Do you put *multiple* tasks into single lines? (e.g. task1 ==> task2 ==> task3 ==> task4 etc.)

[J Smith]

Hi

Instead of using formal Dependencies in MLO, I have taken to putting multiple tasks into one line.

Personally I use this for:
A) Tasks that are *best* done consecutively immediately after each other
e.g."Pick up tap from hardware store ==> go to stationers for pen & paper ==> supermarket  ==> post letter on way home"

B) I also use this to write up things that MUST be done in that particular sequence but not necessarily immediately after each other:
e.g. "Install new locks ==> Get new keys cut ==> give new keys to Fred ==> Tell George Fred has new key"

Advantages:
- I find it VERY quick to enter
- It stops subsequently me accidentally changing with a hard-wired sequence that I have worked out
- It makes it visually obvious that there *IS* a connected sequence of task (rather than a random list that I am looking at)
- Visually it makes the Next Action leap out more (and slightly hides subsequent tasks)

Problem:
- If I want to create sub-tasks or add things that make the line become insanely long, then according to Pottster in this thread
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/mylifeorganized/break$20a$20line/mylifeorganized/c4M10RvGvzk/lUj_YfJZDNUJ
there is no way to break a line into two.

I am interested to know:
a) Whether any of you good people use MLO in this way?
b) However given the vast myriad of things of things that MLO lets you do, can it *really* be true that MLO with not let us do something as simple as break a line in two nor join two lines together?(!)
c) And if so, would anyone else here find it useful to be able to do this?

J

[Roman Romanik]

Hi,
I used this methods ages ago while I was trying to tame Outlook for GTD.
It had lots of shortcomings. i.e. checking off subtasks, controlling when each subtask was completed and so on.
I find "Complete Subtasks in Order" function of MLO more useful and flexible for these rigid chains of tasks.

[Stéph]

I do something very similar to what you do, John, because I find it easier to manage than a long list of little steps to complete an activity. My syntax for the task description is:
<Desired outcome> - <next step>

Examples might be "paint spare bedroom - buy paint", or "new spreadsheet tool - arrange planning meeting".

When I finish a step, I might note the action in the task note and I'll update the description to state the subsequent step.

GTD'ers will probably throw their hands up in horror at this, but it works for me because it keeps my notes together, on the steps taken to complete.

Stéphane

[Stéph]

[Dwight Arthur]

On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 5:53:48 AM UTC-4, J Smith wrote:

<...>Personally I use this for:

A) Tasks that are *best* done consecutively immediately after each other
e.g."Pick up tap from hardware store ==> go to stationers for pen & paper ==> supermarket  ==> post letter on way home"
B) I also use this to write up things that MUST be done in that particular sequence but not necessarily immediately after each other:

e.g. "Install new locks ==> Get new keys cut ==> give new keys to Fred ==> Tell George Fred has new key"<...>

Hi, John. I use this syntax where I have multiple steps that must be done as one. For example

Get Clippers>Get rope>prune and tie trees

If I get interrupted after getting the clippers and don't get back to this tilltomorrow, I will need to restart at the top. There is no possibility of partial completion. So I'm comfortable with making it a single task.In both of the examples you gave here is a possibility of getting interrupted in the middle and later (maybe much later) needing to pick up and finish. I would want separate tasks. I would still enter it quickly. For example

measure for blinds>order blinds>buy wall anchors>did blinds arrive yet?>install blinds

would get entered into the Rapid Task Entry window (with parse and multiple entry enabled) as

Install Blinds -p -o

    measure for blinds

    order blinds

    buy wall anchors

    did blinds arrive yet? @waiting

for readers less familiar with RTE I will mention that this creates a project with five subtasks and "complete tasks in order" turned on. If I mark tasks complete when I finish them, the next action will always be clear,After the last (waiting) task is completed, the project name (install blinds) becomes the next action. I believe that all of the advantages you mentioned apply, with the additional advantages that it's easy to track partial completion and resume after an interruption, it's easy to add a task to the middle when you need to, and you don't have to worry about splitting lines.

-Dwight 

[John Smith]

Hello

I want to re-open this topic.

After some months of using MLO, I am now in the habit of writing multiple tasks on one line - which I separate with " ==> ".

