From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephan Schmitt Subject: Re: Interpretation of priorities in org-mode Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:38:48 +0200 Message-ID: <46AF73A8.3070705@cs.tu-berlin.de> References: (auto-added) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IFvhL-0005Np-99 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:39:55 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IFvhJ-0005NN-Kg for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:39:55 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IFvhJ-0005NJ-Bk for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:39:53 -0400 Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de ([130.149.17.13]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IFvhH-0000WN-G4 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:39:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: (auto-added) 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: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Hello, I think there are two possible interpretations of 'priority', /importance/ and /urgency/. It is up to the user which is preferred. You propose the interpretation as urgency: "I have to do that thing today/this week/sometime". Importance may come into play with your daily decision, what to do next. The advantage of this approach is the better quantifiability of 'urgency'. At the moment in org-mode you have to opt for one interpretation. But with the fresh and cool property feature in org-mode it should be possible to incorporate both aspects together. Somehow. Just a thought, though. Greetings, Stephan Piotr Zielinski wrote: > Hi. > > I'd like to find out how different people use priorities (#A, #B, ...) > in org-mode. I've always assumed the standard interpretation (#A = > high priority, #B = medium, #C = low). However, the problem with this > approach is that what "high priority" means is not well defined, and > if you are not careful, then all your items will quickly become high > priority, which defeats the whole point. > > I've been recently experimenting with a different interpretation of > priorities: #B = tasks to do today, #C = tasks to do this week, #D = > all the rest, default. #A is reserved at the moment. One good thing > about this system is a clearer interpretation of priorities. Another is > that it separates the action of inserting new items into your todo > list and that of assigning a particular priority to them. In > particular, at the beginning of each day, you can look at your list of > todos/deadlines/scheduled, and pick a few to complete on that day by > giving them the #B priority. At any time of the day, the agenda will > show you these #B items clearly separated from the rest. Previously, > I had to do a mental rescanning of the agenda items each time I > was wondering "what do I have to do now", which was rather stressful. > > Of course, I've tried this only for a couple of days, so my > conclusions might be completely bogus. Maybe there is a better way > than priorities to mark items as "to complete today". I'd definitely > like to know what others think about it.