Carsten Dominik <carsten.dominik@gmail.com> writes:

> On Oct 21, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Rainer Stengele wrote:
>
>> My guessing is that a naive user (like me ...) does expect any
>> defined priority (like #D in this case) to have a higher priority
>> than a "non" priority item.
>
> I see how that makes sense.  However, the other use case is this:
>
> Use #A to make something higher priority.  Use #C to make it lower
> than any normal stuff.  All the rest mingles in #B.
>
> So your proposal makes the assumption that any priority means more
> than no priority.

The default aBc settings were easily understandable to me and I use A to
mark things high and C low and leave most things in the middle.

So maybe all that's needed is a "You might expect tasks with an explicit
priority to all be considered higher priority than tasks without an
explicit priority, but in fact unlabeled tasks inherit the default
priority."  Or maybe that's redundant.