I normally use this for things that need doing a particular order... or sometimes it's just a way of inspiring me to START a project by defining something small to get started with.
I use CAPITALS for major projects (btw, is there really no way to get MLO to capitalise MLO-level "Project" names automatically?  I already get it to change colour...)

e.g. "HOUSE NOW CLEAN ==> clean bedroom ==> hoover stairs ==> bathroom (hoover+mirrors) ==> hoover hallway  ==> clear/hoover main room."

Now here's the why I like doing this:

a) I can see my first task "clean bedroom" automatically, AND

b) I'm not wasting vertical screen space with a long list of stuff which I'm not ready to process yet (i.e. I *know* it's there but I'm not interested in it right now) AND

c) If I do want to see the other tasks/sub-task, then all I need to do is just hover with my mouse and all the hidden text appears with a simple mouse-over.

d) Then, as soon as I have completed something (quite possibly not in the rigid order I had previous suggested to myself !) it's simply a matter of clicking on the line at the relevant spot and hitting the delete key a few times. (or of in doubt anywhere on the line in question hit F2)

This stricks me as entirely brilliant !
To re-cap in this way:

i) I can see what I need to do next (usually the first one OR TWO are in fact visible...)

ii) The view is extremely compact - allowing multiple projects to be visible on my screen at once

iii) It's trivial to see ALL the tasks within any project at once (not just the first one - as some MLO reports do... if you can remember how to set them up... plus set up hotkeys to get at them etc etc...  All very fiddly in my experience!)

In fact to be completely honest I'm not even using the "Project" function at all ! I may be missing something but it doesnt bring any value to me at present.

What I am using however is indentations - and I am doing so a lot! I use it to indicate sub-tasks of tasks. You see for me it's quite rare that my mind naturally even *thinks* in terms of "Projects" (i.e. GTD theory not withstanding, things have to be genuinely quite large projects before I naturally want to think about them in that way!).

There is a further benefit which is more subtle... which is being a very visual kinda guy I find it helfpul to visually distinguish one project from another. [ASIDE: One of the most productive people I know still uses pen and paper. Lots of written lists. She like the visual side - the shapes of the lists & text etc.]

i.e. When you write on paper this happens automatically of course, but digitally all the shapes & mental photos of everything are necessarily leaping around as you edit. So I like to create shapes using indentations and colours etc.  So now, in this way when I think of my "Clean house" project in my minds eye I see a list of stuff all on one line. I can see visually that these items are all tightly bound to each other. And also I recognise it visually when I browse past it WITHOUT READING it!  Weird, I concede but true.

Now here's downside:
a) Ticking off is less easy.  But I personally don't want to see what I've ticked off, nope not ever again - pure clutter! So dont care about that. In some instances this can psychologically slightly help me try to do all the tasks at once rather then feel good about half completed tasks. 

b) Changing order of tasks is less easy. Yes that can be a problem - but only sometimes...
[And yes, for this reason I do sometimes wish to convert horizontal into vertical lists - see below]

Ultimately it's a trade-off. You see, it slightly subtle but I like compact views and to me, and to me the ability to see on any given row... all my tasks within that project ... JUST with a simply mouse over, rather than with 3 actions is worth it.
These three task being:
1. select the row
2. cursor right [to see all the hidden rows]
3. cursor left [to hid all the hidden rows again]

Now, the big problem for me is that whenever I change my mind and I want to convert a long row into a vertical list of shorter tasks (i.e. multiple rows), MLO makes this a nightmare! [WHY SO HARD!!]

I sometimes use the Control/D key and edit but that is pretty painful and on balance I regard this as a serious omission by MLO.

To get clear, what MLO needs to do is for any given row: allow you to edit the text; get your cursor at the place you require; and hit [whatever hotkeys] and thereby get the row to divide i.e. "break" the line into two a that point. This would allow the user to go through a long line breaking it into a number of short lines very quickly & easily.
Just like editing text normally in fact!

And it would also be helpful to me to be able to do the reverse.i.e. To get to the end of a row's text and when I hit Delete, then the row below gets "sucked up" to join the current row. i.e. it the text is appended, and any child tasks come with it.

