Basic organization question

Basic organization question

[Tommy Kelly]

I can see that TODOs can be organized using tags, or categories, or
files, or simply subtrees (or several of those). Is there an obvious
choice? 

All I'm really looking for is a basic organization, to let me "group"
tasks of different broad functional areas -- accounting, recruitment,
IT, and so on.

And I like the idea discussed in http://orgmode.org/org.html, where
tasks get captured into a single refile.org file and then later moved
about into their classification homes.

But of those various ways of classifying, is there one to be preferred?

thanks,
Tommy

Re: Basic organization question

[Erik Iverson]

On 01/14/2011 09:35 PM, Tommy Kelly wrote:
> I can see that TODOs can be organized using tags, or categories, or
> files, or simply subtrees (or several of those). Is there an obvious
> choice?

My vote is "NO", org is really about finding what works best for you,
and the plethora of choices reflects that different people work in
different ways!  Try out a few until something feels natural.

>
> All I'm really looking for is a basic organization, to let me "group"
> tasks of different broad functional areas -- accounting, recruitment,
> IT, and so on.
>
> And I like the idea discussed in http://orgmode.org/org.html, where
> tasks get captured into a single refile.org file and then later moved
> about into their classification homes.
>
> But of those various ways of classifying, is there one to be preferred?
>
> thanks,
> Tommy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: Basic organization question

[Thomas S. Dye]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1286 bytes --]


On Jan 14, 2011, at 5:35 PM, Tommy Kelly wrote:

> I can see that TODOs can be organized using tags, or categories, or
> files, or simply subtrees (or several of those). Is there an obvious
> choice?
>
> All I'm really looking for is a basic organization, to let me "group"
> tasks of different broad functional areas -- accounting, recruitment,
> IT, and so on.
>
> And I like the idea discussed in http://orgmode.org/org.html, where
> tasks get captured into a single refile.org file and then later moved
> about into their classification homes.
>
> But of those various ways of classifying, is there one to be  
> preferred?
>

Several times when I've had this type of question, I've found answers  
I can use on Bernt Hansen's Org-mode pages:

http://doc.norang.ca/org-mode.html

After my last trip there a few months ago, I've been very happy with  
the way Org-mode fits my work flow.  You don't have to share Bernt's  
penchant for clocking to come away with very many useful and practical  
ideas, all cleanly and precisely implemented.

Tom

> thanks,
> Tommy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2096 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 201 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Emacs-orgmode mailing list
Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: Basic organization question

[Jambunathan K]

> I can see that TODOs can be organized using tags, or categories, or
> files, or simply subtrees (or several of those). Is there an obvious
> choice? 

From my own experience, Orgmode 'favors' tags more than categories i.e.,
there is more bells and whistles surrounding tags rather than
categories.

If you are starting out, my recommendation would be to fit/think (or
re-fit/re-think) your personal workflow in terms of tags rather than
categories.

The key principle is tags to headline/task association is dynamic while
tags to category association is persistent.

>
> All I'm really looking for is a basic organization, to let me "group"
> tasks of different broad functional areas -- accounting, recruitment,
> IT, and so on.
>

I suggest one file for each with a FILETAG attached to them. It might
help you to define some sequence and specialized TODO keywords.

Have zero tags to begin with and limit your tags as much as possible.

Jambunathan K.

> And I like the idea discussed in http://orgmode.org/org.html, where
> tasks get captured into a single refile.org file and then later moved
> about into their classification homes.
>
> But of those various ways of classifying, is there one to be preferred?
>
> thanks,
> Tommy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Emacs-orgmode mailing list
> Please use `Reply All' to send replies to the list.
> Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode

Re: Basic organization question

[Tommy Kelly]

"Thomas S. Dye" <tsd@tsdye.com> writes:
> Several times when I've had this type of question, I've found answers
> I can use on Bernt Hansen's Org-mode pages:
>
> http://doc.norang.ca/org-mode.html

Actually, when I said:

>> And I like the idea discussed in http://orgmode.org/org.html, where

I mis-copy/pasted. I was actually meaning Bernt's stuff. But although he seems
to rely a lot on different files and subtrees, he also seems to get into
tags and categories. I'm trying to take things slowly, adding a little
bit more functionality at a time as needed. I don't want to jump
straight to his overall method and then modify from there. 

Tommy

Re: Basic organization question

[Bernt Hansen]

Tommy Kelly <tommy.kelly@verilab.com> writes:

> "Thomas S. Dye" <tsd@tsdye.com> writes:
>> Several times when I've had this type of question, I've found answers
>> I can use on Bernt Hansen's Org-mode pages:
>>
>> http://doc.norang.ca/org-mode.html
>
> Actually, when I said:
>
>>> And I like the idea discussed in http://orgmode.org/org.html, where
>
> I mis-copy/pasted. I was actually meaning Bernt's stuff. But although he seems
> to rely a lot on different files and subtrees, he also seems to get into
> tags and categories. I'm trying to take things slowly, adding a little
> bit more functionality at a time as needed. I don't want to jump
> straight to his overall method and then modify from there. 

