From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Carsten Dominik Subject: Re: outline-agenda sorting consistency Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 12:53:45 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20524da70902102136m43cc7206q88d9f992cd280bfe@mail.gmail.com> <12A93522-C936-4A08-AE29-3CE19A6B29CB@uva.nl> <20524da70903022009m618d7ef2u4c85a1fa5de55bea@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Lepfb-0001l4-CW for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 06:53:51 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LepfZ-0001jx-IK for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 06:53:50 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58893 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LepfZ-0001jt-7M for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 06:53:49 -0500 Received: from ey-out-1920.google.com ([74.125.78.149]:52842) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LepfY-0005Lh-KZ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 06:53:49 -0500 Received: by ey-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 4so545992eyg.24 for ; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 03:53:47 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20524da70903022009m618d7ef2u4c85a1fa5de55bea@mail.gmail.com> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Samuel Wales Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org On Mar 3, 2009, at 5:09 AM, Samuel Wales wrote: > Hi Carsten, > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:22, Carsten Dominik > 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.