@jknightsmith

It have been in our development plan and will be implemented soon. Please be patient.

Shall you need any other help or have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Thanks for your support on Doit.im.

Hi team
thanks for your great product. I'm also very interested by this feature. Didn't find a "+1" button so writting this message below all feature requests that I find interesting ;-)
Eric

@thewallfishgtd

We are just making a design for this feature and believe that it will soon come true. :) Please be patient.

BTW, we will also improve the Help Center in the future.

If there is anything else that we can help with, please feel free to let us know.

Thanks for your feedback.

great, thx !!

@thewallfishgtd

You're more than welcome.

Shall you need any other help or have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

@michelle1987
Thanks !
Do you have any idea of the release date of this feature very will explained there : http://help.doit.im/topics/545 ?
Doit is a really a nice and easy-to-use solution but a "Not Started" or "Upcoming" status for tasks is really something missing.

Thanks a lot for your feedback !

Thomas.

@thomasmasurel

Temporarily, we have no plan to add "NotStarted" or "Upcoming" status to Doit.im. :(

But we may consider it in the future.

Thanks for your support.

@michelle1987
Too bad...
So what is your recommendation when you create task in project for which you don't have any status yet ? They are not Next, not scheduled and have not been delegated...they are only there not to forget them.
Having this NotStarted status would be a very easy and very usefull solution to implement in the solution.

Thanks for your feedback.

Thomas.

@thomasmasurel

You may assign them to Someday, or add a tag, like "NotStarted" to them.

Now, no related plans, but we may consider it in the future.

Thanks for your great support.

Any timelines about this feature release?

Thanks in advance.

I agree totally with the basis for this request, but I think it needs to be taken just a little step further to be fully meaningful.

Some other apps make a distinction between "parallel" projects and "sequential" projects. What Doit currently has is the "parallel" project type only, where all tasks are possible to do in any order, anytime. And some apps offer the choice, as requested here, to declare projects as "sequential" and thereby have tasks become visible only one task at a time. This is a step in the right direction, but not really good enough. Usually there is more than just one single task that can be started immediately, which you would want to see on your Next list (or which would be relevant to see on the Waiting list or other list).

I therefore think a single, "universal", mixed project type is a much better start.

This "universal" (still very simple, but much more useful) project type could have an active "parallel" section, which can hold as many actions as you want (Next, Waiting etc) and an additional "sequential" section into which you move those tasks that are not relevant until a later stage. The tasks in the sequential section would then feed one by one into the "parallel" section whenever this gets empty.

This will allow the user to arrange the tasks sequentially as requested, while still being able to have more than just one single task currently active. And if the parallel section is the default position for new tasks, this solution would reduce the risk of inadvertently losing sight of new tasks that you create or move to the project - whereas if they are placed at the end of the sequential section they may be overlooked for too long.

@sellaro

Hello,

We are now developing it. Please be patient. You may also follow us on Blog, Facebook and Twitter so that you will get informed in time when there is anew version or a new feature released.

Blog: http://enblog.doit.im/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/imdoit
Twitter: https://twitter.com/doitim

Thanks for your support on Doit.im.

@folke, hmm i've seen you somewhere else. Totally agree

@michelle1987 how is this feature going? Is it close to being completed?

@Folke

I am feel so sorry that I don't quite understand what you are saying. Do you mean that tasks are grouped by Project in Next and only some (not all) of next actions belonging to a project are shown?

Have you ever seen any other app that has this feature already? If you have, could you recommend it to us? And then we will do a research on it.

Manually ordering will be supported in the future and now we are making a design for it. Please be patient.

Thanks for your feedback.

@michelle1987

I think I must have expressed myself poorly. I am sorry. I am not quite sure where I lost you, though, so I'll say it all again, but from a different angle:

Both this current thread, and the other above-referenced thread http://help.doit.im/topics/545, address the same issue, and you have already explained that a solution is being implemented, referred to by you as "task dependency" (excellent, very descriptive name). This sounds very promising. Doit has done many other things really well, and I am very optimistic. So perhaps we should simply wait and see what the new feature looks like, and then get back to you with comments.

