emacs-orgmode@gnu.org archives
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
* outline-agenda sorting consistency
@ 2009-02-11  5:36 Samuel Wales
  2009-02-19 19:22 ` Carsten Dominik
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Samuel Wales @ 2009-02-11  5:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: emacs-orgmode

Here are some possible ways that the outline and the agenda
could be made slightly more consistent.  Hope I didn't miss
any that already exist.

  1) priority faces are settable in the agenda.  perhaps
     they could be so in the outline also.
  2) sorting strategy is settable in the agenda.  perhaps it
     could be settable in the outline also.  they could
     share code.

     also:

     * priorities are sortable.  perhaps tags can be
       sortable via a default (built-in) sorting strategy
       also.

       to set the weights, the user configures as follows.
       nil means that tag sorting does nothing.

       ;;urgent gets sorted highest (or lowest, depending on
       ;;perspective).  this is very useful for people who
       ;;have some ordered tags.
       (setq org-tag-sort-weights
             '(("urgent" . 1000)
               ("now" . 100)
               ;;below no tag
               ("someday" . -100))

               ;;nutrition is more important than entertainment
               ("nutrition" . 100)
               ("entertainment" . -100))
     * todo states are sortable.  perhaps they can be
       sortable in such a way that the user can put blank
       entries (no todo state) as desired (e.g. between TODO
       and DONE).  perhaps a variable to set the weights.

-- 
Myalgic encephalomyelitis denialists are causing massive suffering and
25-years-early death by grossly corrupting science.
http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/What_Is_ME_What_Is_CFS.htm

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: outline-agenda sorting consistency
  2009-02-11  5:36 outline-agenda sorting consistency Samuel Wales
@ 2009-02-19 19:22 ` Carsten Dominik
  2009-03-03  4:09   ` Samuel Wales
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Carsten Dominik @ 2009-02-19 19:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Samuel Wales; +Cc: emacs-orgmode

Hi Samuel,
On Feb 11, 2009, at 6:36 AM, Samuel Wales wrote:

> Here are some possible ways that the outline and the agenda
> could be made slightly more consistent.  Hope I didn't miss
> any that already exist.
>
> 1) priority faces are settable in the agenda.  perhaps
>    they could be so in the outline also.

This seems more confusing than useful to me.  In the agenda,
all the tasks are together, so it does make some sense to
change fonts.  In the outline, I would find it confusing.
Are there any other opinions on this?

>
> 2) sorting strategy is settable in the agenda.  perhaps it
>    could be settable in the outline also.  they could
>    share code.

To be honest, I never sort the outline, except in rare cases.
I would be interested how people use this to get a better case
for changing this.

One of the basic principles in Org is that in the notes files,
tasks are in context.  In the agenda, things are re-arranged
and sorted.  That is why there is a complex sorting strategy
in the agenda, but not in the outline.


- Carsten

>    also:
>
>    * priorities are sortable.  perhaps tags can be
>      sortable via a default (built-in) sorting strategy
>      also.
>
>      to set the weights, the user configures as follows.
>      nil means that tag sorting does nothing.
>
>      ;;urgent gets sorted highest (or lowest, depending on
>      ;;perspective).  this is very useful for people who
>      ;;have some ordered tags.
>      (setq org-tag-sort-weights
>            '(("urgent" . 1000)
>              ("now" . 100)
>              ;;below no tag
>              ("someday" . -100))
>
>              ;;nutrition is more important than entertainment
>              ("nutrition" . 100)
>              ("entertainment" . -100))
>    * todo states are sortable.  perhaps they can be
>      sortable in such a way that the user can put blank
>      entries (no todo state) as desired (e.g. between TODO
>      and DONE).  perhaps a variable to set the weights.
>
> -- 
> Myalgic encephalomyelitis denialists are causing massive suffering and
> 25-years-early death by grossly corrupting science.
> http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/What_Is_ME_What_Is_CFS.htm
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: outline-agenda sorting consistency
  2009-02-19 19:22 ` Carsten Dominik
@ 2009-03-03  4:09   ` Samuel Wales
  2009-03-04 11:53     ` Carsten Dominik
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Samuel Wales @ 2009-03-03  4:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Carsten Dominik; +Cc: emacs-orgmode

Hi Carsten,

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:22, Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> wrote:
>> 1) priority faces are settable in the agenda.  perhaps
>>   they could be so in the outline also.
>
> This seems more confusing than useful to me.  In the agenda,
> all the tasks are together, so it does make some sense to
> change fonts.  In the outline, I would find it confusing.
> Are there any other opinions on this?

