[chandler-users] An answer to "In Chandler, nothing is ever overdue - Part 2 of 2"

[Mimi Yin]

Hi Allan,

I think the point I'm trying to make here is that if you don't have a  
very specific date in mind, then assigning any kind of timeframe is  
perhaps futile ;)

Still, I'm not opposed to people defining their own triage statuses  
and doing this kind of 'fuzzy timeframe' assignment (Next Week, This  
Month, In 3 months, Q1, Spring Semester, Summer, etc)... See bug for  
more details: https://bugzilla.osafoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11322

It's more a matter of what direction the app pushes people in, right  
out of the box. But eventually, we should be flexible enough to  
support people who do want to organize their items this way. Also,  
there is something appealing about starting out with just 3 states  
for status even if eventually, people find they need more.

Mimi


On Mar 17, 2008, at 6:22 PM, Allan Day wrote:

>>> This smaller, hopefully more manageable “LATER-No date assigned”  
>>> section acts as
>>> a reminder that there are deferred items that need to be reviewed  
>>> and re-evaluated
>>> on a regular basis because they’re not going to magically re- 
>>> appear in NOW on their own.
>
> I'm a little confused here, so excuse me if I get this wrong... :)
>
> Mimi, you wrote that you don't want to push 'users to assign dates'. I
> wholeheartedly agree! But doesn't the proposal you've made potentially
> do just that? It assumes that most of a users' items will have  
> dates. In
> a situation where you only have a small number of Triage Statuses,  
> dates
> become the only other way to organise items within a single  
> collection.
> (Correct me if I'm wrong!)






>