[chandler-users] Tasks with Start/End <--> Chandler Starred Events
carl.lemp at snet.net
Tue May 20 04:47:02 PDT 2008
I agree with Andre, Kieth, and William: In my case, the switch from task to star only added a mental translation for me to convert it back to a task every time I look at the screen (since, for me, star = priority/importance and check=task). Leaving the task in place and adding the star would have added to the flexibility of the system since, as others have pointed out, you could have a starred task or a starred event. Replacing the task with the star just made the same capabilities less intuitive for me.
----- Original Message ----
From: Andre Mueninghoff <andre_mueninghoff at fastmail.fm>
To: Chandler users <chandler-users at osafoundation.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 6:26:04 AM
Subject: Re: [chandler-users] Tasks with Start/End <--> Chandler Starred Events
See comments inline.
William K Volkman wrote:
> Hello Jeffrey,
> Chandler "invented" the starred event, apparently due to confusion about
> tasks and by doing so has (to my mind) weakened it's usability.
Agree. New clever workarounds (as mentioned by Keith Winsor) must be
added to accommodate the change.
> On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 16:54 -0700, Jeffrey Harris wrote:
>> They all switched to just putting
>> their tasks as long all-day events, because they found they really only
>> wanted to look at one screen, and the calendar was it for them.
> This is the type of person that I alluded to when I said the user
> demographic is currently improperly biased. These are the set of people
> which I would observe (non pejoratively) are not busy enough to be
> really representative, given a paper calendar their needs could probably
> be met.
>> Personally, I'm more worried about people being confused that something
>> they created in their Chandler calendar disappears from their Lightning
>> calendar, I'm less worried about people finding something disappearing
>> from their Lightning task list. But I don't really know.
> And I am horrified that something might vanish from my task list, the
> calendar can track things like meetings, appointments, trips, and
> conferences however handling the 20 to 30 requests for information as
> well as the research items that I deal with on a daily bases are
> critical to be kept track of. When a financial institution makes a
> request for authorization I have only a few days to respond and putting
> 30 of these on a calendar is not practical.
No PIM will satisfy all PIM users. For whom is the Chandler 1.0 PIM
being targeted, users who have only casually or never before used PIMs,
or users who became interested in Chandler specifically because it was,
in part, a PIM?
I can understand a motivation to avoid creating a power tool that too
few understand and will use (think the famous or infamous Lotus Agenda,
depending on your point of view). It seems to me though that the
overwhelming feedback about starred items is that the change is a
"retrograde" step, but maybe I've missed the many cheers for starred
items somewhere. Anyone know?
chandler-users mailing list
chandler-users at osafoundation.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the chandler-users