I'll try to provide more detail for at least my case.

I would not set the face for the whole headline, just the
priority tag itself.  I actually find the agenda faces,
which often set the entire headline, to be confusing.[1]

I would not propose to change the default.

For me [#C] and [#A] look alike and it is hard to
distinguish them based on the single letter.  I basically
stopped using C because I kept (mis)perceiving it as
important.  (I don't use B because it is the same as blank.)

What I would do is set C to show in something like (but not
the same as) the done todo kw face, and A to show in
something like the todo face.  This tells me to pay
attention less and more, respectively.  Others would
semioticize (so to speak) differently.

>> 2) sorting strategy is settable in the agenda.  perhaps it
>>   could be settable in the outline also.  they could
>>   share code.
>
> To be honest, I never sort the outline, except in rare cases.
> I would be interested how people use this to get a better case
> for changing this.

I would use it to keep high urgency and -priority tasks at
the top and done tasks at the bottom.

Also, I sometimes have a large list of disorganized tasks.
The tasks need todo state specification, tagging, priority
setting, refiling, turning into a plain list, etc.; and
sorting seems the best way to focus the organizing.  I can
only do a little at a time, and can't predict when I can do
it, so having it sorted allows me to immediately see gaps.
Like "this is too urgent to be among the non-urgent tasks".
Then I can return to it later without having to
refamiliarize myself with the whole list.

I can more easily isolate the high priority and high urgency
stuff that isn't done, then organize only that.  After
dealing with metadata, I can make the hierarchy deeper by
ontology.


Having it work like org-agenda-sorting-strategy would allow
the same sorting in both places.

Here is how I might do it, were the facility to exist:

  - done-ish and unimportant stuff at the bottom, important
    stuff at the top, and uncategorized nodes (i.e. blank
    todo state, no priority, no urgency) in the middle.
  - alphabetical order for nodes with the same weight
  - to calculate the weight of a node:
    1) priority a is worth +1000
    2) urgent tag gets +1000
    3) now tag gets +500
    4) todo-ish states (todo, next) get +100
    5) /blank todo state/ gets 0
    6) zombie states (wait etc.) get -100
    7) someday tag gets -500
    8) priority c gets -1000
    9) done-ish states (done, moot) get -3000
  - example: an urgent todo would have a weight of 1100.
    when it is marked done, it would have a weight of -2000.

This is especially useful for long confusing lists.

> One of the basic principles in Org is that in the notes files,
> tasks are in context.  In the agenda, things are re-arranged
> and sorted.  That is why there is a complex sorting strategy
> in the agenda, but not in the outline.

The agenda is wonderful for other stuff, but for me it is
not an editing mode per se.  I have never been able to use
the agenda for full control over the org file, as some
people are able to do.  For me (at least on my computer) it
is slow.  Arbitrary editing is not possible.  The keys that
work are often different from the ones I use in the outline.
If I define a key in the outline, I have to figure out how
to define it in the agenda (haven't yet).  I find
manipulating windows to be cumbersome, especially since for
accessibility reasons I have no option but to use very large
fonts that make split windows show very few lines (I
typically never split windows).  I usually can't see all the
tags in the agenda because there are not enough columns.  I
can't scroll the other window in follow mode.  Extra
keystrokes are required to organize things.  I can't easily
create an arbitrary outline view of all tasks under a node
with it.  I can't rearrange and sort as I would in the
outline.

So for me, while the agenda is indispensable, it is only for
showing an agenda view and occasionally jumping to a place.
Not for arbitrary sorting and organizing.

Just a different perspective / user experience.  I hope it's
useful in some way at least.


