Forum Posts Feed
A Side by Side Comparison of Outliners for Windows
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by PaulMaplesden
Feb 2, 2013 at 09:16 AM
I can’t remember the *precise* definition I had in mind when doing the research for that category, but I *think* it was to do with allowing higher level items (i.e. those with subtasks) to recur - So in that context I was considering a project in the same way that GTD would (i.e. anything with more than one action).
Posted by Foolness
Feb 5, 2013 at 04:51 PM
Alexander Deliyannis wrote:
Paul, one first question after reading your article: why do you consider
>“project recurrence” an important feature of an outliner for task
>management? I would imagine that as long as it supports multi-level
>outlines and recurring tasks, one could use recurrence or duplication of
>a composite task to manage complex activities that need to be repeated.
>I’m curious as to the kind of _project_ one would want to repeat
>regularly. A festival, perhaps, or something simolarly complex?
One underrated alternative is a system recurrence.
Most outliner users often miss that. When you change software, you’re not always necessarily changing systems or system paradigms. You are simply making recurring paradigms of the same system.
That comes at a price when trying to actually consider changing the paradigm rather than the lay-out or another minute difference of an external data.
A good direct example is Paul’s forgetfulness of why he wrote such a thing to begin with. Even had he remembered, how could he create a recurring tabula rasa paradigm test or a blind empty data test comparison to a pre-existing system and create two zero point branch point comparisons if he’s always bogged down by merging both redundant examples (his page) versus dynamic examples.
To make things even simpler:
Let’s assume this list (on his website) is a multi-level outline with lots of redundancy (because it is):
Name - The name of the application / software
Website - Where you can download the software from
Description - A very brief description of the software, taken from the vendor’s website
Price - Cost for the software
Trial - Trial period (if any)
Multi-Level Outlines - Does the software allow outlining at more than one level? (Important for more complex projects and tasks with lots of subtasks)
Sync - Does the software sync with other services to allow it to be used when mobile or on other computers?
Clipping - Will the outliner easily clip information from the web or other sources?
Task Recurrence - Does the outliner allow recurring, regular tasks on a schedule?
Project Recurrence - Does the software allow projects to recur as well?
Calendar view - Does the outliner provide a calendar view of upcoming scheduled tasks and projects?
Goals - Can you align tasks and projects with short, medium and long term goals?
Simple Input - Is it easy to input new information?
Customise Columns - Can you customise columns to your unique needs and information?
Note Taking - Is it easy to add notes and other information (non-tasks)
How do you avoid the pitfall conclusion here where Paul creates such redundancy as Software 1 Multi-level Outline? Yes, Software 2 Multi-level Outline? No?
You can’t with traditional outliners and outliner thinking. Not unless you’re seriously blind testing the paradigm as a researcher.
You’re always stuck at the words multi-level outline unless someone creates a fad where there’s two versions of multi-level outline…say…hoisted level outline and collapsing level outline.
Even in the above case of newly created words, you can’t “table” it. You’ll just keep extending the feature list until the Yes/No might as well be explanations of how the specific software tweaked the concept, which is again redundant compared to project recurring where you can aptly use a project recurring outliner to log changes in the processes of a restarted-on-a-different-software zero to full information data flow.
To complete the simplification of what I mean, consider how Paul would have to organically move from the wording of multi-level outline into words such as GTD-level outline without really just creating new words.
...take a moment to see what conclusion you get before reading on.
My conclusion is that it’s impossible to produce such a thing without project recurrence. You can only insert concepts you are familiar with or you have invented.
Now contrast this with project recurrence. What is the main feature introduced in project recurrence that isn’t produced in non-project recurrence?
...take a moment to see what conclusion you get before reading on.
DUH!
Revisions of course.
Even a newbie artist or novelist knows that edit comparison and revisions are a huge deal for one line. Are we really so arrogant to assume as outliner users that just because we’re smart enough for our PIM that we’ll never encounter a situation where we’ll be dumb? Of course we do! That’s why we resort to escapism via CRIMP,
...but here’s where project recurrence is more powerful.
Revisions are trapped “inside” notetaking and a word processor.
Project recurrence is trapped “inside” everything that the default projects can do.