Forum Posts Feed
moo.do - new service in the workflowy / checkvist space
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by yosemite
Oct 16, 2014 at 08:37 PM
Good points. Indeed the feature sets of workflowy, moodo, checkvist are similar. I’ve been using moodo some more and comparing it to the others. Here’s my findings…
Major differences:
* moodo requires Google Drive (I for one don’t like this)
* moodo can integrate your Google contacts if you’re in that ecosystem
* file attachments - checkvist has this, the others don’t
* folding markers (plus-minus/triangles) - To it’s detriment, moodo has none! It boldfaces items that have subitems. Therefore there’s no single-click way to open/close. It’s a double-click or keyboard action.
* speed - workflowy is fastest, checkvist is slowest. The speed and reliability of moo.do are open questions since it’s so new. One of workflowy’s strengths is its speed - it is generally pretty fast. Not quite as fast as desktop apps but noticeably faster than most online apps.
* search - all are similar but workflowy seems best and fastest in my opinion
* tag autocomplete - workflowy and checkvist do, moodo doesn’t
* dates - checkvist and moodo have automagic dates. moodo has an agenda view (items with dates listed sequentially). workflowy doesn’t have anything here but it does seem like it’s a high priority for them and it may debut soon (?).
* multiple views - moodo’s is easy and integrated. I’m not familiar with workflowy and checkvist capabilities here, can you open multiple windows/browsers and have separate trees and searches? For moodo, see http://www.moo.do/blog/project-management/ under the “Multiple Panes” heading, you can even try it out right there
* sharing - moodo’s realtime updates are fast and smooth; again I’m not familiar with workflowy.
* mobile - moodo and workflowy mobile apps are decent. checkvist’s is sluggish (my perception) and has been in development for a long time.
* offline access - moodo and workflowy can do this, checkvist can’t
* formatting and colors - checkvist has the most options, even including custom CSS for paid accounts, workflowy has bold and italic, moodo has none but does have colored sidebars for priorities and grey for done.
———-
If workflowy adds dates and attachments and can do the multiple view thing then it would have everything that the others have that it lacks, plus the advantage of being faster and smoother, plus a lot of people like the clean interface
Posted by Dr Andus
Oct 16, 2014 at 09:24 PM
Great comparison, thanks for doing this! Some comments:
yosemite wrote:
>* folding markers (plus-minus/triangles) - To it’s detriment, moodo has
>none!
Yes, that bothered me too. And also the lack of bullet-points (call me old-fashioned :)
>* dates - checkvist and moodo have automagic dates. moodo has an agenda
>view (items with dates listed sequentially). workflowy doesn’t have
>anything here but it does seem like it’s a high priority for them and it
>may debut soon (?).
You can sort of use a workaround and add a special character in front of a date (e.g. ^16/10/2014) and then search for ^ and it lists all the items with a date, but it’s obviously not as easy or nice as Moo.do’s.
>* multiple views - moodo’s is easy and integrated. I’m not familiar with
>workflowy and checkvist capabilities here, can you open multiple
>windows/browsers and have separate trees and searches?
I don’t think it’s possible in the offline Chrome app, but you can do it in multiple open browser windows or by splitting a browser window with an add-on like *Split Screen* in Chrome:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/split-screen/eachfleknamlcepmplpdghagngjfjkin?
>* formatting and colors - checkvist has the most options, even including
>custom CSS for paid accounts, workflowy has bold and italic, moodo has
>none but does have colored sidebars for priorities and grey for done.
There is a workaround for changing your CSS for WF by installing the Stylish add-on for your browser, and then choosing a WorkFlowy theme from here:
https://userstyles.org/styles/browse/workflowy
I like this one:
https://userstyles.org/styles/97956/better-dark-workflowy-v1-2
Posted by Garland Coulson
Oct 16, 2014 at 09:41 PM
Sadly, it seems to have the same drawback I have with Workflowy - everything is in one big file. I prefer where I can save different outlines for each project as I often use these outlines as notes for my participants.
Posted by Dr Andus
Oct 16, 2014 at 10:38 PM
Garland Coulson wrote:
Sadly, it seems to have the same drawback I have with Workflowy -
>everything is in one big file. I prefer where I can save different
>outlines for each project as I often use these outlines as notes for my
>participants.
Garland, apologies if I’ve already said this, but you could certainly use WF that way. You can just treat a particular item (bullet point) as the client folder, and then everything that goes under that directory is an isolated project. Then you can share that outline with your client by hovering your mouse over the top level bullet point (representing the client folder) and selecting a) “Share” (and email the URL of that sub-directory to your client to access a view-only or editable version) or b) “Export” (to copy and paste the outline as formatted or unformatted list into an email and send it as text).
The beauty of Workflowy is that it leaves it completely up to the user whether a bullet-point item represents a list item, a folder, a category, a context (work, home etc.) or anything else. So you can just structure your top level hierarchy as you would a file directory, considering them folders, and then putting more folders or items into them. It’s the same idea as in Scrivener any folder can be turned into a document or a document back into a folder.
Posted by Dr Andus
Oct 16, 2014 at 10:49 PM
Garland Coulson wrote:
Sadly, it seems to have the same drawback I have with Workflowy -
>everything is in one big file.
In the light of what I just said, “everything is in one big file” is just a question of how you look at it. You could also say “Workflowy is made up of thousands of little files”, as every single bullet-point can be considered (exported, shared, viewed) as an individual file.
WF is “one big file” only if you choose to organise the entire contents of WF under a single top level item, and then share or export everything under that item. However, even that type of organisation has its unique benefits. It means you can export the entire contents of your WF database as a single plain text or OPML file, which is great for doing manual backups fast (if you’re not a PRO customer).