[1] Especially since some elements get recolored
(refaced) from the way they are in the outline.  e.g. done
todo kw showing up as todo face or tags being recolored.
Might be bugs or might be overloading (because there is
deadline and scheduled information being added to the
information that is already in the headline).  A possible
solution is to reface just the category, or to have a single
column for status, or something like that.  I haven't
thought about it deeply enough to comment further.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: outline-agenda sorting consistency
  2009-03-03  4:09   ` Samuel Wales
@ 2009-03-04 11:53     ` Carsten Dominik
  2009-03-14  3:18       ` Samuel Wales
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Carsten Dominik @ 2009-03-04 11:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Samuel Wales; +Cc: emacs-orgmode


On Mar 3, 2009, at 5:09 AM, Samuel Wales wrote:

> Hi Carsten,
>
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:22, Carsten Dominik  
> <dominik@science.uva.nl> wrote:
>>> 1) priority faces are settable in the agenda.  perhaps
>>>  they could be so in the outline also.
>>
>> This seems more confusing than useful to me.  In the agenda,
>> all the tasks are together, so it does make some sense to
>> change fonts.  In the outline, I would find it confusing.
>> Are there any other opinions on this?
>
> I'll try to provide more detail for at least my case.
>
> I would not set the face for the whole headline, just the
> priority tag itself.  I actually find the agenda faces,
> which often set the entire headline, to be confusing.[1]
>
> I would not propose to change the default.
>
> For me [#C] and [#A] look alike and it is hard to
> distinguish them based on the single letter.  I basically
> stopped using C because I kept (mis)perceiving it as
> important.  (I don't use B because it is the same as blank.)

> What I would do is set C to show in something like (but not
> the same as) the done todo kw face, and A to show in
> something like the todo face.  This tells me to pay
> attention less and more, respectively.  Others would
> semioticize (so to speak) differently.

Hi Samuel,

you can now et faces for each priority, using the variable
org-priority-faces, in a way similar to the todo-keyword faces,
and the tag faces.  Just note that the car in this alist must be
a character, not a string.

>
>
>>> 2) sorting strategy is settable in the agenda.  perhaps it
>>>  could be settable in the outline also.  they could
>>>  share code.
>>
>> To be honest, I never sort the outline, except in rare cases.
>> I would be interested how people use this to get a better case
>> for changing this.
>
> I would use it to keep high urgency and -priority tasks at
> the top and done tasks at the bottom.
>
> Also, I sometimes have a large list of disorganized tasks.
> The tasks need todo state specification, tagging, priority
> setting, refiling, turning into a plain list, etc.; and
> sorting seems the best way to focus the organizing.  I can
> only do a little at a time, and can't predict when I can do
> it, so having it sorted allows me to immediately see gaps.
> Like "this is too urgent to be among the non-urgent tasks".
> Then I can return to it later without having to
> refamiliarize myself with the whole list.
>
> I can more easily isolate the high priority and high urgency
> stuff that isn't done, then organize only that.  After
> dealing with metadata, I can make the hierarchy deeper by
> ontology.
>
>
> Having it work like org-agenda-sorting-strategy would allow
> the same sorting in both places.
>
> Here is how I might do it, were the facility to exist:
>
>  - done-ish and unimportant stuff at the bottom, important
>    stuff at the top, and uncategorized nodes (i.e. blank
>    todo state, no priority, no urgency) in the middle.
>  - alphabetical order for nodes with the same weight
>  - to calculate the weight of a node:
>    1) priority a is worth +1000
>    2) urgent tag gets +1000
>    3) now tag gets +500
>    4) todo-ish states (todo, next) get +100
>    5) /blank todo state/ gets 0
>    6) zombie states (wait etc.) get -100
>    7) someday tag gets -500
>    8) priority c gets -1000
>    9) done-ish states (done, moot) get -3000
>  - example: an urgent todo would have a weight of 1100.
>    when it is marked done, it would have a weight of -2000.

Outline sorting can be done using a user-defined function,
so in principle this should be possible.....  It is on my list,
but not with high priority....

