[Design] Re: [chandler-users] Re: Triage Sort

[Mimi Yin]

Moving this discussion over to the Design List.

Hi Bryan,

Thinking about it more, I agree that it would be confusing to have  
both explicit ordering in the LATER section alongside automatic  
ordering based on the Date column.

So explicit ordering would only be something you can do in the NOW  
section, which would remain ordered by when items became NOW.

Mimi

On Oct 16, 2007, at 7:59 AM, Bryan Stearns wrote:

> We currently sort by a value you can see (the triage status color:  
> now or later or done) as well as a value you can't (which, at the  
> moment, is more or less "the time that the triage status color was  
> last set").
>
> The intention behind this was always to support manual ordering by  
> dragging items (it's bug 6311*, by the way): if you dropped an item  
> between a "now" that was changed at 10AM yesterday, and one changed  
> at 10:30AM yesterday, we'd pretend the dropped item was changed at,  
> say, 10:15AM.
>
> We currently have a task to change the sort order of the Later and  
> Done sections (bug 8939*): the new requirements there complicate  
> support for manual dragging (you wanted nuanced? here it is: the  
> old ordering only depended on what had happened to the item in the  
> past, but the new ordering requirement for the Later section  
> depends on values that the user can change -- so if the user  
> changes a date on an item in Later, it might or might not move  
> relative to other Later items. If the user expects the manual  
> ordering to affect when the item pops to Now, they'll be  
> disappointed and/or confused.)
>
> ...Bryan
>
>
> * Manual ordering is this bug:
>   https://bugzilla.osafoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6311
>
>   Changing the sort order in Later & Done is this bug:
>   https://bugzilla.osafoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8939
>
>
> Mimi Yin wrote:
>> On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:12 PM, Andrew Tong wrote:
>>> I can see the logic of the current approach, and I suspect it can  
>>> be used productively IF we flip the trange status consciously  
>>> with this in mind. However, I update triange status generally  
>>> from top to bottom based on whatever the current sort order  
>>> happens to be. From other discussions, you would know that since  
>>> the current sort order is unlikely to be ideal so further  
>>> flipping triange status is unlikely to result in any better  
>>> order. e.g.:
>>>
>>>   super important event [today]    [later]
>>>   important event       [tomorrow] [later]
>> Yes, this is along the lines of how I've been thinking about  
>> prioritizing items in the LATER section as well.
>>>
>>> Reviewing the list, I change the first item to "now", followed by  
>>> changing the second item to [now] also. Since event dates are  
>>> ignored in the sort ordering, the result:
>>>
>>>
>>>   important event       [tomorrow] [now]
>>>
>>>
>>>   super important event [today]    [now]
>>>
>>> To overcome this, one would have to counter-intuitively flip the  
>>> 2nd "tomorrow" item first, then you flip the more important item.
>>>
>>> Again, an additional drag-and-move free form sort order would be  
>>> ideal!
>> Yes! I've run into this a number of times as well for both the NOW  
>> and LATER sections. My understanding is that explicit ordering is  
>> that this is quite difficult. But Bryan Stearns would have a more  
>> nuanced perspective.
> _______________________________________________
> chandler-users mailing list
> chandler-users at osafoundation.org
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-users