Btw, don't get me wrong I do spend most of my life using cursors & hotkeys, rather than mouse. But over time subtle ergomic differences emerge. To me using the arrow keys to think about things feels 'more clunky' and moreover selecting text then causes a change of colour (white text on pale-ish blue for me - which is fractionally harder to read as well - yes it can be changed [I just have!] but remember most users won't bother...)

SUGGESTION:
I suggest that a mouse-over on text should 'pop' not just the longer/hitten part of the text like it does at present, but also should pop all hidden the subtasks below that task (I suggest probably only just showing the one level below it...) i.e. I am requesting that a mouseover on a task's name field should in effect cause a popup that is rather like hitting the little green sideways triangle on and off (when you mouse-off) at the start of a row.

I concede that some people may well find this a bit disruptive because as your mouse moves around the screen, too much might then be moving... however remember I'm NOT asking for all the tasks below it on the screen to be actually moved down the screen (as happens when you do a real clicking of little green triangle (or arrow right/left), instead I'm asking for the texts top "pop-up" in a temporary popup window 'floating' above the text below it. And that only when you click on text in this popup because you want to edit it, only then should you be taken into the formal edit mode - at the place in the text where you clicked of course - and only then should all the rows below it moved down.

 Btw, there is one very slightly annoying thing about the (in many ways brilliant) MLO interface, and that is that *during* the mouseover that pops up when the task decription is longer than the space visible in the row, if without clicking on the text, you try to move the mouse over to the right, to the place in the text where  you want to edit... the pop-up immediately disappears as soon as you go too far to the right ! 
(i.e. it disappears the instant that you go beyond the area of the text box below it). Whereas what I want to do is: When I see a popup showing longer lines, if as I move the mouse to the right I do manage to keep my mouse over that popup, I want the pop instead of disappearing to remain visible on the screen if I left-click it I want to be taken to start editing the text at that exact place in the text.

i.e. It's counter-intuitive to be shown some text which you cant just click on and edit at that place.


BTW, I do also find it annoying that if I click on the area of the text field where it does not be full enough of text at that point, (i.e. if you left-click at the text but miss the actual text), then the editing window fails to open up like it does if you do manage to hit any actual text. So I find myself hitting F2 a lot rather than just left-clicking on what I want to edit.

Enough

J

[Elizabeth Lindsay]

That is an interesting approach.  I personally would find it cumbersome to keep editing the same item, especially to insert an unplanned (but now identified) task in the middle of the list.  

Instead, I use the vertical approach, tag the project/folder as complete in order, and use a view of only active items so only the next action is shown (not taking up too much room).  

If I'm feeling I need to focus on that project and I need to see the whole list, I change the view and zoom in to just that project.

I find keeping sub-tasks separate from each other allows me the full flexibility of adding dependencies.  For example, maybe it is mostly linear, but there are a few where I can pick and choose the order in the middle, but the last few tasks can't be done until all the middle ones are done.

Good luck!

[Dwight Arthur]

Hi, Elizabeth. My approach is very similar to what you have described. Comparing your approach with John's, it seems to me that both approaches achieve largely the same results - easily sets up multiple streams of tasks with linear dependency (ie tasks must be done in order), allows completed tasks to be removed from the active listing, allows you to execute tasks out of order if you want, easy to see the next task, easy to get a view of just the next task in each series with no extra lines for tasks that aren't immediately actionable, but easy to get a view of those other pending (future) tasks. I love the fact that MLO supports both of these approaches and that everyone canselectthe approach that most comfortable, or invent a new one.

Trading off between these two approaches, I find that John's approach has one significant advantage: from a view that shows next actions for several different streams, you can view the hidden future tasks of any stream by just hovering the (mouse) pointer over the relevant line in the view. By contrast, the approach you described would require that the tab containing the next actions view would have synchronized task selection with the first tab, then you would doubleclick the relevant line in the view to switch to an  all-tasks view showing the line and its neighbors, then double-click again to switch back. While managable, this is definitely more complex that John's process.