But to summarize it all:

In both of these threads, and presumably in Doit's current development of task dependency, we are dealing with the fact that many of the tasks in a project are simply not relevant or possible to even think about until certain other tasks have been checked off as completed. We want to list all these tasks in our projects, but do not yet want to see them on our active lists (Waiting, Next).

1) Most important of all is that this can be managed smoothly somehow, without us users having to invent our own workarounds.

2) The simplest, but entirely manual, solution would be the one suggested in the other thread - that you manually mark those that cannot be done yet, and then manually activate them in the right order

3) An automatic one-task-at-a-time solution, as suggested in this thread, saves this manual work in those cases where it can be used (but in my opinion a one-by-one approach is often a too rigid).

4) A combined automatic-manual solution, as I suggested, would allow you to have your tasks delivered automatically one at a time, and would also allow you to have more than one task active when you have a need for this (which is often). The capability to have more than just one task active is, in my opinion, essential to the usefulness of an automated feature (otherwise I would personally prefer manual, despite all the manual work).

5) I prefer the default placement of new tasks within the project to be active in parallel, not hidden among subsequent tasks. This is to safeguard against human errors on my part. If I forget to move the new task to its correct position within the project, the the lesser evil is to have it show (erroneously) on the active list for which it is predestined (Next or Waiting), from which I can easily see and correct the error quickly, than risk having the new task inadvertently hidden within the project, where I will only notice the error during my next thorough review.

I can only say that for my part the suggestion in the old thread http://help.doit.im/topics/545 is spot on!

I end up having way too many "Next actions", and I want to use the Someday bucket to hold my Someday/Maybe items as suggested by David Allen, not as a bucket for all inactive or "Not started" project items as well, which I am partly doing now as a workaround.

I have suggested earlier somewhere that you have a look at how it is implemented in ThinkingRock. There they have a task status "Inactive" which you can set as default for all new actions created under at project. Their project list then higlights with a different color icon, a project which currently has no next action, and hence make it easy to quickly review and change status of the action you want to do next.

@NEODK - are you the same person as JDavidCarr in that thread?

Yes, I am with you 100%. There is a real need for this to be resolved. And as you say, these tasks are not Next tasks nor anything - yet.

Your solution there is fully functional and corresponds to the one I listed as #2 above. I would prefer my #4, which combines the best of both worlds, and which could be used simply by everybody, novice and pro, but otherwise I would much rather have your manual #2 solution than the too-rigid #3 solution.

@michelle1987 - you asked about other suppliers:

A. I think Omnifocus, Nirvanahq and maybe Getitdoneapp have the strictly one-at-a-time sequential project type originally requested in this thread. New tasks are place at the end by default.

B. Zendone has a enhanced version of this. It is fundamentally strictly sequential, BUT allows you to cluster sets of tasks as parallel. This mean when the project reaches that stage, all those tasks will become active at the same time, i.e. become visible on the Next list.

C. Tracks has a "complete" task dependency solution. You can put the tasks in whatever complicated sequencing arrangements that they may need to be done in real life. This is the most powerful type of task dependency.

The disadvantages are:

A. Real projects seldom are exactly one by one. I have chosen not to use this feature even when I have at it available. I have used a manual method (as @NEODK suggests).

A + B. New tasks are added at the end. This means if you miss the second step, positioning the task, you will might overlook it for a long time.

C. More difficult UI, I presume. I have never used it.

My suggestion to Doit is that you keep your current (parallel) project type, where new tasks are put by default just like today, but you add a special "section" to the project, to which the user can drag the not-yet tasks.

What we gain is this.

- very easy for everybody: everything would work exactly as today for those who do not bother

- no risk of missing a task if you forget to position it correctly, as it will be shown in the Next list immediately just like today, unless you drag it to the sequential (subsequent) section and position it there.

- only one universal project type: no need to confuse users with terms like "parallel" and "sequential". It is enough that they see a little section at the bottom of the project called "Subsequent actions". All those people who desperately need this functionality probably understand immediately.

This is also the top of my Features List for doit.im

It is actually the reason I moved to an alternative product about a year ago but - for reasons too long to go into - I have decided to give doit.im another try. I love everything else about the product but not being able to manage the Next list effectively is a big issue for me.

@Folke describes the scenario well, as does the original thread, so hopefully this is all now understood and included in the pending changes? Is there an estimated delivery timeframe for this? Based on other products' forums I am sure it will attract new users to doit.im if you can master this requirement...

