@Folke
Hi,
Q: 1) On the night before Dec 22, they should have pre-initialized all user's new manual sorting orders to coincide with the previous priority sorting......
A: It is our fault. We should make the order be the same as before. For the project list,we have offered a tool for sorted alphabetically.
Q: 2) Even if you have manual sorting, which is indeed a very powerful and useful feature, which we all should appreciate, there must be an intelligent DEFAULT principle in place for where new tasks are initially placed.
A: Now if the list support manual sort,the items are sorted by position( a mark for sorting) which is for this feature. If you need the default principle,our developers need do a research on it if we can make it.
Q: Since priority sorting was so very popular (and I liked it very much, too) I suggest that tasks should be initially placed by priority.
A: Your suggestion seems nice but our developers may have difficulty in developing it in actual fact.
Shall you need any help or have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me back.
Best regards,
Doit.im Team
—————————————
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/imdoit
Twitter: https://twitter.com/doitim
Help Center: http://help.doit.im/
Blog: http://enblog.doit.im/
Group: http://help.doit.im/group/
The error made by Doit was not to introduce manual sorting, but to forget two important little details:
1) On the night before Dec 22, they should have pre-initialized all user's new manual sorting orders to coincide with the previous priority sorting. This was not done. Everything appeared in some totally random order which shocked us all. This then needed to be "repaired" somehow, and many of us probably have already done so by manually rearranging our tasks by priority. But maybe Doit should also offer a once-off tool for this purpose for those users who have not already done so?
2) Even if you have manual sorting, which is indeed a very powerful and useful feature, which we all should appreciate, there must be an intelligent DEFAULT principle in place for where new tasks are initially placed. Doit had forgotten to put such an algorithm into place. New tasks were placed randomly on the lists, and you always have to rearrange them manually. This is no good. The initial placement must be clever and useful, such that most people do not necessarily have to drag anything at all unless they really want to.
Since priority sorting was so very popular (and I liked it very much, too) I suggest that tasks should be initially placed by priority.
In this way, people who want automatic priority sorting within list groups will have exactly that. And those who wish to reorder the tasks manually are free to do so to the extent they like. I think this would be a very simple and great solution for everybody!
The principle is simple: Whenever a new task is created (or moved into) a box or context etc that has a manual order implemented, the new tasks should be placed immediately before the first task that has the same priority. This will work for everybody. For those who already have everything else by priority, this new task will join the other tasks of that priority, at the top of that priority stratum where it is easy to see. For those that have everything manually sorted in some totally different way than priority there will at least be a crystal clear principle for where the tasks land, and people can drag it on from there according to whatever philosophy they have.
Personally I would rely mainly on the automatic placement but quite often fine-tune the position of the tasks within each priority stratum.
http://help.doit.im/topics/2600
-
01/10/2014 08:02#1PRO
-
01/10/2014 10:31#2PRO
This is a private comment.
-
01/10/2014 11:43#3PRO
@wendy_only
I cannot really assess the engineering aspects, i.e. what your developers can and cannot do. But I would like to stress:
You do in fact have a default placement principle (or "algorithm") in place even today, which you call "position". The criteria ("algorithm") for this "position" are not known to us users, but whatever it is it does not seem to be appreciated much by us users. (Maybe it is based on time stamps or on internal addressing in the database or some such factors; it would not surprise me.)
It is important that whatever placement principle ("algorithm") you do use it must be something that people can understand and can immediately see with their own eyes in the lists. Otherwise it will always appear "random" and bad. And it will always force people to adjust everything manually, which is another very bad thing.
As an outsider I honestly cannot imagine why - if you already have a placement principle ("algorithm") in place - why there would be any problem whatsoever in just replacing that algorithm with any other algorithm that you see more fit for the purpose, such as priority based placement.
If I may ask you a favor (a favor for both me and you and for all your customers), please go back to your developers and ask them what the current algorithm (this "position") actually is and why they cannot simply replace that algorithm with one that is based on factors that are immediately visible in the lists (such as priority). -
01/11/2014 03:27#4PRO
@Folke
Hi,
I can know what you mean as you are user. It is our work about how to make it. One list can not have 2 order principles at the same time. When you add the task,it can go to the place where you want,but after syncing,it will not work. We will do a research on it and find a solution. -
01/11/2014 09:50#5PRO
@wendy_only
Thank you for looking into this. I understand it may not be quite as easy as I described it, but if it is too difficult then maybe it is best to revert to fully automatic sorting of the "long" or "consolidated" lists?
Manual sorting is primarily useful in lists where people may want to arrange tasks in a true and realistic ("physically true") sequence:
- the Today list, e.g. place errands in the order you plan to drive, or plan the whole morning in anticipated sequence
- in projects, if you introduce a sequential "subsequent" section, where you need to place the tasks in a realistic order to be able to judge if you have forgotten anything
But in "long" and "consolidated" list such as the Next list, where the tasks are not really "physically" connected to each other in any way, the manual ordering is mainly a nice way to make the list more easily readable, e.g. by placing similar tasks next to each other. Very nice (I really like the capability a lot), but not at the expense of having so much extra work with compulsory sorting of every new task - then it is not worth it; then it is actually better with fully automatic and not adjustable sorting we had before. I hope you can find a good solution; both automatic and adjustable. It would be both nice and very impressive.
By the way, thank you for listening, Wendy. You are really doing a great job.