Offsetting this advantage are several disadvantages to my way of thinking, including a much greater amount of editing required whenever a subtask is completed, loss of nonlinear dependencies (eg two tasks that run in parallel; also one task that can start whenever both predecessor tasks (running in parallel) have completed. Also loss of any history of completed subtasks and when each one was completed.
-Dwight

MLO Betazoid on Windows, Cloud and Android SGN2

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MyLifeOrganized" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mylifeorganiz...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to mylifeo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mylifeorganized.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mylifeorganized/b60ce229-ee39-432e-b70f-1c8eb5a1c3df%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[bird...@gmail.com]

I use a MindMap along with MLO to set up tasks in a rigid sequence. 

I've tried to be an MLO purist, but there's a point where, in my work, things get too complicated, with too many contingencies and scenarios to build...so that's when I turn to the Mindmap in order to see big picture granularly.

I've tried to be a MindMap purist (iMindQ is what I use), but it's overkill for simple to-do lists and projects. 

I mention this because doing the horizontal chain is insanely easy using a Mindmap. But it gives you the flexibility to make it more complex if you need to.  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mylifeorganized/55D93A33.6050104%40dwightarthur.us.

[John Smith]

@Elizabeth

Yes I do use both systems. But particularly for very simple things visibility is more important than tickoff & sort order change.

e.g. I might just bash in "Mow lawn ==> phone sister ==> do ironing" 

Actually in short titles editing is pretty trivial: Lift click where you want and hit delete X times!
Like I say, longer titles are (for no good reason) much more of a pain.

@Dwight 

Yes as usual you nailed it! It's the hovering that is so much faster than clunky multiple key strokes.

What would be really cool would be a mouse-over view that allowed you to drag and drop the items along a horizontal line. The line should wrap if it got too long.

General comment

Gads! It's so tempting to write one own system... the ergonomic fine issues are crucial. No wonder that there are so many systems out there. The mystery is why their usability is so rubbish. 

@MajorBillion
I am fairly fluent with the mindmap from MindJet called MindManager (which is rather expensive, rather bloated) and used it a lot before using MLO. 

How does iMindQ compare - did you try it?

I found it irritating for really large lists of stuff particularly moving from large project to large project is messy on the screen. 
Also just seeing the Next task (or two) is effectively impossible. 

Interestingly I also found that I hated the strict hierarchy that it forces you put your thinking in.

[J Smith]

P.S. Does iMindQ force everything to be in a strict hierarchy?

[bird...@gmail.com]

Hi John:

To answer your question about strict hierarchy, iMindQ is set up for project management and ToDo lists, but I would find it cumbersome because within one Mindmap, there is only one central starting point. So, if I interpret your question correctly, the answer is "yes."

That is why can't be a iMindQ or MLO purist -- for now at least. 

But with most big projects I do in MLO, I come to a point where there are many interelationships and scenarios. MLO becomes abstract and convoluted. Everything is suddenly crystal clear when I envision it in iMindQ.

Eddie 

[John Smith]

Interesting, Eddie

Yes, for more complex projects there is definitely a role for mindmapping, because it allows you to see all the different areas of a project on one screen in 2D rather than in effect in 1D (or 1.5D if you include indentation!).
For one thing this let's you see what parts of the project you may not have been paying enough attention to.

HOWEVER for me it  mindmapping didnt work well for actual task management lists of such projects. I think it was just rather hard to see things like Next Task (nor next 2 or 3 tasks) within all my projects on a single screen.  Somehow with larger projects and too many tasks (say over 100 or so) the whole thing starts to melt down!
Possibly there is something clever one could do with filters in MindManager but I never discovered it!

Regarding hierachies yes, being forced to start in a central point is exactly what I meant.

What sounds brilliant on paper is https://www.thebrain.com. There is no central point at all and you just feed in the relationship and a sort of web / network / graph builds up. In many ways this is very much how the human mind works... in theory.

However personally I absolutely loathed it in practice. The reason is that I,  like many people I guess, actually work in a series of mental pictures. And with TheBrain, every time you add something new, the whole damned thing wobbles & spins around all over the place, and the last photography your brain took is suddenly upside down/inside out/ all over the place. Absolute nightmare!

Interestingly enough part of the reason I *do* quite like Mindjet's MindManager mindmapping tool is because as you add new things it only moves things around when it more or less has to. i.e. Things by default snap into intelligent positions, but without being in your face about it. And when it all moves around it still pretty much looks like the previous layout.

