[chandler-users] Why the strange term "star" verses a known one "task"

[Sheila Mooney]

William,

Thanks for your feedback. We certainly understand that there are  
people out there that find the task stamp useful and it's an integral  
part of their workflow. They understand what a task is. However we  
found that there are also users who don't do a lot of gtd/task  
management and they sometimes feel that everything is a task or were  
confused by the task stamp. In the fullness of time, we intend to  
satisfy the needs of everyone and you will be able to install and  
customize your own configuration ie: a gtd configuration of Chandler.  
In the short-term we removed the stamp to eliminate some confusion for  
the second group.

Cheers,
Sheila



On Apr 30, 2008, at 1:19 PM, William K. Volkman wrote:

> Hello Sheila,
> On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 11:38, Sheila Mooney wrote:
>> Mimi wrote up a blog post a while back that explains in more detail
>> why we are using the "star" term.
>>
>> http://blog.chandlerproject.org/2008/02/14/what-makes-a-task-a-task/
>
> Thank you for the pointer, when I get a chance I'll review it.
> I'm used to looking at mailing lists for discussions of things, I'll
> have to come into the current decade.
>
>> Through user feedback, we found that people just weren't using the
>> task stamp or they have a hard time figuring out when to use it.
>
> Perhaps not enough real-life critical task list usage up until now.
>
>> Instead, we are basically making everything in Chandler a task by
>> default since it's sometimes hard to distinguish when something
>> evolves from a pure note, idea etc to a specific task.
>
> I'm sorry but those distinctions are critical factors for me and IMHO
> one of the core efficiencies of GTD, one of my big frustrations
> currently is where to put the "information only" stuff.
>
>> As you
>> indicated, star is intended to be used to flag something important,
>> critical etc - you could star and event for example.
>
> I'll re-iterate, star is a very very very poor "flag" for something
> important, given that meaning 250 of the 300 items that are in my
> current list have the star flag associated.  Without a priority  
> there is
> very little point.  I can see a star being rarely used for family type
> of appointments, in twelve or so consultant and management business
> scenarios that I've been in it is useless (i.e. there are 12 "Gold"
> clients, thus all important and 70% of my tasks are for them, I need  
> the
> capability of designating "how" or "level" of importance, some thing
> that can be set and then later changed).  Also the elimination of task
> is a movement away from my understanding/usage of GTD.
>
> And I'll try one more time; "star" is a strange term, yes a meaning  
> can
> be invented however if I say I'm sending you a "star" depending on  
> your
> elementary schooling you may think I'm giving you a pat on the back.
> If I say I'm sending you a "task", "note", "appointment", "phone call"
> those all have an interpretation that people understand.  The usage of
> "star" is a modifier, not an object.  IMHO to have blurred that
> distinction causes more confusion and provides no benefit.
>
> Thank you,
> William.
>
> _______________________________________________
> chandler-users mailing list
> chandler-users at osafoundation.org
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-users