Hi Tommy,

I use categories only as a visual cue on the agenda for what the task is
related to.  TAGS are much more flexible for controlling what you see on
the agenda and I use tags for filtering what is displayed on the agenda.

Taking things slow and adding only what you need for your workflow is
definitely how I recommend you approach your use of org-mode.  That's
what I did.

The only use I have for categories is the left-column display of the
agenda showing what category some task belongs to.  I find that a little
easier to read (at a glance) than a bunch of tags that are applied to
the task.

I tried various approaches and in the beginning everything was in one
big file for me.  I started separating things when it logically made
sense to me to do that (and the single-file was getting unweildy).

Try stuff out and see if you like it.  Figure out what works best for
you.

HTH,
Bernt

Re: Basic organization question

[Tommy Kelly]

Bernt,

Still digging into this. You said:

> TAGS are much more flexible for controlling what you see on
> the agenda and I use tags for filtering what is displayed on the agenda.

Am I right though that from the point of view of clocking tasks, you
rely not on TAGS but on having each task live inside the appropriate
file/heading/sub-heading/sub-sub-heading and so on? 

Or do you have some jiggery pokery to let clocking and clock tables be
sensitive to TAGs?

Overall it looks like you use file-and-level-of-subheading to categorize things
according to general area (clientX, clientY, or accounting, research,
and so on), and then you use TAGs in addition to orthogonally categorize
things according to some aspect of your workflow (it's a phone call, it
has GTD context @wibble, it needs refiled, and so on). Is that remotely
accurate? 

thanks,
Tommy

Re: Basic organization question

[Tommy Kelly]

Bernt,

Still digging into this. You said:

> TAGS are much more flexible for controlling what you see on
> the agenda and I use tags for filtering what is displayed on the agenda.

Am I right though that from the point of view of clocking tasks, you
rely not on TAGS but on having each task live inside the appropriate
file/heading/sub-heading/sub-sub-heading and so on?

Or do you have some jiggery pokery to let clocking and clock tables be
sensitive to TAGs?

Overall it looks like you use file-and-level-of-subheading to categorize things
according to general area (clientX, clientY, or accounting, research,
and so on), and then you use TAGs in addition to orthogonally categorize
things according to some aspect of your workflow (it's a phone call, it
has GTD context @wibble, it needs refiled, and so on). Is that remotely
accurate?

thanks,
Tommy


-- 
Tommy Kelly
+1 (512) 289-8262
http://www.verilab.com

Re: Basic organization question

[Bernt Hansen]

Hi Tommy,

Comments are inline below.

Tommy Kelly <tommy.kelly@verilab.com> writes:

> Bernt,
>
> Still digging into this. You said:
>
>> TAGS are much more flexible for controlling what you see on
>> the agenda and I use tags for filtering what is displayed on the agenda.
>
> Am I right though that from the point of view of clocking tasks, you
> rely not on TAGS but on having each task live inside the appropriate
> file/heading/sub-heading/sub-sub-heading and so on? 

Yes each task lives in the appropriate file and subtree.  It is only
possible to clock tasks.  I clock in tasks both from the agenda and
directly from inside org files.  Finding the thing to clock in is what I
use the agenda for -- I find a task with an agenda view (limited by
tags) and clock in the task directly with I in the agenda view.

> Or do you have some jiggery pokery to let clocking and clock tables be
> sensitive to TAGs?

I mostly use R and C-u R in the agenda for clock reports.  The C-u R
version limits the displayed clock report based on your current agenda
tags filter.

Dynamic clock reports can also be limited by tags but I am not currently
using this feature.

I use persistent tags filters so when I set a tag filter to HOME it
stays that way until I change it.  This lets me look at the agenda for
this week limited to HOME tasks, and also TODO and NEXT tasks for only
tasks with the HOME tag.

> Overall it looks like you use file-and-level-of-subheading to categorize things
> according to general area (clientX, clientY, or accounting, research,
> and so on), and then you use TAGs in addition to orthogonally categorize
> things according to some aspect of your workflow (it's a phone call, it
> has GTD context @wibble, it needs refiled, and so on). Is that remotely
> accurate? 

Yes pretty much.  I tend to group project related things into a file and
give it a #+FILETAGS: entry so everything in that file gets some tag.
Then I can limit my agenda view to just include or just exclude those
things depending on my current work context.

Inside a file I'll also have tagged entries for PHONE, NOTE, CANCELLED,
FLAGGED, @somewhere, etc so I can further refine the displayed tasks in
my agenda view.

Regards,
Bernt