[By analogy, for anyone how has worked with HTML you will appreciate how useful it is to be able to apply a tool to tidy out the code when required - correct formatting & indenting etc - and yet it's useful to be able stop the software from messing with your layouts unnecessarily. i.e. Most of the time we want the new version to look as much as possible like the old version so that we can find our way around! MindManager is quite good like that]

I'd be interested to hear how you get on with TheBrain.

And please do let me know iof you think iMindQ is better than MindManager. (I have invested too much money into MindManager already but I see no long term future with them mainly because they are WAY too expensive for the non-corporates SMEs like moi... so I am on the looking for new a new tool of comparable power and sophistication.)

J

[bird...@gmail.com]

The Brain, for all the hype and smooth graphics is a disaster. I could rant all day about it. In the last version I used, I think in 2013 -- you could not change the order of topics and you couldn't see the full map, unless you totally turned offf all snap-to structure. Then it becomes chaos. 

I've complained to them about this. They claim to be the most advanced Mindmap out there, but in reality...its crude and inflexible. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MyLifeOrganized" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mylifeorganiz...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to mylifeo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mylifeorganized.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/mylifeorganized/8929009b-5e8f-4094-b02a-179b4962866d%40googlegroups.com.

[J Smith]

Yes without any user control of layout TheBrain is absolutely hopeless IMO.

Obvious questions: 

- How do you get data between iMindQ and MLO (or dont you) ?

- Are there any plugins for MLO that let you do mindmaps with MLO data?

J

[Stephen Jones]

Just my thoughts,

I have used MLO, Mind Manager and The Brain extensively for probably a decade now. I also used iMindMap for a while and I use evernote for filing.

There is no one tool that does it all.

MLO is a great to do list - been my constant companion since I gave up my Palm Pilot years ago (I used to use Life Balance on the Palm which had a number of similar features if anyone remembers that)

I use mind manager for planning, writing, projects etc. The biggest advantage is that it exports really well. If I use it to write a report, I can export to a saved word template with a few clicks and turn my mind map into a great document. I found iMindMap is not so good in this area. If planning a project, Mind Manager is good to brainstorm and get all the actions in the right order and dependencies. From there it can be put straight into MLO using MLO's import. If you drop down the file types, you will see Mind Manager on the list. The weakness for me with Mind Manager was that I could not get it to work with my Samsung Tablet. I fixed that with a Surface Pro 3 and now have the full version with my all the time.

I used the brain for many years as my knowledgebase. It was extensive and I was able to link all areas of my life together. Capturing information, organising it and finding your way around on the screen is great, but you have already alluded to some of its shortcomings. For me, no ability to turn anything into a report ended it for me. I think the concept is great but there are too many shortcomings in use.

I have always used evernote. Traditionally it was my paperless filing cabinet. Now it is also my knowledgebase and has taken over from the Brain. I do use note links in evernote but it is not as easy as linking thoughts in the brain.

Last year I made a decision to simplify. I was using too many programs, trying to keep them in sync across multiple computers, phone and tablet. So I bought the surface pro 3 to keep everything together and portable, and also reduced the different software. Now I still use MLO as I did, I use mind manager for more complex planning and writing, and absolutely everything goes into evernote. If I have a mind map, it is stored in evernote, resources for projects, word documents as well as all my personal and work filing is also in there. I had to make some compromises, such as the Windows version of evernote is missing some features I loved in Android on my Samsung, but I am enjoying the simplicity.

Regards

Stephen J

[bird...@gmail.com]

​Hi:

That's the beauty of it all. I just copy and paste from MLO into iMindQ. The caveat is that since MLO does not have a multi-branch structure, you kinda have to copy and paste one level of at a time. But, you see that's not an issue for me because I normally get to a point in my MLO outlines where I know...Hmm -- it's time time to switch this project over to iMindQ. So then I copy and paste beginnings of my Mindmap from MLO to iMindq and then build from there.

​As for plug-ins, I thought I was a genius when I tried the following:

1) Export to MindManager

2) Open using FreeMind

3) Open FreeMind file using iMindQ.

But unfortunately, the export to Mindmanager didn't even work.

Let me know if you have any success with this!

Eddie