@thealbs @NEODK @Folke

Hi guys,

We have a plan to implement it. :) And we will take your suggestion into account in the future development.

Thanks for all your support on Doit.im.

@michelle1987
Sounds good that you have a plan to implement it. You comment #8 made me worried about this!

@Folke
No I am not JDavidCarr, but I think he really nailed it in that old post. I completely follow you on the idea to allow for both the current "parallel" mode of action sequencing and the sequential alternative, but I am afraid the develpment team might get it wrong an implement something 3rd...

I think it would be a clever move from the DoIt team to elaborate at bit more on their plans for the future desiign in this area, in order for us all to feel confident they actually understand what we are looking for, and give use the opportunity to provide early feedback. I think this could really help drive this product from from a Top 5 GTD tool to really stand out as winner...:-)

@michelle1987

Thanks for the response but just to echo @NEODK comments with a request for some indicative timeline on this development. We promise not to hold the doit.im team to it or chastise in any way if the date slips slightly. It is just a very important update for so many of us, it would be comforting to know if its is likely to be this month? this year? first half of 2014? 2nd half of 2014?

Once you set our expectations we'l be a happy bunch and stop pushing for it !

Thanks again for engaging with us in this thread.

oh - I forgot to add...I would be very happy just to have the option of Dependent Tasks (i.e. a Sequential project with Next Items appearing when the previous one is completed - and the ability sort my tasks manually) as a first phase of this development stream.

Ideally I'm sure most people would like the ultimate flexibility of Parallel, Sequential and stand-alone projects but I have seen that working in OmniFocus and it can be confusing if not implemented with plenty of planning and forethought from a UI perspective. From a personal perspective I was always a little concerned that I was missing some 'hidden' tasks in OmniFocus as a result.

The option of marking tasks as dependent on others within the same Project would be an excellent interim position though.

I agree that the whole terminology of "parallel", "sequential" etc is best avoided completely. I know it causes confusion, and this is why I would advise against implementing two different project types with such names.

These tasks that we are talking about have no specific GTD term, but are those which in GTD are simply "left behind on the project sheet", not visible anywhere else (not in any other list than in the project itself). It is wise to create a name for them. They could be called "Dependent" or "Subsequent" or something similar.

I think the smartest, less confusing way to implement these would be as an unobtrusive section within the project, which would be easy to spot by those who know how to use it, but which would be simply ignored by others.

As for the time plan, and speeding it up as much as possible, I also agree that a phased approach seems wise.

1) I imagine one of the initial major challenges for the development team will be the "invisible" work of implementing the underlying basic distinction between Dependent (subsequent; currently inactive) and "Normal" (active). When this fundamental distinction has been established, this might be deliverable to us users as an entirely manual initial version, with just a "Dependent" section within the project (where you can move tasks back and forth entirely manually).

2) After that, I imagine there will be some remaining challenges to deal with. One will be to implement the automatic detection of the completion of those tasks in the project that preceded the first remaining Dependent task in line, and move that task into an active state. And for the user to be able to control this entire sequence it must be possible to drag (move) the tasks into the correct order. When these challenges have been resolved, this could be delivered to us users as a the final (flexible and automatic) version project, possibly the best of its kind :-)

...or, as a very simple fix and not too dissimilar to NirvanaHQ, you could offer options on how many Next items per Project should be shown in the Next listing (1,2,3 or better still, customisable per project).

It's all about removing the 'noise' of those things I don't want to see or think about until I've completed the ones above them.

I hope this makes sense to the team over at doit.im? If not, I'm happy to elaborate with some examples....

Is that simpler? In order to get that to work, wouldn't they both need to implement the manual sorting and the automatic activation first of all, and would still need to figure out how to "deactivate" the rest? But you could be right. (I guess it depends on how their data is structured at the moment.) Still, this would mean that users are confronted with the confusing option of choosing the right project type, wouldn't it?

@Folke @thealbs @NEODK

We will try to take all your thoughts into account in the future improvement and will also do our best to speed the pace of the new feature development. Please be patient.

BTW, we now introduce Doit.im groups, which help you easily interact with your friends. We hope you like it. :)
http://help.doit.im/group/

Thank you again for your feedback.