> This is especially useful for long confusing lists.
>
>> One of the basic principles in Org is that in the notes files,
>> tasks are in context.  In the agenda, things are re-arranged
>> and sorted.  That is why there is a complex sorting strategy
>> in the agenda, but not in the outline.
>
> The agenda is wonderful for other stuff, but for me it is
> not an editing mode per se.  I have never been able to use
> the agenda for full control over the org file, as some
> people are able to do.  For me (at least on my computer) it
> is slow.

What is "slow".  Maybe we can improve things?


> Arbitrary editing is not possible.  The keys that
> work are often different from the ones I use in the outline.
> If I define a key in the outline, I have to figure out how
> to define it in the agenda (haven't yet).

(add-hook 'org-agenda-mode-hook
   (lambda ()
     (define-key org-agenda-mode-map "key" 'command)))


- Carsten

> I find
> manipulating windows to be cumbersome, especially since for
> accessibility reasons I have no option but to use very large
> fonts that make split windows show very few lines (I
> typically never split windows).  I usually can't see all the
> tags in the agenda because there are not enough columns.  I
> can't scroll the other window in follow mode.  Extra
> keystrokes are required to organize things.  I can't easily
> create an arbitrary outline view of all tasks under a node
> with it.  I can't rearrange and sort as I would in the
> outline.
>
> So for me, while the agenda is indispensable, it is only for
> showing an agenda view and occasionally jumping to a place.
> Not for arbitrary sorting and organizing.
>
> Just a different perspective / user experience.  I hope it's
> useful in some way at least.
>
>
> [1] Especially since some elements get recolored
> (refaced) from the way they are in the outline.  e.g. done
> todo kw showing up as todo face or tags being recolored.
> Might be bugs or might be overloading (because there is
> deadline and scheduled information being added to the
> information that is already in the headline).  A possible
> solution is to reface just the category, or to have a single
> column for status, or something like that.  I haven't
> thought about it deeply enough to comment further.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

* Re: outline-agenda sorting consistency
  2009-03-04 11:53     ` Carsten Dominik
@ 2009-03-14  3:18       ` Samuel Wales
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Samuel Wales @ 2009-03-14  3:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Carsten Dominik; +Cc: emacs-orgmode

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 04:53, Carsten Dominik <dominik@science.uva.nl> wrote:
> you can now et faces for each priority, using the variable
> org-priority-faces, in a way similar to the todo-keyword faces,
> and the tag faces.  Just note that the car in this alist must be
> a character, not a string.

This is much better, thanks.  Makes it easier to distinguish
and I can use C now.

>> Here is how I might do it, were the facility to exist:
>>
>>  - done-ish and unimportant stuff at the bottom, important
>>   stuff at the top, and uncategorized nodes (i.e. blank
>>   todo state, no priority, no urgency) in the middle.
>>  - alphabetical order for nodes with the same weight
>>  - to calculate the weight of a node:
>>   1) priority a is worth +1000
>>   2) urgent tag gets +1000
>>   3) now tag gets +500
>>   4) todo-ish states (todo, next) get +100
>>   5) /blank todo state/ gets 0
>>   6) zombie states (wait etc.) get -100
>>   7) someday tag gets -500
>>   8) priority c gets -1000
>>   9) done-ish states (done, moot) get -3000
>>  - example: an urgent todo would have a weight of 1100.
>>   when it is marked done, it would have a weight of -2000.
>
> Outline sorting can be done using a user-defined function,
> so in principle this should be possible.....  It is on my list,
> but not with high priority....

OK.  Thanks for thinking about it.

-- 
Myalgic encephalomyelitis denialism is causing death (decades early;
Jason et al. 2006) and severe suffering (worse than nearly all other
diseases studied; e.g. Schweitzer et al. 1995) and *grossly*
corrupting science.
http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/What_Is_ME_What_Is_CFS.htm

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2009-03-14  3:18 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-02-11  5:36 outline-agenda sorting consistency Samuel Wales
2009-02-19 19:22 ` Carsten Dominik
2009-03-03  4:09   ` Samuel Wales
2009-03-04 11:53     ` Carsten Dominik
2009-03-14  3:18       ` Samuel Wales

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox:

	https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).