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

[Mimi Yin]

Hi William,

I think you have a legitimate concern about the Star. In the fullness  
of time, I hope Chandler will be able to accommodate a more flexible  
array of Item-Kinds: One that includes tasks and projects, directory  
kinds like contacts, resource kinds like documents, images,  
presentations, articles, research papers, etc... Both the underlying  
architecture and design are intended to scale out in this way. Users  
should be able to choose how many different kinds of data they need  
so that new users aren't overwhelmed with too much to digest and  
advanced users have the  flexibility they need to manage complex  
information sets.

I agree that a star is *not* particularly useful for assigning  
priority, though some people find it useful enough. As others have  
already articulated on this list, it is meant as a way to assign your  
own semantics to items. (The Task Kind by comparison was too specific  
to meet this need.) For me, it's a way to designate that a particular  
item has "heft", that it isn't a no-brainer task so-to-speak. I've  
seen others use it as a way to designate "Reference" items, stuff  
that is DONE, but contains important information that will probably  
need to be accessed again and again in the future. Depending on who  
you talk you, Chandler needs to support a different way to designate  
and define items. By being vague, the Star can almost be all things  
to all people. I say almost because for people who understood and had  
a use for the Task Kind, the Star is a downgrade, while for those who  
didn't understand or have a need for the Task Kind, it's an upgrade ;)

The strangeness of saying that you're sending someone a Starred Note  
is the reason why I originally felt we shouldn't refer to starred  
items as a kind of item, but instead, treat the Star as an adjective,  
the way Triage Status is a descriptor, not a noun. So I am  
sympathetic to your interpretation. But I can also see how if you've  
attached your own meaning to Star, treating it as a kind of item, as  
a noun like Message or Appointment makes a lot of sense too.

Post 1.0, I'm sure we will revisit this issue. For now, it's the  
simplest way to address competing user needs.

Mimi


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

> 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