
complete it

We are grouping the last two into a single category, but that's probably
better than having to explain how they are different.

d

-----Original Message-----
From: myLifeO...@googlegroups.com

[Adam Lasnik]

David,

This has been one of the most difficult adjustments for me as well with MLO!  I'm so used to have definite 'cut-off' lists by day or week.

Right now, though, I almost dread looking at the todo list, because it seems practically neverending.  This is in contrast with the (admittedly much-less-feature-rich) Outlook tasks list, where I could whittle down my tasks for a given day one by one, and be rewarded at the end of the day with a day showing no more tasks to be done. :)

Regards,
Adam
--
VISIT ME: http://www.lasnik.net/ (writings, photos, music, and more)